Posted on 11/18/2023 10:08:47 AM PST by SoConPubbie
Colorado District Court Judge Sarah Wallace, a left-wing jurist who contributed to an radical organization that has worked to prevent Republicans connected to January 6th from running for election, has ruled that the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the President of the United States. Therefore former President Trump cannot be barred from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot. Judge Wallace wrote in her ruling:
To lump the Presidency in with any other civil or military office is odd indeed and very troubling to the Court because as Intervenors point out, Section Three explicitly lists all federal elected positions except the President and Vice President. Under traditional rules of statutory construction, when a list includes specific positions but then fails to include others, courts assume the exclusion was intentional… The Court holds that it is unpersuaded that the drafters intended to include the highest office in the Country in the catchall phrase ‘office . . . under the United States.’
Sekulow’s ACLJ was heavily involved in this case and in the others around the country.
-SB
That is not a criminal trial; the Congress is not a court of law.
Said he could be kept off the ballot in the general."
Not in this Colorado case. In fact her decision is dispositive of both the primary and general election, where, after an actual trial, her ruling flatly says President Trump cannot be kept off the Colorado ballot because Trump is not an "officer" under 14A, Sec. 3.
You may be thinking of the Minnesota case which specifically invited -- punted -- refiling once Trump is on the general election ballot.
Thanks.
Instead, after a 'trial' that laughably featured the likes of Eric Swallowell, she simpers through over 28,000 words before arriving at her 'out' -- 14A, Sec. 3 -- with the intent of appearances that she is letting him off on a technicality (that since Trump had never taken an Oath of Office of any kind before becoming President, he could not be regarded as an "officer" under A14, Sec3), when she doesn't understand the constitutional history behind 14A, instead simply using her short actual decision to fling more hubris at the Confederacy (clearly equating in her mind "MAGA" with "Deo vindice"), and unsubtly attempting to blame the framers of the 14th Amendment -- more stupid white men to her, surely -- as having provided President Trump with the aforementioned 'out'. LOFL!
However, not unironically, she may have provided Justice Alito with one more angle to repel a different state court stupid enough to foist an unconstitutional ballot decision upon SCOTUS in an emergency cert once general election ballots start to close next summer.
Meanwhile, where is conservative media, who should be interviewing every single one of these Petitioners to copiously scrub them of any remaining Sullivan privacy protections, while also giving each of them the opportunity to flame out on camera just like the Georgia grand jury forewoman: that incoherent, duplicitous, snaggled-toothed, in-bred, backwoods attention wh-re Emily Kohrs (see Sullivan, ibid lol).
All the Jan 6 footage show Donald Trump and those arrested are innocent. This does not help the democrats led by Pelosi.
Permanent. Loss. Of. US. Citizenship. Escorted to FederalEx planes fueled up and waiting to permanently transport them to whatever country that will have them, with the sure promise of eternal US tracking of their domicile abroad, and rapid arrest and the serving of a full sentence (held in abeyance) if they ever set foot on US soil anywhere again in their lifetimes.
The key to this would be to pick the first people that you know will attempt to flee the country. Cohen leaps to mind. That gives you the onus to say, "Hey, he tried to run, and we're not imprisoning him, we're simply stripping him of US citizenship, which he has forfeited."
You FederalEx a few big names 3 or 4 times, and every last m'fing Libtard, every Swamp rat, every Derp Stater, will fall into line post-haste. "Yes, Mr. President, what can we do for you Mr. President, so sorry about that lawfare, Mr. President."
I am 100% serious.
Who said anything about instant gratification???
Hahaha I said it all along. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to the Presidency (probably not the Vice Presidency either).
The Presidency has NEVER been considered an office UNDER the United States. That is why the plaintiffs attorney and supposed 14th Amendment expert kept diverting and referring to “office OF the United States” which is not the verbiage used in Section 3. I am glad the judge caught that.
Next stop……..proving that the Espionage Act of 1917 does not apply to Presidents or ex Presidents either. If you can show that to be the case (which I believe it is) then all of Jack Smith’s charges in the documents case go out the window including obstruction ect since you cannot have those other charges without an underlying crime.
So these “judges” all assume Trump is guilty of insurrection, it’s just that the 14th doesn’t cover running for the presidency?
Ha! Nevertheless, he was found not guilty. In accordance with the US Constitution, the Congress has the right to charge the president with “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” and judge him on evidence thereof.
Nancy Pelosi was convinced he committed insurrection and so charged him. The Senate said he did not do such.
I don’t care who you are and what kind of lawyer/scholar you think you are, but that is part of the record and needs to count in this phony charge being brought before the various states, especially since he was never charged with insurrection outside of the impeachment.
My point, of course, is that NOBODY, least of all a court of law, has found Mr. Trump guilty of anything remotely resembling “insurrection”. The judge in this case, by asserting that Mr. Trump committed “insurrection”, is himself committing defamation.
interesting (article III tribunal + permanent exile sentence(s))
“Judge said Trump did commit insurrection”
Where did she say that?
DENVER — A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state’s primary ballot because it’s unclear whether a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency.
Thanks - you’re right. What a nut job.
I wonder how much this case cost to defend? Trump should be reimbursed for legal expenses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.