Posted on 12/06/2023 1:19:58 PM PST by Mass Market
Link only
https://cojudicial.ompnetwork.org/embed/sessions/280914
As if “fight” only means “kill”. I would never have thought any president telling voters that they have to fight doesn’t just mean phone calls, emails, protesting and supporting financially lawsuits.
The lawyer for Trump seems good, but the judges seem to be stuck on Trump trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
I am not versed enough in law to understand the argument to keep him off the ballot. It seems ridiculous to argue this at all.
It’s an all democratic court. 7-0 communist. 3 are poison Ivy grads.
The communists won Colorado by a 13.5% margin last year. They will do so again in 2024. The all democrat court will probably block Trump from the ballot.
But his path to victory does not include Colorado anyway. If Colorado does this, it will go to the US Supreme Court. And this opens the door to conservative states removing democrats wholesale.
Elections will turn into a crazy quilt of where candidates are allowed and not allowed on the ballot.
They are saying the 14th amendment stops anyone from holding office who engaged in “insurrection”. Trump was impeached on the question and not convicted. To this date there is no criminal conviction of Trump.
Colorado democrats claim J6 was an insurrection anyway, and so Trump should not be allowed on the Colorado Ballot for 2024.
So is it best for the court to allow him on the ballot in CO and not open that pandora’s box you mention?
It is ridiculous, especially the anti-Trump lawyer’s final statement.
I didn’t quite get the office/officer part of the argument. Not sure I would’ve even understood legalese if I had started listening earlier.
There’s simply no way that the riot even came close to being an insurrection. What insurrection retains the exact same system of government, including the elected official (aside from the top executive branch officials)? No one wanted to void all of the votes, we just wanted the questionable ones removed, investigated, and either put back into the count if legal or removed if illegal.
"Colorado Supreme Court Oral Argument on Trump/14th Amendment (livestream)"
As Rep. Jim Jordan mentioned on FN awhile back, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't prohibit anybody from becoming POTUS, only electors of POTUS.
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection [emphases added] or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Consider that the drafters of Section 3 didn't bother to specify removing POTUS from office possibly because the Constitution already allowed for impeaching and removing POTUS which desperate Democrats and RINOs had twice failed to do with Trump regardless of two mock impeachments of him.
“but the judges seem to be stuck on Trump trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power.“
That’s because they are determined to find justification to remove Trump
Recess is over
I have a hard time thinking like them. Honestly, I think we are in some kind of endgame for the communists and they are likely to do unusually radical things from this point forward.
The lawfare against Trump, The J6 political prisoners, the arrests of GOP alternate electors in Michigan and Nevada, and this case are all “novel” legal theories and they are simply charging forward. They will do this as far as it takes them, then switch to violence and poverty authoritarian strategies.
Colorado Supremes Appear Skeptical Over 14th Amendment
Challenge To Keep Trump Off 2024 Primary Ballot
‘If a president is included in the 14th, why not spell it out?’
themessenger.com, 12/06/23, by Aneeta Mathur-Ashton
Justices on the Colorado Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared skeptical over whether Donald Trump could be removed from the state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot via the 14th Amendment, saying it was unclear if the post-Civil War provision even applies to the presidency.
The state’s seven justices posed questions during oral arguments of whether the courts even have the right to intervene at this stage if Trump has already met the requirements to be on the primary ballot and whether he had indeed incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
One justice, Carlos A. Samour Jr., took issue with the language of the at-issue section of the Constitution since it refers to the U.S. House and U.S. Senate but not specifically to the president. Instead, the provision says “elector of President and Vice President.”
“If it was so important that the president be included, I come back to the question, Why not spell it out?” said Samour Jr. “Why not include president and vice president in the way they spell out senator or representative?”
Justice Melissa Hart said that “nowhere in any of the references to officer, does the Constitution list the president.” Justice Monica Marquez pointed to other provisions listed in the Constitution that refer to “officers” without including the office of the presidency.
snip
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.