Posted on 12/19/2023 3:23:52 PM PST by TomServo
Former President Donald Trump is ineligible under the 14th Amendment to run for president in 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday -- a historic decision that sets up a battle before the nation's highest court.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Very misleading headline.
Federalist #68 (Alexander Hamilton):
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
...The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
...They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
There is no room in this process for a court to impose rules and restrictions on the Electors. States that try to influence the outcome of the Electoral College by restricting the people the Electors can choose from is in opposition to what Hamilton wrote in Federalist #68, and is an unconstitutional insertion of a federal office that was explicitly excluded from participating in the Electoral College deliberations.
Article II Section 1
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.The Framers intended for the people to vote for smart, influential non-government people to gather to debate, analyze, investigate, and vote for the President, and that this temporary body cannot be made up of people who hold existing offices in the federal or state governments.
If members of the judiciary are excluded from being in the Electoral College, then their power to control the choosing of Electors or whom the Electors can select must be excluded, too, or they might as well just be the Electoral College itself.
Any court that tries to interfere with this body by putting restrictions on its deliberations (like who they can vote for), is plainly unconstitutional and must be struck down unanimously.
-PJ
No. They won't.
We live in a pure tyranny.
Stalin regretted nothing.
Third world corruption riddled country.
Compromised, paid off, or both, judges.
I read the actual article. The headline reflects it accurately.
No, I cannot stay calm. The fact they may have stayed their own order, in no way lessens the heniousness of the original ruling.
You cannot prove a negative.
Are you sure about the last two clauses in your statement?
I'm not.
That would be nice.
But remember, PRIMARIES DO NOT CHOOSE ELECTORS.
Primaries do not choose who will hold the office.
Primaries, simply, are popularity contests.
In 1860, the Republican party came together and chose Lincoln to put on Presidential ballot.
There was no “vote of the people in each state” and it certainly wasn’t protected by the Constitution.
But, does the US constitution say how the ELECTORS are ‘appointed’, or is that left to the states?
One could hope, but the evidence shows...
You are splitting hairs. I am referring to its legitimacy. The court did not make an historic decision because it is extremely fraudulent, corruptly arrived at, and cannot survive.
As a matter of precedent, it is impossible for state supreme courts to make historic decisions because they do not have the final say.
As a minimum, first step option, the RNC should remove Colorado as a convention delegate state.
The Colorado Supreme Court cites the part of Trump's speech where he says "fight, we fight like hell". See pages 10, 112, 126, 128, 132 of the opinion at https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
The full context of that phrase is not quoted by the Colorado Supreme Court, which is:
"Our brightest days are before us. Our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were, and again most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life, but I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can't have happened and we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." See https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-told-supporters-stormed-capitol-hill/story?id=75110558
This part of Trump's speech was at the end of the speech. The speech ended at about 1:12 p.m. (ET). Given that the barricades were first breached at about 1:00 p.m. (ET), Trump's phrase "fight, we fight like hell" could not have caused the breach of the barricades.
Except for one little problem....their "ruling" was just to GRAB A HEADLINE....nothing more! They STAYED their own ruling until January 4th, the day before the deadline, then INDEFINATELY thereafter. Trump will STILL BE ON THE BALLOT for the primary.
"But for our resolution of the Electors’ challenge under the Election Code,the Secretary would be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.
Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court."
Adding insult to injury and stealing voter's choice:
In the CO ruling, they said that they will not accept his name as a write in.
Double illegal.
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.