The majority of Americans oppose the decisions in Colorado and Maine to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. Other polls put the balance slightly in favor, but all polls show a deeply divided country on this effort. The Maine decision will now be reviewed by the Maine state courts, but the Colorado decision is scheduled for oral argument in a matter of weeks. A reversal of the Colorado decision is now supported by 27 states, which filed with the Supreme Court to oppose the underlying theory under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is relatively rare to see states opposing the expansion of their own authority vis-a-vis Congress. The brief reinforces the view of states like Colorado as outliers in the country in embracing this anti-democratic theory.
The attorneys general of Indiana, West Virginia and 25 other states, warn the court that this novel theory will produce “chaos” in the country.
“The Colorado Supreme Court has cast itself into a ‘political thicket,’ Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. 54, 58, (2016), and it is now up to this Court to pull it out. ‘Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy.’ Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam). If the Colorado decision stands, that critical confidence will be harmed. Many Americans will become convinced that a few partisan actors have contrived to take a political decision out of ordinary voters’ hands.”
Advocates are pushing this dangerous theory at a time of deepening divisions in our country. As I have previously said, the four Colorado justices are recklessly throwing matches at a powder keg. That is why I am hopeful that at least one of the liberal justices will follow the lead of the three democratically appointed Colorado justices, who dissent from this anti-democratic decision.
Here is the filing: Trump Ballot Amicus
Much has been written about the Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove Donald Trump’s name from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment. Setting aside this state court’s interpretation for the moment, does not this action violate Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution? (“No Bill of Attainder … shall be passed.”) As I understand the Colorado Court’s ruling, they are penalizing Donald Trump for a crime that he has neither been indicted for nor convicted of. Does not this action fit within the definition of a Bill of Attainder?
This is a slightly off topic but tangential question.
During most of the J6 trials, the prosecution showed a selection of videos to show the rioting and violence.
Fair enough. Yet the defense asked for all of the videos so that they could mount a defense. The prosecutor gave them all the videos they had, yet claimed that they didn’t have the other videos which could have contained exculpatory evidence. This is questionable since the capitol police (law enforcement) did have hours and hours of videos of what happened during J6 protest, what is the legality of intentionally not providing all of it to the prosecution.
Apparently the J6 committee only provided the prosecutors w the incriminating videos and not all of the available videos.
The question is if this is a legal intentional end run around the Brady rule.
We’re now seeing more videos from the Capitol on J6 which does contain exculpatory information.
Granted these people entered a restricted area and caused Congress to be interrupted. However its important to note that they were not the first to do this, yet faced over prosecuting by the DoJ w support of a judge which could be accused of violating judicial canon #5.
I’m not sure why the defense could not get access to these videos. IIRC it could have been that the Capitol Police claimed that the videos contained classified security information and thus could be withheld.
So what am I missing?
Are there lawsuits now challenging the convictions?
-G
Keep on wishing, Professor. No member of what is now a dem regime is going to go against the party. SCOTUS will be a split decision, and I don’t think there is any hope for the modern democratic party. They WILL destroy this country if we don’t stop them, and they will not bat an eyelash at having done so.
Finally trump is saying what he really means. He would have negotiated an end to the civil war rather than fight. Negotiate? I am 100% confident trump would have said ok south, keep your black slaves, but no more slave states. Yep, trump loves his black folk, in chains.
Well Bob, here’s the funny thing.
First, lets not forget the irony of your comment.
Unlike Trump, Joe Biden used to chum around with a former Grand Wizard of the KKK. Heck, even gave his eulogy.
Trump, he’s a dam [sic] Yankee.
In terms of action… Trump had done more for blacks with his prison reform than Biden.
Heck Biden’s open borders are taking money from the welfare system that would go to blacks and giving it to the illegals.
You think its a joke… there’s a talk of the black community in Chicago inviting Trump to speak.
W.R.T Trump… his course of action is to first attempt to negotiate. When that fails, sanctions. Failing that… limited military action.
Could Trump actually have avoided the civil war? Probably not. But that’s Trump for you…
What’s Joe’s plan of action? Talk loudly like a bully and then cower?
Joe would have joined the South if given the chance.
-G
Bob, you keep proving yourself to be a simpleton.
What did Lincoln believe? He believed slavery was not moral, but Lincoln was not an abolitionist. Lincoln followed a path quite different from yours. Why?
If you don’t understand what that means, it means you are flat-out an idiot. Lincoln did not intend to free the slaves.
If we look at your contributions on this list, we find Orange Man Bad, but you don’t know why, except he opposes those you support. You genuinely belong to be part of the culture of death and war, which is frequently the result of idiots like you.
You have crystal balls?
How does it matter what the majority of Americans want or don’t want? It’s a Constitutional issue.
One of the things I’ve read about is that to be initiated into a hard-core gang, the wanna-be had to prove himself — which could entail shooting someone at random, or even killing someone at random.
The political equivalent of this initiation may become this: you wanna become a hard-core Republican? Go shoot a Democrat, in particular a loud-mouth one.
I’m not advocating violence of course, but my whole family has Kevlar — just in case things get bad.
What is the position of the US Justice department on this issue? I understand the state’s interest but I would think that the Justice department would be all over this – unless of course it is politically motivated to just be a passive observer for this case and not commit to any side for fear of getting it bashed. The lack of a briefing by the Justice department is not indicative of the lack of discussion within the department – just the lack of a conclusive direction.
“. . . that critical confidence will be harmed.”
Too late.
See: Mass mail-in ballots. Drop boxes. Ballot stuffing. Zuckerbucks. “The spies who lied.” Censorship by proxy. Toilets that mysteriously start leaking. Election-relevant stories that are buried. No ID. A seemingly endless voting *season*. Kneecapping and attempting to jail the leading opposition candidate.
How the issue polls is not relevant, just as it was not relevant who won the popular vote in 2000 and 2016. The Constitution disqualifies Trump.
Sammy Metamucil here for his morning dump
The Constitution disqualifies Trump.
Disqualifies from what? Exactly what?
Disqualified from holding any office.
He would have done something to be disqualified from holding any office.
He would also have to be charged with something to disqualify him from office. Then he would be granted due process and right to a fair and speedy trial as what is afforded in a country of law and order.
But it seems law and order are things leftists cannot stand or be held to.
He had a five day trial. That is plenty of due process.
What trial was that?
Are you talking about the second impeachment?
The house impeached him, but the Senate voted not to find him guilty of the charges.
So if that’s your trial, Trump was found ‘not guilty’ by the Senate and thus didn’t commit ‘insurrection’. (If that actually was the charge against him. )
In fact no one was charged under 18 USC 2383.
So again…. hard to disallow under 14A Sec 3 if there’s no insurrection.
-G
The repos have a simple believe, rules for you but not for me. Lesbians are evil, until moms for liberty leader turns out to be bi, loves lesbian sex, and her husband is a rapist. Trump is a rapist, but don’t you dare talk about sex. Biden potentially getting foreign money bad, trump taking millions of foreign dollars, yawn. States rights are supreme, unless they interfere with Repos power, then they are bad. BLM protesters rioting about unequal treatment of black people, bad, trump supporters rioting because trump lost, good. States should rule if abortion is legal, until states get to choose then Repos want a federal law banning all abortions.
The twisted belief system of trump supporters never ceases to amaze me with rank hypocracy.
+100
Whether the Constitution disqualifies Trump or not, section 5 of the 14th amendment leaves the power of enforcement with the US Congress…not individual states.
No. It gives Congress the power to enforce 14A, but does not prohibit states from.
The States hold any power not enumerated to Congress. Sorry. Look up the word enumerated. The States ceded that power by ratifying the 14th Amendment. Sorry
Sammy Metamucil, you don’t get your own reality. Congress made a law in 1948, making INSURRECTION a federal crime. Yes, the SAME insurrection as 14A3, made possible by 14A5. Since 1948, to have engaged in insurrection means being found to have done so by a federal jury. States that have insurrection laws of their own are free to charge and convict under those laws, for insurrection against those states. Sorry, you dont get your own reality, as you will soon find out. Care to make a wager on the outcome?
Oh Sammy, what twisted logic.
Only Congress has the power to enforce 14A Sec 3 and it requires a 2/3rds vote.
States do not have that right.
Now states can create their own laws regarding elections, however they must align with Federal laws.
Otherwise that law would be unconstitutional.
Trump will be on the ballot. The only question… is it going to be a 9-0 vote or an 8-1 vote?
_G
@Sammy,
C’mon man.
You really should have stayed in school and gotten yourself an education.
While many toss around the word ‘insurrection’ which is a must if you’re going to attempt to use the 14th Sec 3… it fails because there was no insurrection.
In this day and age of video, including the cameras all over the WH… its plain to see it wasn’t an insurrection. Heck did you see the video of the shaman acting all polite and asking permission to enter… also reminding people to be respectful?
What do you think would have happened if the capitol police had told him that they thought it wasn’t a good idea for anyone to keep trying to get in and to go home before things get ugly?
Most would have left. But then again, the Capitol police struck first w no warning.
It will come out. The officer who shot Ashley Babbit should be scared. His only hope is if Joe pardons him before he leaves office.
-G
When you watch the video of Pelosi’s ramblings, pay attention to the words of Stepinpoopolis.
Now it’s the “plain meaning” of the 14th Amendment.
Yes I noted the shift of language. Humpty Dumpty is setting the narrative.
@Anon
Ok. It actually is.
1) You need an insurrection to have occurred before you could consider Sec 3. No insurrection occurred.
Pelosi could have called it, and then called on the military to quell said rebellion. But that didn’t happen.
Kinda hard when the only people armed are the cops who made things violent.
2) No one was charged under 18 USC 2383 which is the law codifying insurrections. So if POTUS or CONGRESS didn’t call it an insurrection so they could bring in the military, and no one was charged under 18 USC 2383, no insurrection took place.
3) Now a finer point to #2. For Trump to be guilty of insurrection… he would have had to have been charged and found guilty under 18 usc 2383. That didn’t happen either.
That’s the plain meaning.
-G
Funny how Repos love states rights until they don’t like states rights.
Repos and trump and all trump supporters are the danger to democracy. You lost at the polls so now you want to force your power down our throats. You are despicable.
I’m sure there is no room to force anything else down your throat Bob.
Funny how
Repos loveBob hates states rights until he likes states rights.Say your stupid crap out loud first Bob. It may save you from embarrassing yourself.
@Bob,
Everyone loves states rights until they run afoul of the constitution and federal law.
What’s your point?
When talking about the Supremes stomping on the CO Supreme Court and ending this rediculous removal of Trump from ballots many sane people, even many liberals, believe that SCOTUS will vote overwhelmingly against CO and ME as well. HOWEVER, how many times have we seen Democrats/liberals fail to use moderation or fairness in their drive to control all levers of government (and even our lives through social media and main stream media)? We will once again be disappointed when the Court goes 6-3 or 5-4 with the liberals not even being able to rule the right way on this easiest of Constitutional issues raised in years.
Brown (for sure), Sotomeyer and probably even Kagan will vote against the majority in order to keep the flames going, to keep the radical elements fired up and to possibly have the Senate and Biden (id heaven forbid he wins) pack the Court.
The left NEVER gives in. The left NEVER ends a fight until the win. The left NEVER believes in playing by the rules (see Reid, Harry). Did Al Gore give in? NO! They demanded recounts IN ONLY BLUE COUNTIES. They were going to count and count and count until he won, but the Court shut it down.
As a metaphor for my point I will ask that you all remember how many of us went to bed thinking Trump and other Republicans have won the night, but then it all slips away and it happens every time. Think it is new? Well Al Franken, remember him, lost his election for the senate but then they found just enough ballots in a trunk for him to win. Name me one time where a Republican has come back to win after being behind with 99% of the ballots counted.
“The left NEVER gives in. The left NEVER ends a fight until the win. The left NEVER believes in playing by the rules”
Excuse me? January 6, 2011 ring a bell? It was trump supporters that did not live by the rules, fake state electors, calls to find votes, 60+ court cases yelling about fraud and never one tiny pice of actual evidence of fraud. How many millions of dollars did trump make off foreign sources in his years of office?
You are just like trump, yell and scream about all the wrongs the other side are doing, all while doing everything he is accusing the other side of doing.
Just because you wish history was different does not make it so.
Newsflash,
Not sure if anyone else saw it, but Pelosi just said that states can ignore the constitution.
I kid you not.
Now in all fairness, the point she was trying to make was that running elections is a state’s right.
However, the state laws must be in alignment with the US Constitution and Federal law.
Seems she forgot that point.
-G
𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇: 𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐏𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢 𝐒𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐁𝐚𝐧 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐭
By Mike Miller ~ January 07, 2024
https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2024/01/07/watch-barely-coherent-nancy-pelosi-says-states-can-overrule-the-constitution-ban-trump-from-the-ballot-n2168417
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0zaYeZqGhE
Ian,
Seems the Democrat party is pushing for a civil war.
@Upstate Farmer.
I doubt it.
Its more of doing everything they can to drag Trump thru the mud before Biden gets trounced over impeachment and his administrations continued F Up of everything they touch.
Which reminds me… Jimmy Carter had Camp David. (Egypt & Israel’s peace accord.) What has Biden done?
As to a civil war… it would end badly for the Dims. Watch Antifa and the socialist / communists eat their own.
-G
Still waiting for Dennis, the brilliant legal scholar, to explain why 18 USC 2384 does not bar someone from holding public office.
Demoncrats, disenfranchising all the voters of entire states.
The most perfect election in the history of the USA
“One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election
More than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.
Rasmussen Reports and The Heartland Institute
21% of Likely U.S. voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election say they filled out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child
Nineteen percent (19%) of those who cast mail-in votes say a friend or family member filled out their ballot, in part or in full, on their behalf. Furthermore, 17% of mail-in voters say that in the 2020 election, they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. All of these practices are illegal”
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/one_in_five_mail_in_voters_admit_they_cheated_in_2020_election
See some of the other massive overturning cheats in the swing states
https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/e0/e04e630c-63ff-4bdb-9652-e0be3598b5d4/summary20of20election20fraud20in20the20swing20states.pdf
The disqualification applies to the installed demoncrat babbler.
Advocates are pushing this dangerous theory at a time of deepening divisions in our country.
The words of CS Lewis & Thomas Merton apply:
“For the wise people of old, the cardinal problem of human life was how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution was wisdom, self-discipline, and virtue. For modern humanity, the cardinal problem is how to conform reality to the wishes of humans, and the solution is a technique.”
– C. S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man
https://www.cslewis.com/the-abolition-of-man/
“It is the duty of man to try to focus on the truth whatever it may be and not to deceive himself by trying to make the truth conform to what makes him happy.”
Thomas Merton in Hidden Ground of Love: The Letters of Thomas Merton on Religious Experience and Social Concerns
https://merton.org
Jonathan: Hold onto your wallets! In the NY civil fraud case AG Letitia James has just upped the ante. Instead of the original $250 million she sought in restitution she is now asking for $370 million from DJT. Not only that but she is asking that DJT and his kids lose any right to do business in NY and they can’t ever serve on any board of a NY corporation.
DJT was quick to respond to James’s request and used it as another opportunity to grift off his supporters. He just emailed them asking for money. In the solicitation he says, in part: “The racist and vindictive New York Attorney General has made her FINAL DEMAND…she is asking the Democrat judge to force me to pay $370 million…the Left wants to put me in jail and drain me of every last penny in my account”.
At the end of the solicitation DJT begs his supporters for more money. He wants them to help him to “SAVE AMERICA”. Now I ask you? Who does this kind of thing? Maybe the televangelists Pat Robertson or Jim Bakker. But grift off people who can hardly afford to send you money? DJT has other sources for money…his business associates in China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. I mean SA gave Jared Kushner $2 billion to start his business when he left the WH. Why don’t they chip in and pay DJT’s legal bills?
Forget Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. DJT should be disqualified on his grifting alone. But what is worse is you continue to defend him. I don’t think your parents would approve.
Seeking financial help to fight off lawsuits brought by public bodies with almost limitless resources is completely legitimate. People like the NY Atty General, and you, are frustrated that Americans are not willing to allow you to bankrupt Trump.
Trump On the Ballot Trump not on the Ballot
This is ‘what’ It’s all about:
America’s Choice 2024 – Spotlight
Sun January 7, 2024
𝐑𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝟐𝟕𝟎
It takes 270 electoral votes to win the 2024 presidential election. That number represents a majority of the 538 electors who make up the Electoral College, the system the US Constitution outlines for America indirectly electing its presidents.
Build your own road to 270 starting with a map of reliably red and blue states, as well as the battlegrounds CNN is tracking most closely. Clicking an individual state will change who is winning its electoral votes.
(𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐎𝐰𝐧)
https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/electoral-college-map?game-id=2024-PG-CNN-ratings&game-view=map
trump will never win a majority of the electoral votes. He will lose biiiigly in the popular vote, a vote he has never won. Go ahead, put him on the ballot, you are making a Demo sweep a certainty, Is that what you really want?
Its clear that Bob is scared to death of Trump. Poor guy.
Trump is a malignant narcissist and dictator-wannabe. Every sane patriotic person is scared of him having the power of the Presidency again.
An insane person speaking of sanity? TDS is malignant and ultimately lethal….seek help, Fredo!
So 49% of the electorate is insane and unpatriotic. Wow, the DNC dogma is strong in this one.
Has anyone calculated the electoral votes those 27 states represent? These states should say consideration will be given to remove Biden of aid and comfort of the enemy due to his facilitating the insurrection occurring on the southern border. If no convictions or even charges are necessary, it apparently is up to the state or even just an individual to make that decision of what is an insurrection.