Election Interference: Here are the Four Colorado Justices Who Voted to Exclude Donald Trump from the 2024 Ballot

[kyzr]

Ok. Now explain how it applies to your argument.

My argument is that the three CO dissenting opinions are correct,
Here is the Chief Justice Samour's opinion:
Samour wrote that the decision to bar Trump from the primary ballot "flies in the face of the due process doctrine." The litigation in the case, Samour continued, "fell woefully short of what due process demands."

Read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case

The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 majority tees up a high-stakes showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutional provision at the center of the case.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Marener]

Trump has the right to ask for a delay in his trials.

He does not have a right to get a delay in his trial because he wants a delay one.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Read it

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

The article says that the 14th amendment protects people's rights. I agree.

But no one has the 'Right' to run for President. Running for President is neither an inalienable nor a constitutional right. Nominating anyone for President is also neither an inalienable nor a constitutional right.

Your argument is null.

 

[Hum Dinger]

It requires Congress to make that call do come up to speed when you quote the 14th amendment

Seriously? No, the 14th A. Sec. 3 does not require congress to take any action. It does allow Congress to reverse the decision to bar someone from holding office.

Try reading it before you post.

 

[kyzr]

The article says that the 14th amendment protects people's rights. I agree.

But no one has the 'Right' to run for President. Running for President is neither an inalienable nor a constitutional right. Nominating anyone for President is also neither an inalienable nor a constitutional right. Your argument is null.

Everyone has the right to run for president. unless they don't meet the stipulations like age, etc. listed in the Constitution.

Your argument is nonsense. For example, which natural born citizens at least 35 years old can't run for president?
ANS: no one is barred from running

 

[Hum Dinger]

Everyone has the right to run for president. unless they don't meet the stipulations like age, etc. listed in the Constitution.

Your argument is nonsense. For example, which natural born citizens at least 35 years old can't run for president?

Please quote the specific amendment that specifies that running for President is a 'Right'.

The Constitution does not say it's a right, it only specifies that people must meet certain qualifications, like being at least 35 years old, being a naturalized citizen and NOT HAVING ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION.

According to your silly interpretation, everything is a 'Right' unless specifically barred by the Constitution. That's not how it works.

Only those things that are specifically stated to be Rights are Rights.

Running for President is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Everyone take a breath.
The court stayed its own order, primarily due to the fact that they know it is certainly going to be overturned.
Think of it as another infomercial.
This is a series of infomercials.
Nothing more - Democrats trying to sell an idea, that no one except the brainwashed are buying.

/-----/ "no one except the brainwashed are buying."
Oh we really, really got him this time for sure. #8,965

 

[kyzr]

Please quote the specific amendment that specifies that running for President is a 'Right'.
The Constitution does not say it's a right, it only specifies that people must meet certain qualifications, like being at least 35 years old, being a naturalized citizen and NOT HAVING ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION.
According to your silly interpretation, everything is a 'Right' unless specifically barred by the Constitution. That's not how it works.
Only those things that are specifically stated to be Rights are Rights. Running for President is a privilege, not a right.

Your argument is still nonsense. Anyone and everyone can run for president as long as they meet the requirements.

 

[Care4all]

Trump has the right to ask for a delay in his trials.

He is trying to delay them and to avoid justice altogether if elected and will have his AG DROP the court cases that are federal against him.

That's NOT justice, that's an abuse of power.

 

[Blaster]

He is trying to delay them and to avoid justice altogether if elected and will have his AG DROP the court cases that are federal against him.

That's NOT justice, that's an abuse of power.

That is good legal strategy and not an abuse of power.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Your argument is still nonsense. Anyone and everyone can run for president as long as they meet the requirements.

Just because there is no law against something doesn't mean that it's automatically a right.

Yes, anyone can run unless there is a law against it. Like being under 35 years or ENGAGING IN INSURRECTION.

When the 14th Amendment was written, it was clearly intended to bar all those who had been part of the insurrection (members of the Confederacy) against the U.S. from holding office.

Yet, no one had been charged or convicted of insurrection. So, it's clear that the 14th amendment does not require a conviction, nor the 'Due Process' right.

All that the 14th amendment requires, logically, is 'preponderance of the evidence'.

 

[Hum Dinger]

That is good legal strategy and not an abuse of power.

It's a terrible legal strategy that abuses the inefficiency of the Justice System.

If the Justice System were efficient, Trump would have been hung by Jan. 7, 2021.

If George Washington were alive, he would have been!

 

[Hum Dinger]

My bet is that SCOTUS will do a cost/benefit analysis:

If Trump is barred from holding office again, there is no harm to the Country or to Trump. He does not have any 'Right' to run for the Presidency, so no right has been violated. The country is not harmed because there are still about 100 million Americans that can run for office and anyone of which may make as good or better President than Trump.

If Trump is not barred from the Presidency, as he has demonstrated, there potentially great harm to the country as a whole, and to Americans as individuals. It could mean the end of the Republic, the end of Democracy and the end of the rule of law.

It isn't hard to figure out which way SCOTUS will decide!

 

[BS Filter]

Just because there is no law against something doesn't mean that it's automatically a right.

Yes, anyone can run unless there is a law against it. Like being under 35 years or ENGAGING IN INSURRECTION.

When the 14th Amendment was written, it was clearly intended to bar all those who had been part of the insurrection (members of the Confederacy) against the U.S. from holding office.

Yet, no one had been charged or convicted of insurrection. So, it's clear that the 14th amendment does not require a conviction, nor the 'Due Process' right.

All that the 14th amendment requires, logically, is 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Better read that 14th Amendment section 3 again. It says nothing about ex- Presidents.

 

[BS Filter]

My bet is that SCOTUS will do a cost/benefit analysis:

If Trump is barred from holding office again, there is no harm to the Country or to Trump. He does not have any 'Right' to run for the Presidency, so no right has been violated. The country is not harmed because there are still about 100 million Americans that can run for office and anyone of which may make as good or better President than Trump.

If Trump is not barred from the Presidency, as he has demonstrated, there potentially great harm to the country as a whole, and to Americans as individuals. It could mean the end of the Republic, the end of Democracy and the end of the rule of law.

It isn't hard to figure out which way SCOTUS will decide!

Oh my god......end of blah blah blah. Please stop. You're scaring the children.

 

[Blaster]

It's a terrible legal strategy that abuses the inefficiency of the Justice System.

If the Justice System were efficient, Trump would have been hung by Jan. 7, 2021.

If George Washington were alive, he would have been!

Nonsense.

 

[bodecea]

He is trying to delay them and to avoid justice altogether if elected and will have his AG DROP the court cases that are federal against him.

That's NOT justice, that's an abuse of power.

Good news that not all indictments are federal.

 

[ColonelAngus]

If you support this BASELESS move by Colorado, you support other states doing to to any candidate for any reason.

As long as you support that, LETS GO!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Lie and stupid.

Dissenting judges say it wasn't fair. They say it was a denial of due process like they have never seen.

Dissenting Judge on CO Supreme Court Says Trump Denied Due Process, ‘Like Nothing I’ve Seen in 33 Years’.

Dissenting justices on the Colorado Supreme Court have warned the court's decision to remove Donald Trump from the state primary ballot for "insurrection"

thenationalpulse.com

There is no doubt that these judges will file briefs in opposition now that the case goes to the Supreme Court.

 

[bodecea]

If you support this BASELESS move by Colorado, you support other states doing to to any candidate for any reason.

As long as you support that, LETS GO!

How is the 14th Amendment baseless?