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

[Lesh]

/-----/ The Colorado Court, however, erred by finding that the constitutional provision applies to a former president as someone who allegedly participated in a rebellion. It also mistakenly held that the 14th Amendment prohibits any former rebels from running for president. The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court can follow the clear text, structure, and history of the U.S. Constitution, and find Trump eligible to be elected president.
The Colorado Supreme Court has clearly erred, however, in finding that this clause applied to former presidents. Section 3 lists that disqualification from future office will apply to anyone who had engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States who had been: a) "a member of Congress"; b) "an officer of the United States"; or c) a state official. The constitutional text, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, carefully distinguishes between "an officer of the United States" – which covers cabinet officers and those below them – and the president of the United States.

The examples where the Constitution distinguishes between the president and an "Officer of the United States" are legion. You need look only at the text of Section 3 itself. It bars insurrectionists from serving as "elector of President and Vice-President."
Full analysis here:
What Colorado's Supreme Court refuses to understand about Trump and the 14th Amendment

Most courts would agree that the President HOLDING OFFICE… is an officer of the Federal government

 

[Robert W]

Why else hold its effective date for such a short time? SCOTUS is the only body that can undo it.

Sure.

 

[Robert W]

Huh?

The CO SC ruling is hostile.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The CO SC ruling is hostile.

Huh?
Use your words like a grown up.

 

[bodecea]

Most courts would agree that the President HOLDING OFFICE… is an officer of the Federal government

And swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

[Robert W]

Huh?
Use your words like a grown up.

After you do.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would tend to agree with this.

The entire domain of "war" belongs to the Congress, judges have nothing to do with it.

But, we'll see what the SCOTUS says.

Section 3 of the 14 th amendment is pretty clear

 

[Robert W]

Section 3 of the 14 th amendment is pretty clear

Officers are appointed. Presidents are elected.

Officer of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lantern2814]

Lie and stupid.

True and factual. Discussed in another thread. Enjoy SCOTUS slapping this down hard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Most courts would agree that the President HOLDING OFFICE… is an officer of the Federal government

Officers are appointed. Presidents are elected.

Officer of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are correct Robert.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Supreme Court case law concerning which individuals in the federal government constitute Officers of the United States—and thus must be appointed pursuant to the requirements of the Appointments Clause—has been relatively sparse over the course of the Nation’s

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-10/ALDE_00013100/

 

[lantern2814]

This is the problem with staying ignorant and refusing to watch the January 6th committee that FOX refused to broadcast.

That “committee” that destroyed their fabricated “evidence” so it couldn’t be examined? Nobody with a double digit IQ believes anything that bunch of liars presented.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No it doesnt. It says congress can give a person a waiver.

View attachment 876801

It doesn't say anything about a state or the courts yes or no?

 

[lantern2814]

It says "engaged in insurrection" not "convicted of insurrection", Shitty Lawyer.

Hey shithead, there have been no insurrection charges against anybody. Because there was no insurrection. Only Congress can make that call. You shitty Dim sheep.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It says "engaged in insurrection" not "convicted of insurrection", Shitty Lawyer.

What insurrection? Colorado didn't have one nor does it have the authority to supercede fed authority.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Post the exact portion you believe is very clear and let’s discuss.

I have, you numb nuts go fuck yourself and fetch

 

[Lisa558]

I have numb nuts go fuck yourself and fetch

You have numb nuts? Sorry to hear that.

 

[Lakhota]

California and Maine are also considering removing Trump from the 2024 ballot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have numb nuts? Sorry to hear that.

There is that better?

 

[Robert W]

It was made because of that event but not only for that event. It was put into our constitution for future events involving traitors and rebels trying to fight against our government

Trump was President that day. When did the crowd fight against Trump, the lawful president. Biden was not president on Jan 6.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

California and Maine are also considering removing Trump from the 2024 ballot.

You're going to get your fake injun heart broken