Trump removed from Colorado ballot

[BackAgain]

Flash: "In the dissent the three judges told the four idiot Moon Bat judges that..."

okie dokie

Yes. That was correct. The Dainty doesn’t have to like it. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t correct.

 

[BackAgain]

III. Analysis

¶24 We begin with an overview of Section Three. We then address threshold
questions regarding (1) whether the Election Code provides a basis for review of
the Electors’ claim, (2) whether Section Three requires implementing legislation
before its disqualification provision attaches, and...

... (3) whether Section Three poses
a nonjusticiable political question.

After concluding that these threshold issues do not prevent us from reaching the merits, we consider whether Section Three applies to a President. Concluding that it does, we address the admissibility of Congress’s January 6 Report (the “Report”) before reviewing, and ultimately upholding, the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its determination that President Trump engaged in insurrection. Lastly, we consider and reject President Trump’s argument that his speech on January 6 was protected by the First Amendment.2

Repeating the lines in their erroneous decision fails to support it.

No court (including the lower court in this case) has ever put Trump on trial much less rendered a verdict of guilty against him for insurrection.

 

[Cellblock2429]

P01135809 quotes Hitler. Swastika's at his Bund Rallies. Opening Detention Camps and jailing political opponents, talk about weaponizing government.

The video clip was edited for content and therefore means nothing. My wife and I watched the Raw Violence of the Reich Wing on 01-06-21. We saw first the violence of the Pround Punks, Zero Percenters and other MAGA MAGGOTS. It lasted for hours, and you people say it never happened.

You people love to post clips that have been edited for content and you bleat and blovate about unfair it is when the people smarter than you see what you and others try to do. Go BLAH....BLAH....BLAH like you usually do. You bore me.

/----/ Of course, you can't prove they were edited. We didn't expect you to.

 

[0311]

/----/ Of course, you can't prove they were edited. We didn't expect you to.

I know when I can tell a clip is edited. I know when Iies are posted. I also know to think for myself, unlike certain other MAGA MAGGOTS like yourself.

 

[0311]

/----/ Of course, you can't prove they were edited. We didn't expect you to.

Blah....Blah Blah.....Blah Blah Blah Blah...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Repeating the lines in their erroneous decision fails to support it.

No court (including the lower court in this case) has ever put Trump on trial much less rendered a verdict of guilty against him for insurrection.

Yet facts are:
...

A. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and
Principles of Constitutional Interpretation

¶25 The end of the Civil War brought what one author has termed a “second founding” of the United States of America. See Eric Foner, The Second Founding:

How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (2019). Reconstruction ushered in the Fourteenth Amendment, which includes Section Three, a provision addressing what to do with those individuals who held positions of political power before the war, fought on the side of the Confederacy, and then sought to return to those positions. See National Archives, 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868),

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) 2013, Rights%20to%20formerly%20enslaved%20people https: //perma.cc/5EZU-ABV3 (explaining that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and officially ratified on July 9, 1868);

see also Gerard N. Magliocca,
Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, 36 Const. Comment. 87,
91–92 (2021).

¶26 Section Three provides:

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 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.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.


¶27 In interpreting a constitutional provision, our goal is to prevent the evasion of the provision’s legitimate operation and to effectuate the drafters’ intent. People v. Smith, 2023 CO 40, ¶ 20, 531 P.3d 1051, 1055. To do so, we begin with

Section Three’s plain language, giving its terms their ordinary and popular meanings. Id. “To discern such meanings, we may consult dictionary definitions.” Id.

¶28 If the language is clear and unambiguous, then we enforce it as written, and we need not turn to other tools of construction. Id. at ¶ 21, 531 P.3d at 1055.

However, if the provision’s language is reasonably susceptible of multiple interpretations, then it is ambiguous, and we may consider “the textual, structural, and historical evidence put forward by the parties,” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 201 (2012), and we will construe the provision “in light of the objective sought to be achieved and the mischief to be avoided,” Smith, ¶ 20, 531 P.3d at 1055 (quoting Colo. Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC, 2012 CO 12, ¶ 20, 269 P.3d 1248, 1254). ¶29 These principles of constitutional interpretation apply to all sections of this opinion in which we address the meaning of any constitutional provision.


B. The State Court Has the Authority to Adjudicate a
Challenge to Presidential Candidate Qualifications
Under the Election Code

 

[BackAgain]

Yet facts are:
...

A. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and
Principles of Constitutional Interpretation

¶25 The end of the Civil War brought what one author has termed a “second founding” of the United States of America. See Eric Foner, The Second Founding:

How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (2019). Reconstruction ushered in the Fourteenth Amendment, which includes Section Three, a provision addressing what to do with those individuals who held positions of political power before the war, fought on the side of the Confederacy, and then sought to return to those positions. See National Archives, 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868),

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) 2013, Rights%20to%20formerly%20enslaved%20people https: //perma.cc/5EZU-ABV3 (explaining that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and officially ratified on July 9, 1868);

see also Gerard N. Magliocca,
Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, 36 Const. Comment. 87,
91–92 (2021).

¶26 Section Three provides:

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 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.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.


¶27 In interpreting a constitutional provision, our goal is to prevent the evasion of the provision’s legitimate operation and to effectuate the drafters’ intent. People v. Smith, 2023 CO 40, ¶ 20, 531 P.3d 1051, 1055. To do so, we begin with

Section Three’s plain language, giving its terms their ordinary and popular meanings. Id. “To discern such meanings, we may consult dictionary definitions.” Id.

¶28 If the language is clear and unambiguous, then we enforce it as written, and we need not turn to other tools of construction. Id. at ¶ 21, 531 P.3d at 1055.

However, if the provision’s language is reasonably susceptible of multiple interpretations, then it is ambiguous, and we may consider “the textual, structural, and historical evidence put forward by the parties,” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 201 (2012), and we will construe the provision “in light of the objective sought to be achieved and the mischief to be avoided,” Smith, ¶ 20, 531 P.3d at 1055 (quoting Colo. Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC, 2012 CO 12, ¶ 20, 269 P.3d 1248, 1254). ¶29 These principles of constitutional interpretation apply to all sections of this opinion in which we address the meaning of any constitutional provision.


B. The State Court Has the Authority to Adjudicate a
Challenge to Presidential Candidate Qualifications
Under the Election Code

Again: not a word of your silly repetition of what they wrote has a damn thing to do with the fact that they are not permitted to be the sole arbiters of who has committed insurrection.

President Trump (or unlike the civil war confederate soldiers and leaders) did not wage war against the United States or participate in any such behavior. He has never been convicted of any crime, much less treason or insurrection.

The mere belief of the majority in the Co. Supreme Court is not a valid substitute.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's obvious that people like Liability WrongAgain (BackAgain), either have not read and fully comprehended the ruling; or that they're blindly spouting political arguments and arguments for a federal appeal, rather than addressing the issue at hand -- or both.

But, on the case before the state court, the Colorado Supreme Court:

The State Court Has the Authority to Adjudicate a
Challenge to Presidential Candidate Qualifications
Under the Election Code

The Electors’ claim is grounded in sections 1-4-1204 and 1-1-113 of the Election Code. They argue that it would be a breach of duty or other wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to place President Trump on the presidential primary ballot because he is not a “qualified candidate” based on Section Three’s disqualification. § 1-4-1203(2)(a), C.R.S. (2023). The Electors therefore seek an order pursuant to section 1-1-113 directing the Secretary not to list President Trump on the presidential primary ballot for the election to be held on March 5, 2024 (or any future ballot).

¶31 President Trump and CRSCC contend that Colorado courts lack jurisdiction over the Electors’ claim and that the Electors cannot state a proper section 1-1-113 claim, in part because the Electors’ claim is a “constitutional claim” that cannot be raised in a section 1-1-113 action under this court’s decisions in Frazier v. Williams, 2017 CO 85, 401 P.3d 541, and Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 30M, 418 P.3d 478 (per curiam). CRSCC also argues that the Secretary lacks authority to interfere with a political party’s decision-making process or to interfere with the party’s First Amendment right of association to select its own candidates. Lastly, President Trump argues that the expedited procedures under section 1-1-113 are insufficient to evaluate the Electors’ claim.

¶32 Before considering each of these arguments in turn, we first explain the standard of review for statutory interpretation and then provide an overview of the Election Code provisions at issue. Turning to Intervenors’ contentions, we first conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the Electors’ claim under section 1-1-113. But, recognizing that the ability to exercise jurisdiction here does not mean the Electors can state a proper claim under section 1-1-113, we explore whether states have the constitutional power to assess presidential qualifications. We conclude that they do, provided their legislatures have established such authority by statute. Analyzing the relevant provisions of the Election Code, we then conclude that the General Assembly has given Colorado courts the authority to assess presidential qualifications and, therefore, that the Electors have stated a proper claim under sections 1-4-1204 and 1-1-113. We next address Intervenors’ related arguments and conclude that limiting the presidential primary ballot to constitutionally qualified candidates does not interfere with CRSCC’s associational rights under the First Amendment. Finally, we conclude that section 1-1-113 provides sufficient due process for evaluating whether a candidate satisfies the constitutional qualifications for the office he or she seeks.

1. Standard of Review

 

[Lastamender]

Trump took an oath to uphold the Constitution as Top Law Enforcement Officer in the land. Then after knowing all fifty states certified the loss he suffered to Joe Biden DJT attempted to subvert it.

He declared he was following different rules and it incited the mob to attack the Capitol not to PROTEST THE STEAL” but to “STOP THE STEAL” for his benefit - to hold onto power with no constitutional right to hold it.

HE is not off the hook because his plot failed.

If the USSC says DJT is not qualified to run for office it means he is not qualified to run for office.

Those people wanting only him to be president need to realize they can’t have what they want because Trump disqualified himself. He lost a campaign for a second term. He lost every court battle to prove the election was stolen. He lost the fake elector fraud attempt when Pence refused him, There was a trial in Colorado to prove he was not an insurrectionist and he lost that too.

So now the last great white hope is the USSC. Those people who want only him to be president can still hope their loser does not lose there too. But if he does lose, those people need find a life after Trump - The biggest and sorest loser American politics and business has ever seen. JFC they can still vote to beat Biden.

I hope they keep on pouting and never vote again. That would MAGA.

That whole post is repeated bullshit that has nothing to do with the obvious fraud. The claims were never investigated and many were still be litigated in the swing states when Congress certified. That post only proves your stupidity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Again: not a word of your silly repetition of what they wrote has a damn thing to do with the fact that they are not permitted to be the sole arbiters of who has committed insurrection.

President Trump (or unlike the civil war confederate soldiers and leaders) did not wage war against the United States or participate in any such behavior. He has never been convicted of any crime, much less treason or insurrection.

The mere belief of the majority in the Co. Supreme Court is not a valid substitute.

Already addressed as to why and how they ruled as they have. You have yet to address it in a coherent and rational way.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

 

[BackAgain]

It's obvious that people like Liability WrongAgain (BackAgain), either have not read and fully comprehended the ruling; or that they're blindly spouting political arguments and arguments for a federal appeal, rather than addressing the issue at hand -- or both.

But, on the case before the state court, the Colorado Supreme Court:

The State Court Has the Authority to Adjudicate a
Challenge to Presidential Candidate Qualifications
Under the Election Code

The Electors’ claim is grounded in sections 1-4-1204 and 1-1-113 of the Election Code. They argue that it would be a breach of duty or other wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to place President Trump on the presidential primary ballot because he is not a “qualified candidate” based on Section Three’s disqualification. § 1-4-1203(2)(a), C.R.S. (2023). The Electors therefore seek an order pursuant to section 1-1-113 directing the Secretary not to list President Trump on the presidential primary ballot for the election to be held on March 5, 2024 (or any future ballot).

¶31 President Trump and CRSCC contend that Colorado courts lack jurisdiction over the Electors’ claim and that the Electors cannot state a proper section 1-1-113 claim, in part because the Electors’ claim is a “constitutional claim” that cannot be raised in a section 1-1-113 action under this court’s decisions in Frazier v. Williams, 2017 CO 85, 401 P.3d 541, and Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 30M, 418 P.3d 478 (per curiam). CRSCC also argues that the Secretary lacks authority to interfere with a political party’s decision-making process or to interfere with the party’s First Amendment right of association to select its own candidates. Lastly, President Trump argues that the expedited procedures under section 1-1-113 are insufficient to evaluate the Electors’ claim.

¶32 Before considering each of these arguments in turn, we first explain the standard of review for statutory interpretation and then provide an overview of the Election Code provisions at issue. Turning to Intervenors’ contentions, we first conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the Electors’ claim under section 1-1-113. But, recognizing that the ability to exercise jurisdiction here does not mean the Electors can state a proper claim under section 1-1-113, we explore whether states have the constitutional power to assess presidential qualifications. We conclude that they do, provided their legislatures have established such authority by statute. Analyzing the relevant provisions of the Election Code, we then conclude that the General Assembly has given Colorado courts the authority to assess presidential qualifications and, therefore, that the Electors have stated a proper claim under sections 1-4-1204 and 1-1-113. We next address Intervenors’ related arguments and conclude that limiting the presidential primary ballot to constitutionally qualified candidates does not interfere with CRSCC’s associational rights under the First Amendment. Finally, we conclude that section 1-1-113 provides sufficient due process for evaluating whether a candidate satisfies the constitutional qualifications for the office he or she seeks.

1. Standard of Review

It is crystal clear that The Dainty is either lying again or is so seriously stupid that he can’t recognize the obvious flaws undergirding the Colorado Supreme Court majority opinion.

Trying to educate The Dainty is sadly pointless. The old boy simply lacks the mental faculties necessary to acquire an education. The most he can do is flounder around citing the very decision which is the subject of the dispute.

 

[BackAgain]

Already addressed as to why and how they ruled as they have. You have yet to address it in a coherent and rational way.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

False. Lying, as the Dainty does all too much, is a very poor form of trying to support its position.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is crystal clear that The Dainty is either lying again or is so seriously stupid that he can’t recognize the obvious flaws undergirding the Colorado Supreme Court majority opinion.

Trying to educate The Dainty is sadly pointless. The old boy simply lacks the mental faculties necessary to acquire an education. The most he can do is flounder around citing the very decision which is the subject of the dispute.

It's obvious that people like Liability WrongAgain (BackAgain), either have not read and fully comprehended the ruling; or that they're blindly spouting political arguments and arguments for a federal appeal, rather than addressing the issue at hand -- or both.

Things already addressed as to why and how they ruled as they have. You have yet to address it in a coherent and rational way.


https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

 

[0311]

It's obvious that people like Liability WrongAgain (BackAgain), either have not read and fully comprehended the ruling; or that they're blindly spouting political arguments and arguments for a federal appeal, rather than addressing the issue at hand -- or both.

But, on the case before the state court, the Colorado Supreme Court:

The State Court Has the Authority to Adjudicate a
Challenge to Presidential Candidate Qualifications
Under the Election Code

The Electors’ claim is grounded in sections 1-4-1204 and 1-1-113 of the Election Code. They argue that it would be a breach of duty or other wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to place President Trump on the presidential primary ballot because he is not a “qualified candidate” based on Section Three’s disqualification. § 1-4-1203(2)(a), C.R.S. (2023). The Electors therefore seek an order pursuant to section 1-1-113 directing the Secretary not to list President Trump on the presidential primary ballot for the election to be held on March 5, 2024 (or any future ballot).

¶31 President Trump and CRSCC contend that Colorado courts lack jurisdiction over the Electors’ claim and that the Electors cannot state a proper section 1-1-113 claim, in part because the Electors’ claim is a “constitutional claim” that cannot be raised in a section 1-1-113 action under this court’s decisions in Frazier v. Williams, 2017 CO 85, 401 P.3d 541, and Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 30M, 418 P.3d 478 (per curiam). CRSCC also argues that the Secretary lacks authority to interfere with a political party’s decision-making process or to interfere with the party’s First Amendment right of association to select its own candidates. Lastly, President Trump argues that the expedited procedures under section 1-1-113 are insufficient to evaluate the Electors’ claim.

¶32 Before considering each of these arguments in turn, we first explain the standard of review for statutory interpretation and then provide an overview of the Election Code provisions at issue. Turning to Intervenors’ contentions, we first conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the Electors’ claim under section 1-1-113. But, recognizing that the ability to exercise jurisdiction here does not mean the Electors can state a proper claim under section 1-1-113, we explore whether states have the constitutional power to assess presidential qualifications. We conclude that they do, provided their legislatures have established such authority by statute. Analyzing the relevant provisions of the Election Code, we then conclude that the General Assembly has given Colorado courts the authority to assess presidential qualifications and, therefore, that the Electors have stated a proper claim under sections 1-4-1204 and 1-1-113. We next address Intervenors’ related arguments and conclude that limiting the presidential primary ballot to constitutionally qualified candidates does not interfere with CRSCC’s associational rights under the First Amendment. Finally, we conclude that section 1-1-113 provides sufficient due process for evaluating whether a candidate satisfies the constitutional qualifications for the office he or she seeks.

1. Standard of Review

It's obvious that people like Liability WrongAgain (BackAgain), either have not read and fully comprehended the ruling; or that they're blindly spouting political arguments and arguments for a federal appeal, rather than addressing the issue at hand -- or both.

But, on the case before the state court, the Colorado Supreme Court:

The State Court Has the Authority to Adjudicate a
Challenge to Presidential Candidate Qualifications
Under the Election Code

The Electors’ claim is grounded in sections 1-4-1204 and 1-1-113 of the Election Code. They argue that it would be a breach of duty or other wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to place President Trump on the presidential primary ballot because he is not a “qualified candidate” based on Section Three’s disqualification. § 1-4-1203(2)(a), C.R.S. (2023). The Electors therefore seek an order pursuant to section 1-1-113 directing the Secretary not to list President Trump on the presidential primary ballot for the election to be held on March 5, 2024 (or any future ballot).

¶31 President Trump and CRSCC contend that Colorado courts lack jurisdiction over the Electors’ claim and that the Electors cannot state a proper section 1-1-113 claim, in part because the Electors’ claim is a “constitutional claim” that cannot be raised in a section 1-1-113 action under this court’s decisions in Frazier v. Williams, 2017 CO 85, 401 P.3d 541, and Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 30M, 418 P.3d 478 (per curiam). CRSCC also argues that the Secretary lacks authority to interfere with a political party’s decision-making process or to interfere with the party’s First Amendment right of association to select its own candidates. Lastly, President Trump argues that the expedited procedures under section 1-1-113 are insufficient to evaluate the Electors’ claim.

¶32 Before considering each of these arguments in turn, we first explain the standard of review for statutory interpretation and then provide an overview of the Election Code provisions at issue. Turning to Intervenors’ contentions, we first conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the Electors’ claim under section 1-1-113. But, recognizing that the ability to exercise jurisdiction here does not mean the Electors can state a proper claim under section 1-1-113, we explore whether states have the constitutional power to assess presidential qualifications. We conclude that they do, provided their legislatures have established such authority by statute. Analyzing the relevant provisions of the Election Code, we then conclude that the General Assembly has given Colorado courts the authority to assess presidential qualifications and, therefore, that the Electors have stated a proper claim under sections 1-4-1204 and 1-1-113. We next address Intervenors’ related arguments and conclude that limiting the presidential primary ballot to constitutionally qualified candidates does not interfere with CRSCC’s associational rights under the First Amendment. Finally, we conclude that section 1-1-113 provides sufficient due process for evaluating whether a candidate satisfies the constitutional qualifications for the office he or she seeks.

1. Standard of Review

The truth as stated by you does not fit into his already uninformed narrative.

 

[BackAgain]

The funny thing is:

Assuming (as I have and still do) that the SCOTUS does overturn the ridiculous majority decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, The Dainty still won’t be able to grasp how and why that Colorado case was an abortion of a decision.

 

[Lastamender]

It's obvious that people like Liability WrongAgain (BackAgain), either have not read and fully comprehended the ruling; or that they're blindly spouting political arguments and arguments for a federal appeal, rather than addressing the issue at hand -- or both.

Things already addressed as to why and how they ruled as they have. You have yet to address it in a coherent and rational way.


https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

They have convicted Trump of insurrection without a trial.. Their decision is simply bullshit.

 

[Flash]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding
the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be
a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate
on the presidential primary ballot.

¶6 We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude
and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn
duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public
reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.

You are confused Moon Bat.

They did reach those conclusions lightly because they are dumbass uneducated Moon Bat assholes. A great example of why you can't get a real education at a Liberal shithole university. Their ruling was wrong and nothing more than partisan bullshit in a Banana Republic.

The shitheads have no "solemn duty" but to the Democrat Party to make sure the Democrats get away with a stolen election.

Trump was impeached on the partisan charge of "insurrection" and found not guilty by the Senate so any discussion on that point is moot.

 

[Batcat]

Colorado has the right to decide what candidate can appears on that States' ballot. States Rights/10th. Amendment.

The10th Amendment states …

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You probably mean the 14th Amendment Section 3 ( a leftover from our Civil War era).

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 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.


If so that would mean a Supreme Court in a different state could deny Joe Biden the right to be on its state ballot because he likely peddled his influence for cash to China and other nations, some unfriendly to our nation. (I realize Biden hasn’t been convicted of influence peddling to enemy nations but neither has Trump been convicted of leading an insurrection which was actually just a riot.)

I am just listening to Jonathan Turley say he has no doubt that SCOTUS will overturn the decision and hopes they will do it unanimously. Turley is a professor at George Washington University Law School. That means that while he might be wrong he definitely has more knowledge of the law than I do and most likely than you do.

If we continue down this road you may find out what an insurrection really is. I hope and pray that doesn’t happen. We should be able to resolve our issues peacefully by using a reliable and accurate voting system.

 

[0311]

The10th Amendment states …

[1]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/i]

You probably mean the 14th Amendment Section 3 ( a leftover from our Civil War era).

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 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.


If so that would mean a Supreme Court in a different state could deny Joe Biden the right to be on its state ballot because he likely peddled his influence for cash to China and other nations, some unfriendly to our nation. (I realize Biden hasn’t been convicted of influence peddling to enemy nations but neither has Trump been convicted of leading an insurrection which was actually just a riot.)

I am just listening to Jonathan Turley say he has no doubt that SCOTUS will overturn the decision and hopes they will do it unanimously. Turley is a professor at George Washington University Law School. That means that while he might be wrong he definitely has more knowledge of the law than I do and most likely than you do.

If we continue down this road you may find out what an insurrection really is. I hope and pray that doesn’t happen. We should be able to resolve our issues peacefully by using a reliable and accurate voting system.

I do not want a Fascist State, P011135809 wants that state. You support a Fascist State, I defend and I support Deomcracy. Turdley is acceptable so-called Progessive because defends P01135809. How many more times does P01135809 have to lose for you people see he is nothing more and nothing less than Con man.

 

[Lastamender]

I do not want a Fascist, P011135809 wants that state. You support a Fascist State, I defend and I support Deomcracy.

You are an idiot. The fascists are in power and you are enabling them.