Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

I'm not saying I've never posted about Rittenlouse but he's not somebody I give much of a **** about.

 

Hey, I did attribute you incorrectly to the Rittenhouse case lunacy, it was Notme that was obsessively incorrect on daily basis. I do apologize for the mischaracterization!

 

Oh please, your Doctrine on Impeachment Judgments doesn't in any way address ANYTHING the judge decreed.
Just another rabbit hole going nowhere

 

They administrate their election based on the FEDERAL LAW governing election of the President and Vice-President. States do not decide who has qualified.

So if by some miracle this would stand and CO declare Trump not qualified and he wins do they get to ignore any federal orders or laws he signs as they have declared him illegitimate? What if they declare they will?

 

The ruling is whether CO courts can do so for CO. If by some miracle it stands and Trump wins and CO declares they do not recognize him as President what then? He is not the same as a 22 year old, he qualifies based on age, he is not the same as a naturalized citizen he is a natural born citizen. A citizen who has never been charged let alone convicted of insurrection or anything to do with some insurrection for which NO ONE has ever been charged.

But do go ahead and then perhaps my state supreme court will declare that Biden has committed impeachable offenses such as bribery and is there for not qualified and therefore cannot run or serve as President anymore.

 

Brian D. Boatright was appointed by Hickenlooper - Democrat Governor.
Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Also appointed by Hickenlooper - Democrat Governor.
Maria E. Berkenkotter Appointed by Polis - Democrat Governor.

And their dissension varies in some capacity, yet their conclusions are on point.

 

The counting of the electoral votes is based on Federal Law.

The actual election of the electors is covered by state law with Constitutional requirements on who can vote.

This is why GA has brought charges against Trump and the rest of the fake electors. The laws covering the election of the electors are state laws, not federal laws.


Already answered that question but I'll answer it again.

Of course not. Trump will have been elected by getting enough electoral votes. It would be no different than if he won but the EV from Colorado went to someone else.

 

Wouldn't work since the ONLY offense listed in section 3 of the 14th Amendment is insurrection. You can claim Biden committed all the bribery you want. 14th Amendment would not apply.

 

You keep up with the completely debunked claim of a stolen election, and his lawyer even said Trump knew it wasn't true, yet you make up another excuse for his behavior that is utter nonsense. That is the definition of a conspiracy.

 

Nor by a state supreme court. But yes one must be convicted of a crime in order for the government to apply a sanction for such a crime. Insurrection against the UNITED STATES is a FEDERAL crime under the jurisdiction of the FEDERAL courts not a state.

 

Neil Gorsuch disagree with you.

Colorado court used Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's ruling to justify disqualifying Trump

 

There is no administrative process for determining insurrection in either the Constitution or administrative law. We only have criminal law in the absence of a Confederate veteran paperwork.

Section 3 doesn't list the process on how that's determined. Which is no surprise since it was pretty obvious who was a member of the Confederate Army or government. Let me know when you find General Beauregard Trump's discharge papers from the Confederate Army.

 

Not a criminal trial.

 

According to 45 felony counts with respect to Willis and Smith indictments.

 

It's kind of pointless to argue US constitutional law with a foreigner.

 

They certainly don't have any problems telling you what your constitution says, do they.

 

Section 3 of the 14th is an administrative action.

So, then, what does the 10th amendment say about that which is not enumerated in the constitution?

yes, it's then up to the states 'or the people'.

So, the Supreme Court of Colorado ruled on it. Trump can appeal, which he did, and now the SCOTUS
will rule on the ScoC's constitutionality. Frankly, I don't see how they are going to shoot it down, especially
after Gorsuch's ruling in Hassan v Colorado (20120 "a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and
practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office"

And how is this relevant?

 

Would it be pointless to argue foreign policy with Kissinger or Brzezinski?

Hmmm mmm, and so it would depend on who the Aussie is.

 

And that's a pointless cop-out.

 

There is a thing called 'prosecutorial discretion'.

The point is, with a charge like 'insurrection', under this concept, they are going not to charge someone on this weighty charge on any willy nilly vandalism against a government building. A City hall in Portland? hardly, but the Capitol Building in Washington DC, the very seat of democracy? Then it makes sense.

It's called common sense.

 

False equivalency. People who engage in insurrection are the subject of section 3 of the 14th, not 'convicted felons'.

So, when the constitution is interpreted in a way that doesn't forward a right wing agenda, then it becomes 'political', but when it is interpreted in a way that does forward a right wing agenda, 'it's being interpreted correctly'.

Seems the politics is more in your neighborhood than mine.

 

How dare they quote the Constitution!

 

I didn't say "FALSE"; here's what WAS said;

I never said there was a ruling that changed the Second Amendment. I'm not sure why you chose that to be duplicitous over.

No, I did NOT. You asked for links that prove it was changed. I never made that claim.

You must have been looking in the mirror when you said that and, I couldn't agree more.

I was pointing out the insignificance of being able to search for a word in the Constitution. There are many words in the Constitution that would give hits. The point was that "shall" is NOT THE go to word of the Constitution.

EVERY word in the Constitution was chosen carefully. It didn't always work out, the Second Amendment is a good example. But the Founders worked hard selecting every word.

Yes, you assigned the value of "go to word in the Constitution" to shall, it's my opinion that it is NOT "the go to word in the Constitution".

I wish you would start typing what you mean. My interpretation of that sentence is, "I've never heard the word shall as a legal term".

False, I have.

No, I actually have studied the Constitution at the college level; word by word.

IF you watch the video it is a vote on tRaitor tRumps guilt or innocence of "The Articles of Impeachment" collectively, not of each individual article. Which is why you chose to delete this part of the post you're replying to:

""ArtI.S3.C7.2 Doctrine on Impeachment Judgments
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The Senate’s power to convict and remove individuals from office, as well as to bar them from holding office in the future, does not overlap with criminal remedies for misconduct. Indeed, the unique nature of impeachment as a political remedy distinct from criminal proceedings ensures that the most powerful magistrates should be amenable to the law.10 Rather than serving to police violations of strictly criminal activity, impeachment is a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men for the abuse or violation of some public trust.11 Impeachable offenses are those that relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.12 Put another way, the purpose of impeachment is to protect the public interest, rather than impose a punitive measure on an individual.13 This distinction was highlighted in the impeachment trial of federal district judge Alcee Hastings. Judge Hastings had been indicted for a criminal offense, but was acquitted.14 In 1988, the House impeached Hastings for much of the same conduct for which he had been indicted. Judge Hastings argued that the impeachment proceedings constituted double jeopardy because of his previous acquittal in a criminal proceeding.15 The Senate rejected his motion to dismiss the articles against him.16 The Senate voted to convict and remove Judge Hastings on eight articles, but it did not disqualify him from holding office in the future.17 Judge Hastings was subsequently elected to the House of Representatives.18"
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C7-2/ALDE_00000701/"
(Congress, not "media regurgitation's")

The point of which is Impeachment has no consequence other than a decison to remove ... or NOT ... the Impeached person form office. IF they are subsequently charged for "A" article of impeachment or "ALL" aricles of impeachment it would NOT be double jepordy.

READ what you duplicity chose to delete.

• Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
• the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
• impeachment is a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men for the abuse or violation of some public trust.
• Put another way, the purpose of impeachment is to protect the public interest, rather than impose a punitive measure on an individual.

Again, you must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote that, and, no kidding.

No, exactly like, I studied the Constitution, in depth, at the college level.

And again, again, you must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote that, and, no kidding.

I think this is what I was refering to: from your post # 850

But I did.

 

Which is the whole bloody point of having Supreme Courts…to interpret the meaning and intent of the Constitution…!!

For Pete’s sake…I know you don’t like being told your business by ‘foreigners’, but someone needs to educate you…!

 

Or your severe sideways interpretation of it