Legal Opinion not Political Argument: Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

[Procrustes Stretched]

Legal Opinion not Political Argument: Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

Read the decision:

Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

Colorado’s top court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in insurrection leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol. Here is the full ruling.

www.nytimes.com

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

"The decision is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will be up to the justices to decide whether to take the case. Scholars have said only the nation’s high court can settle for all states whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection and whether Trump is banned from running."

Order Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part
en banc
December 19, 2023

PER CURIAM.1
¶1 More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in
the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated
voters (“the Electors”)—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver (“Denver District Court” or “the district court”), asking the
court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) may not
appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot.

¶2 Invoking provisions of Colorado’s Uniform Election Code of 1992,
§§ 1-1-101 to 1-13-804, C.R.S. (2023) (the “Election Code”), the Electors requested
that the district court prohibit Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado’s
Secretary of State (“the Secretary”), from placing President Trump’s name on the
presidential primary ballot. They claimed that Section Three of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Section Three”) disqualified President
Trump from seeking the presidency. More specifically, they asserted that he was
ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6,
2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.

No need to call in any calligraphers to read the writing on the wall.

 

[excalibur]

Not subject to Section 3 for several reasons, here's one. He is not an officer.

There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'"

Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

7
¶3 After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State
Central Committee (“CRSCC”; collectively, “Intervenors”) to intervene in the
action below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear
and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those
terms are used in Section Three. Anderson v. Griswold, No. 23CV32577, ¶¶ 241, 298
(Dist. Ct., City & Cnty. of Denver, Nov. 17, 2023). But, the district court [ a lower court] concluded,
Section Three does not apply to the President. Id. at ¶ 313. Therefore, the court
denied the petition to keep President Trump off the presidential primary ballot.


...

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.
¶7 We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this
case presents several issues of first impression. But for our resolution of the
Electors’ challenge under the Election Code, the Secretary would be required to
include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not subject to Section 3 for several reasons, here's one. He is not an officer.

There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'"​

​

Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."​

So Trump claims.

read the decision, stop regurgitating political arguments..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not subject to Section 3

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), https://www.archives.gov/milestone-
documents/14th-amendment#:~:text=Passed%20by%20Congress%20June%
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...

READ THE DECISION/RULING

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

 

[excalibur]

So Trump claims.

read the decision, stop regurgitating political arguments..

So said SCOTUS in 2010. The President is not an officer.

 

[excalibur]

¶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 ...

And right there is one reason why it does not apply to Trump.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Legal Opinion not Political Argument: Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

Read the decision:

Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

Colorado’s top court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in insurrection leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol. Here is the full ruling.

www.nytimes.com

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

"The decision is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will be up to the justices to decide whether to take the case. Scholars have said only the nation’s high court can settle for all states whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection and whether Trump is banned from running."

Order Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part
en banc
December 19, 2023

PER CURIAM.1
¶1 More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in
the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated
voters (“the Electors”)—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver (“Denver District Court” or “the district court”), asking the
court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) may not
appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot.

¶2 Invoking provisions of Colorado’s Uniform Election Code of 1992,
§§ 1-1-101 to 1-13-804, C.R.S. (2023) (the “Election Code”), the Electors requested
that the district court prohibit Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado’s
Secretary of State (“the Secretary”), from placing President Trump’s name on the
presidential primary ballot. They claimed that Section Three of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Section Three”) disqualified President
Trump from seeking the presidency. More specifically, they asserted that he was
ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6,
2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.

No need to call in any calligraphers to read the writing on the wall.

DO NOT FALL INTO THE TRAP OF DEBATING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LOSING SIDE. THEIR ARGUMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN RULED ON.

ARGUE WHAT THE COURT RULED

NO ONE HERE IS GOING TO BE CHOSING ARGUMENTS ON AN APPEAL

 

[MaryL]

The FBI concluded there was no insurrection. I think the Colorado supreme court is aware of that. Secondly, states cannot remove a presidential candidate, I am sure the Colorado supreme court is aware of that also. But I am blown away at the level of incongruency of this situation, But here we are. Democrats do this and get away with it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So said SCOTUS in 2010. The President is not an officer.

THAT YOU FOR THE MISSING CONTEXT AND MORE

Because if your argument here could hold any ground, the state court would not have wasted it's time

read the ruling. we know you haven't. the court has addressed the arguemnet

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And right there is one reason why it does not apply to Trump.

read the whole ruling. your bs is addressed

 

[excalibur]

THAT YOU FOR THE MISSING CONTEXT AND MORE

Because if your argument here could hold any ground, the state court would not have wasted it's time

read the ruling. we know you haven't. the court has addressed the arguemnet

LOL

A leftoid state court at lawfare. The court is FoS.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The FBI concluded there was no insurrection. I think the Colorado supreme court is aware of that. Secondly, states cannot remove a presidential candidate, I am sure the Colorado supreme court is aware of that also. But I am blown away at the level of incongruency of this situation, But here we are. Democrats do this and get away with it.

Hey, mary quite contrary ... the FBI does not interpret law.

read the ruling

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

LOL

A leftoid state court at lawfare. The court is FoS.

read the ruling

 

[excalibur]

read the whole ruling. your bs is addressed

Don't need to (and you sure haven't).

All we need to know is what it says in Section 3 to know it does not apply to Trump. All else is BS.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

“A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the decision reads. “Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
The U.S. Supreme Court justices separately are weighing a request from special counsel Jack Smith to expedite consideration of Trump’s immunity claim in one of his criminal cases — his federal indictment in Washington on charges of illegally trying to obstruct President Biden’s 2020 election victory. Trump has denied wrongdoing.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s majority determined the trial judge was allowed to consider Congress’s investigation of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which helped determine that Trump engaged in insurrection.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/19/trump-off-colorado-ballot/

No need to call in any calligraphers to read the writing on the wall.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Don't need to (and you sure haven't).

well I've been reading it and posting it, so...

stfu if you haven't read it

 

[excalibur]

Section 3 does not apply to Trump.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector
of President and Vice President. (Doesn't mention 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 ...​

(Trump never took an oath as an officer or as a member of Congress - as SCOTUS said, the President is not an officer).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All we need to know is what it says in Section 3 to know it does not apply to Trump. All else is BS.

political and not a legal argument.

That was argued before the state court. It has been addressed

read the ruling.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Section 3 does not apply to Trump.

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 ...​

The state court has addressed that argument.

read the ruling

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