HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 4,036
- 2,976
- 1,938
I'll print this out and wipe my ass with it.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
there was no insurrection on jan 6th !
- Thread starter yidnar
- Start date
I'll print this out and wipe my ass with it.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
DJTdisqualified page 15 Colorado Supreme Court
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 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 President Trump also listed a challenge to the traditional evidentiary standard of proof for issues arising under the Election Code as a potential question on appeal, claiming that “[w]hen particularly important individual interests such as a constitutional right [is] at issue, the proper standard of proof requires more than a preponderance of the evidence.” As noted above, the district court held that the Electors proved their challenge by clear and convincing evidence. And because President Trump chose not to brief this issue, he has abandoned it. See People v. Eckley, 775 P.2d 566, 570 (Colo. 1989).
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).
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 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 President Trump also listed a challenge to the traditional evidentiary standard of proof for issues arising under the Election Code as a potential question on appeal, claiming that “[w]hen particularly important individual interests such as a constitutional right [is] at issue, the proper standard of proof requires more than a preponderance of the evidence.” As noted above, the district court held that the Electors proved their challenge by clear and convincing evidence. And because President Trump chose not to brief this issue, he has abandoned it. See People v. Eckley, 775 P.2d 566, 570 (Colo. 1989).
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).
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
Good - closer to your brain that way.I'll print this out and wipe my ass with it.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
DJTdisqualified page 16 Colorado Supreme Court
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.
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.
HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 4,036
- 2,976
- 1,938
Good - closer to your brain that way.
Even if it's in my rear end, it's more than you have.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
DJTdisqualified page 17 Colorado Supreme Court
¶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.
¶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.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
DJTdisqualified page 18 Colorado Supreme Court
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
B. The State Court Has the Authority to Adjudicate a Challenge to Presidential Candidate Qualifications Under the Election Code
¶30 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.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
B. The State Court Has the Authority to Adjudicate a Challenge to Presidential Candidate Qualifications Under the Election Code
¶30 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.
DJTdisqualified page 18 Colorado Supreme Court
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
B. The State Court Has the Authority to Adjudicate a Challenge to Presidential Candidate Qualifications Under the Election Code
¶30 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.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
DJTdisqualified page 18 Colorado Supreme Court
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
Saint Flash sums it up for white Trump Christian nationalism with the “goddam negroes” post but Colorado is the least of DJT’s worries.
Trump could be getting in trouble in white Evangelical Christian Iowa if the HOUSE speaker who is as white Christian whacko fundamentalist as they come begins to openly back Saint DeSantis and the six week abortion ban.
Jenna Ellis ( SEE POST nf.23.10.24 #11,604 ) is also heavily promoting Saint DeSantis on her White Wing Christian Radio Show - on Dobson’s America Family Radio.
Remember, all you sanctified MAGA insurrectionists, that Trump opposes the six week abortion ban which means he supports killing 800,000 baby fetuses every by keeping abortion legal after six weeks. SEE POST nf.23.09.19 #1
DeSanctimonius is a Catholic. The six member conservative majority in the USSC are Catholics. The sanctity of life beginning at conception is deeply rooted in their Catholic souls, Trump is in trouble within his own Party and it’s not for being an insurrectionist.
IF Trump loses Iowa he best get his fat ass on Trump Force One and land it in Moscow or somewhere obscure in Siberia to live out his final days on earth.
nf.23.12.21 #1,209
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
What insurrection?
Who has been charged with insurrection?
Who has been convicted of an insurrection?
Who did Trump tell to have an insurrection?
Jan 6 was a voting rights protest against the corrupt Democrat Party's election rigging crimes.
Biden is another Crazy Insurrection Conspiracy Theorist.
How long will these Democrat Insurrection Conspiracy Theorist cling to their crazy left-wing extremist theories?
The Insurrection was the event. That was January 6, 2021, FYI. The day that Trump's misguided, manipulated rubes tried to stop the regular, constitutional transfer of American presidential power by violently storming our nation's Capitol, literally doing battle with and injuring over a hundred Capitol cops, while causing legislators and their staffs to cower in fear for their lives.
The rubes who were convicted in connection with the Insurrection were not charged or convicted of Insurrection, they were charged and convicted of the individual, specific crimes they committed DURING the Insurrection.
You folks keep trying this. After all this time.
You can call it a "banana" or a "toaster oven" or a "hackey sack" if you want to. It was the Insurrection.
There was no "insurrection". If there was an insurrection there would have been guns, lots and lots of guns.
J6 was a "plain vanilla" riot to protest a stolen election.
No one was charged with insurrection, were they? No they weren't.
They could have had the charge of "insurrection" added to their counts if they committed it, huh? It wasn't. QED.
There was no "insurrection". If there was an insurrection there would have been guns, lots and lots of guns.
J6 was a "plain vanilla" riot to protest a stolen election.
No one was charged with insurrection, were they? No they weren't.
They could have had the charge of "insurrection" added to their counts if they committed it, huh? It wasn't. QED.
Dipshit Biden should stay in his lane, not declare an American citizen guilty of a crime without any due process. He's not a judge and jury. What a douchebag, typical of Dems.
A four hour demonstration with selfies against a blatant stolen election does not an insurrection make. Not by a long shot.
An insurrection is when tens of thousands goddamn Negroes and their Communist buddies spend six months burning, looting, destroying and murdering in over 200 American cities.
Saint Flash sums it up for white Trump Christian nationalism with the “goddam negroes” post but Colorado is the least of DJT’s worries.
Why did Speaker Johnson meet with [DeSantis] in Iowa today, the same day that the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified President Trump from the GOP primary ballot? Mike Johnson cannot be trusted. I always said he was anti Trump! From day 1!
'Mike Johnson cannot be trusted': Trump ally says speaker is secretly meeting Ron DeSantis pblshd.23.12.21
Saint DeSantis is the only candidate who remains a true believer in the “saving white baby fetus” conservative huge voter bloc who wants to stop killing baby fetuses for Jesus.Trump could be getting in trouble in white Evangelical Christian Iowa if the HOUSE speaker who is as white Christian whacko fundamentalist as they come begins to openly back Saint DeSantis and the six week abortion ban.
Jenna Ellis ( SEE POST nf.23.10.24 #11,604 ) is also heavily promoting Saint DeSantis on her White Wing Christian Radio Show - on Dobson’s America Family Radio.
Remember, all you sanctified MAGA insurrectionists, that Trump opposes the six week abortion ban which means he supports killing 800,000 baby fetuses every by keeping abortion legal after six weeks. SEE POST nf.23.09.19 #1
DeSanctimonius is a Catholic. The six member conservative majority in the USSC are Catholics. The sanctity of life beginning at conception is deeply rooted in their Catholic souls, Trump is in trouble within his own Party and it’s not for being an insurrectionist.
IF Trump loses Iowa he best get his fat ass on Trump Force One and land it in Moscow or somewhere obscure in Siberia to live out his final days on earth.
nf.23.12.21 #1,209
Last edited:
TroglocratsRdumb
Diamond Member
- Aug 11, 2017
- 36,167
- 46,296
- 2,915
I love how Trump enrages the psychotic Democrats.DJTdisqualified page 18 Colorado Supreme Court
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
Saint Flash sums it up for white Trump Christian nationalism with the “goddam negroes” post but Colorado is the least of DJT’s worries.
Why did Speaker Johnson meet with [DeSantis] in Iowa today, the same day that the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified President Trump from the GOP primary ballot? Mike Johnson cannot be trusted. I always said he was anti Trump! From day 1!'Mike Johnson cannot be trusted': Trump ally says speaker is secretly meeting Ron DeSantis pblshd.23.12.21Saint DeSantis is the only candidate who remains a true believer in the “saving white baby fetus” conservative huge voter bloc who wants to stop killing baby fetuses for Jesus.
Trump could br getting in trouble in white Evangelical Christian Iowa if the HOUSE speaker who is as white Christian whacko fundamentalist as they come begins to openly back Saint DeSantis and the six week abortion ban.
Jenna Ellis is also heavily promoting Saint DeSantis on her White Wing Christian Radio Show - on Dobson’s America Family Radio.
Remember, all you sanctified MAGA insurrectionists, that Trump opposes the six week abortion ban which means he supports killing 800.000 baby fetuses every by keeping abortion legal after six weeks. SEE POST nf.23.09.19 #1
DeSanctimonius is a Catholic. The six member conservative majority in the USSC are Catholics. The sanctity of life beginning at conception is deeply rooted in their Catholic souls, Trump is in trouble within his own Party and it’s not for being an insurrectionist.
IF Trump loses Iowa he best get his fat ass on Trump Force One and land it in Moscow or somewhere obscure in Siberia to live out his final days on earth.
nf.23.12.21
The Democrats want to turn America into a one party country like Cuba and North Korea.
They say that they are saving our democracy .. . . . . by only allowing Democrat candidates on the ballot.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
Ruled by DJT’s authoritarian male lover!North Korea.
Bad choice there Saint Troglocratsrdumb - very dumb
This argument is always so strange.The Democrats want to turn America into a one party country like Cuba and North Korea.
You don't think the GQP wants to do precisely that? We hear how anyone who dares to disagree with you is "the enemy" and "evil" and "demonic" that you're AT WAR with them, and that you're "saving America from Satan".
You're pretending that YOU don't want a one party country, with that one party being the GQP?
The two parties are nuts, and this is just another example.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
Biden and DeSantis never participated in an an insurrection and both men are family oriented Catholics. You will be able to vote for a Catholic of your choice in Colorado even if the Catholics on the USSC uphold the Colorado decision. I’m for the pro/choice one.by only allowing Democrat candidates on the ballot.
nf.23.12.21 #1,213
to trglcrtsrdmb.23.23.21 #1,210
Last edited:
Colorado has the right to run its elections in its own way.there was no insurrection on jan 6th ! why do i say this ? its simple ....what happened on jan 6th although serious and illegal was a few hundred people trespassing and causing minor damage to the capital ! if it were a serious insurrection it sure didnt last very long may be 2 or 3 hrs ...... but even though we have only had one very brief instance of vilonce from the right the liars on the left harp constantly about how violent and dangerous the right is ..... but lets get real.... a real insurrection and rebellion against government lasts a lot longer that a few hrs ! it goes on for yrs in a protracted assault on the rule of law ...and thats just what weve seen from the treasonous left for the past few yrs ! the true insurrection and attack on the rule of law and the constitution is coming from the scum on the left ! the only people that have taken US territory and attempted to institute their own marxist gov are leftist [remember CHOP in Seattle ] and the most vicious attacks against law enforcement and gov buildings and private property has come from dems ! dems are traitors ! and i know many on the faggot left will dispute this .... but remember there has been nore will there be any more acts of mob violence since the brief meltdown on jan 6th from the right ... and we all know this cant be said for the violent left ! they will loot burn assault destroy and kill again this summer again in their quest for marxist rule and power .
They have implicitly declared Jan 6th to BE an Insurrection at law.
Precedent for using the 14th in this way already exists.
Large numbers of Confederates were barred from office for merely PARTICIPATING in an Insurrection.
Even though they were never formally charged nor convicted.... so... neither the Charge nor the Conviction are necessary.
All that needs to be determined now is whether - officially - Jan 6th is now to be considered an Insurrection at law.
I suspect that when the Trump v. Colorado (ballot) case comes up, the US Supreme Court will need to rule on Jan 6th.
And if they DO rule on the subject, then that's the end of it, one way or another.
Interesting times.
Last edited:
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
Mac1958
May God rest Ashley Q Babbitts insurrectionist soul after getting herself killed for Trump on his big INSURRECTION Q DAY.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
Batcat in #698 said: Well I believe Joe Biden is guilty of selling us out to the Chinese bvtcvt.23.12.21 #698
At some point in a courtroom you will be asked to refer to a dictionary.
The 14th Amendment cited “insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution of the United States.
It does not define activity related to “selling out” to foreign power as a matter of law.
DJTdisqualified page 16 Colorado Supreme Court nf.23.12.20 #1,204 :
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.
Just a reality based fact for your edification Saint Batcat. You are welcome become enlightened by it
nf.23.22.21 #1,216
to bvtcvt.23.12.21 #698
At some point in a courtroom you will be asked to refer to a dictionary.
The 14th Amendment cited “insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution of the United States.
It does not define activity related to “selling out” to foreign power as a matter of law.
DJTdisqualified page 16 Colorado Supreme Court nf.23.12.20 #1,204 :
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.
Just a reality based fact for your edification Saint Batcat. You are welcome become enlightened by it
nf.23.22.21 #1,216
to bvtcvt.23.12.21 #698
Last edited:
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
Trump took the Oath of Office and did not live up to it on January 6th
Pence took the same Oath of Office and lived up to it on January 6th
MAGA prefer to put the man whose Oath means nothing back in the White House and that is what the USSC should see the Constitutional text and intent is rationally attempting to prevent.
I think they will.
Pence took the same Oath of Office and lived up to it on January 6th
MAGA prefer to put the man whose Oath means nothing back in the White House and that is what the USSC should see the Constitutional text and intent is rationally attempting to prevent.
I think they will.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
Democrats don't understand they are a minority party.I love how Trump enrages the psychotic Democrats.
The Democrats want to turn America into a one party country like Cuba and North Korea.
They say that they are saving our democracy .. . . . . by only allowing Democrat candidates on the ballot.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,335
- 4,765
- 245
That wins the popular vote for President every four years now and that will not change after Dobbs and the J6 rebellion.Democrats don't understand they are a minority party.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
There's no such thing as "the popular vote" you idiot. Was there a popular vote campaign, popular vote campaign strategy, ads, popular vote campaign stops? Does the Republican even bother spending time and money in California and New York?That wins the popular vote for President every four years now and that will not change after Dobbs and the J6 rebellion.
There logic and common sense just bitch slapped you silly, tissue?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 968
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 528
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 162
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 542
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 113
- Views
- 807
- Replies
- 777
- Views
- 5K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8075
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-