JUST IN: US Supreme Court Officially Asked to Overturn Colorado High Court Decision to Bar Trump From Ballot

[Zincwarrior]

They will have to. It's an open question that just isn't being asked in Colorado, but in multiple States.

No thye don't HAVE to do anything.

 

[Marener]

Sounds like Trump should be able to collect damages to me. No one is above the law, not even state Supreme Court justices.

Hey look, more people who dont have any idea what they’re talking about.

 

[eagle1462010]

None, yet, you stupid shit. But the Colorado Supreme Court adjudicated that charge, and found Trump guilty. And, per the Colorado Constitution, which is like 200 pages long, it is in their purview.

You don't fawking get it. A big part of Colorado's decision was adjudicating the insurrection charge, and they saw that it had merit. The difference between Colorado and Michigan could not be more clear. Colorado has a constitutional requirement, a candidate for president must be eligible to be president. Michigan does not have such a clause. Anyone actually informed on the current situation would know that. Sad to be you.

My God TDS is like talking to Retarded people. Drrrrrr

 

[eagle1462010]

Sounds like Trump should be able to collect damages to me. No one is above the law, not even state Supreme Court justices.

Sue them for deformation

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

My God TDS is like talking to Retarded people. Drrrrrr

You got that right

 

[Leo123]

My God TDS is like talking to Retarded people. Drrrrrr

They are now The TDS cult.

 

[Leo123]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That is the oath you stupid ass shit. There is no "massive fraud" exemption clause. I mean come on. Trump took an oath, in front of millions of people, with his hand on the fawking Bible no less, and yet he had no intention of honoring it. Hang his fat ass with piano wire. I mean you got to be one stupid ass mofo to support his fat stupid, low IQ, self-absorbed ass.

Trump adhered to his oath. The Democrats were fixing an election which is unconstitutional. You 'ass shit.'

 

[Nobody911]

The Supreme Court absolutely will rule in favor of President Trump.

The state GOP’s petition argues three points:

<><>the presidency is not covered by the 14th, the insurrection clause is not “self-executing”

<><>means Congress alone must enforce it; states cannot make that determination on their own —

<><>by kicking Trump off the ballot, the state Rep Party’s “rights of association” have been violated.

JUST IN: US Supreme Court Officially Asked to Overturn Colorado High Court Decision to Bar Trump From Ballot | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The Republican Party of Colorado asked the US Supreme Court to overturn the state’s high court’s decision to bar Trump from the 2024 ballot.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The US Supreme Court can officially overturn a decision made by the Colorado high court. The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the country and has the authority to review and overturn decisions made by state courts if they are found to be in violation of the US Constitution or federal law.

This power is granted to the Supreme Court under the principle of judicial review, as established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

The case arose from the political tensions between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties during the early years of the United States. In 1800, President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia.

However, Marbury's commission was not delivered before the end of Adams' presidency, and it was subsequently withheld by the new Secretary of State, James Madison, who was acting on the instructions of President Thomas Jefferson.

Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, a court order compelling Madison to deliver the commission. The Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, faced a dilemma: if it ordered Madison to deliver the commission, it risked being ignored by the executive branch and losing its authority; if it ruled in favor of Madison, it would be seen as siding with the Democratic-Republicans and weakening the Federalist Party.

In a historic decision, the Supreme Court held that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but it did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which had granted the Court the power to issue such writs, was in conflict with the Constitution and therefore invalid.

This established the principle of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.Marbury v. Madison is considered one of the most important cases in American constitutional law, as it firmly established the principle of judicial review and the power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. It also solidified the Court's role as a co-equal branch of government.

==>Therefore, if the Supreme Court finds that a decision made by the Colorado high court is unconstitutional or in conflict with federal law, it has the authority to overturn that decision.

==>However, Trump's destiny depends greatly on what he did and will do. His money can't buy everything or everyone in America! lol.

Sources :

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

2. https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme...ison-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html

3. Marbury v. Madison | Background, Summary, & Significance

 

[BluesLegend]

At the very least, the GOP ought to sue them for attempting to throw another election.

Dems are a lawless regime seeking a dictatorship. Heaven forbid that we allow the American people to make the decisions in an election, Dems are seeking to prevent their opponents from even running.

 

[lantern2814]

He has been criminally indicted, and he has been tried and convicted in Colorado, want to discuss the elections clause of Section One of the US Constitution now? Nope, that is what I thought. Now, go put your TV dinner in the toaster oven in your Mom's basement.

Wrong as usual you drooling imbecile. Show us where any CIVIL statute for insurrection is. Try reading section 5 of the 14th Amendment. You know, where CONGRESS has to decide that. You don’t want to? We knew it. Now crawl back under mommy’s bed and hide from the bad Orange Man.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

The Supreme Court absolutely will rule in favor of President Trump.

The state GOP’s petition argues three points:

<><>the presidency is not covered by the 14th, the insurrection clause is not “self-executing”

<><>means Congress alone must enforce it; states cannot make that determination on their own —

<><>by kicking Trump off the ballot, the state Rep Party’s “rights of association” have been violated.

JUST IN: US Supreme Court Officially Asked to Overturn Colorado High Court Decision to Bar Trump From Ballot | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The Republican Party of Colorado asked the US Supreme Court to overturn the state’s high court’s decision to bar Trump from the 2024 ballot.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

How about "the accusation of insurrection is a fat fucking lie".

 

[WTH_Progs?]

The amendment says after rebelling against the Constitution he cannot hold office. It doesn't say he can't run for office does it? Even if the Neo-GOP is stupid enough to back the POS and put him on the ballot, he still cannot hold office. So it would fall on his VP pick unless they too were involved in the attempted election fraud. After that I guess it would go to the Speaker of the House unless........

May they rot in hell.

 

[Leo123]

The US Supreme Court can officially overturn a decision made by the Colorado high court. The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the country and has the authority to review and overturn decisions made by state courts if they are found to be in violation of the US Constitution or federal law.

This power is granted to the Supreme Court under the principle of judicial review, as established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

The case arose from the political tensions between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties during the early years of the United States. In 1800, President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia.

However, Marbury's commission was not delivered before the end of Adams' presidency, and it was subsequently withheld by the new Secretary of State, James Madison, who was acting on the instructions of President Thomas Jefferson.

Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, a court order compelling Madison to deliver the commission. The Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, faced a dilemma: if it ordered Madison to deliver the commission, it risked being ignored by the executive branch and losing its authority; if it ruled in favor of Madison, it would be seen as siding with the Democratic-Republicans and weakening the Federalist Party.

In a historic decision, the Supreme Court held that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but it did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which had granted the Court the power to issue such writs, was in conflict with the Constitution and therefore invalid.

This established the principle of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.Marbury v. Madison is considered one of the most important cases in American constitutional law, as it firmly established the principle of judicial review and the power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. It also solidified the Court's role as a co-equal branch of government.

==>Therefore, if the Supreme Court finds that a decision made by the Colorado high court is unconstitutional or in conflict with federal law, it has the authority to overturn that decision.

==>However, Trump's destiny depends greatly on what he did and will do. His money can't buy everything or everyone in America! lol.

Sources :

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

2. https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme...ison-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html

3. Marbury v. Madison | Background, Summary, & Significance

What did Trump do? He told protesters to go peacefully. What will Trump do? Boost the economy. lower fuel prices, negotiate cease fires, bring peace to the mideast and be the President we all long for after this literal, far-left Democrat disaster we all have had to endure because of an election that was fixed by Democrats.

 

[martybegan]

No thye don't HAVE to do anything.

Their whole purpose is as a court of last resort, AND to handle discrepancies between different federal and State courts.

 

[toobfreak]

Dems are a lawless regime seeking a dictatorship. Heaven forbid that we allow the American people to make the decisions in an election, Dems are seeking to prevent their opponents from even running.

None of them can explain how a convicted seditionist convicted of plotting against the USA could still run for president from prison, was allowed to run no question, yet Trump not convicted of anything, not even charged with sedition or insurrection, not even there that day who warned people to stay lawful and peaceful who tried to get Pelosi to bring in lots of additional police just to be safe, isn't eligible to run?!

Like everything the Left claims and does, it is just one more farce built on a delusional house of cards that will fall apart in time.

I blame the GOP the most for allowing them to pull this crap again and again ever since 2017 with absolutely no legal challenges nor prosecution for government overreach.

Using the government's powers to effect politics instead of mere policy should come with severe penalties.

 

[beautress]

Sue them for deformation

Well, as more information came out, maybe the case made more sense at that point. They hear the same liars on tv MSM as us. When information appears that proves lies were told, fixing the lie and finding the truth is a benefit to the American people. Careless tv stations that realize they have been lied to tend to clean up their act, and it's about time. It's no honor to fool the SCOTUS, knowing that they're not mindreaders like some news broadcasters think they are.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

please remind me, who excluded the president from any amendment? on what authority?

This is an excellent question, and I was wondering the same after reading Trump's filing which says he was not subject to the 14th.

I finally found the answer...

Pay attention to the bold font...

14th, Section 3:
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.

The POTUS does not take that oath. The POTUS oath is in Article II Section 1 Clause 8...

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


Others, like the VP take this oath...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Section 3 clearly does not apply to the POTUS. I was very surprised after discovering this.

Regards,
Jim


cc: Rawley

 

[rampart]

This is an excellent question, and I was wondering the same after reading Trump's filing which says he was not subject to the 14th.

I finally found the answer...

Pay attention to the bold font...

14th, Section 3:
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.

The POTUS does not take that oath. The POTUS oath is in Article II Section 1 Clause 8...

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


Others, like the VP take this oath...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Section 3 clearly does not apply to the POTUS. I was very surprised after discovering this.

Regards,
Jim


cc: Rawley

yea i got that filing.

preserve, protect and defend does not seem too different from support and defend

hard to believe the "radical republicans" who wrote the 14th did not at least reflect the wording of art 2. but it will take alito and thomas to determine that those are not equal statements, or that the term in both lists "defend" is irrelevant.

we're back to the famous

"depends on what "is" is" clinton

 

[Smokin' OP]

 

[rampart]

View attachment 890210

in trumpspeak he is saying "stop the investigations and indictments so i can be "dictator for a day" or whatever he is a candidate for.