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

[Dante]

The dissenting judges opined that the entire trial was unfair. Remarks that will fall heavily under Supreme Court consideration.

Colorado cannot keep Trump from running for president or being elected president.

rephrase the statement.

The Colorado ruling only concerns issues affecting the state. It's about Trump being on the Colorado ballot. It's not about Trump running for president in any other state.

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

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

 

[marvin martian]

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."​

I hope SCOTUS declines this case, so red states (and blue states with conservative courts) can immediately begin removing Biden (and any other elected DemoKKKrats) from their ballots, due to insurrection (leaving the border open and encouraging a "surge" invasion).

 

[EvilCat Breath]

rephrase the statement.

The Colorado ruling only concerns issues affecting the state. It's about Trump being on the Colorado ballot. It's not about Trump running for president in any other state.

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

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

What happens if the GOP says we are withdrawing from the primary system in Colorado. We will caucus instead?

 

[Dante]

What happens if the GOP says we are withdrawing from the primary system in Colorado. We will caucus instead?

Who cares?

They'll be in a world of hurt as they're unfamiliar. Chaos will ensue. People like you keep assuming Mr. Trump will win no matter what. Guess what? 2020

 

[Dante]

I hope SCOTUS declines this case, so red states (and blue states with conservative courts) can immediately begin removing Biden (and any other elected DemoKKKrats) from their ballots, due to insurrection (leaving the border open and encouraging a "surge" invasion).

How would this happen?

 

[Dante]

;

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 (Published 2023)

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.

p

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.

'

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

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

 

[Slade3200]

The Colorado supreme court overstepped for obvious political reasons. This is grounds for dismissal...that is if our politically/judicial system is still fair and unbiased. That seems dicey about now,

I don’t see any grounds for dismissal. It can absolutely be appealed and litigated. I think it should be

 

[westwall]

;



p


'

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

Yeah, legal opinions, from corrupt judges, aren't compelling.

They entertain braindead clods, such as yourself, but normal people see it for what it is.

 

[Dante]

I don’t see any grounds for dismissal. It can absolutely be appealed and litigated. I think it should be

For constitutional purposes, I agree it should be. The Colorado decision that is. But things within the decision go far beyond the case. Those would be separate c]legal challenges based on other cases.

 

[Dante]

The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various rulings by the district court. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold as follows:

• The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s
status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the
Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating
whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under
Section Three.

• Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section
Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that
sense, self-executing.

• Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section
Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

• Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone
who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court
committed reversible error.
• The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of
Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

• President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.

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.

¶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.

Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme
Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s
deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is
sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the
stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include
President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt
of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.

 

[Dante]

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

(2) whether Section Three requires implementing legislation
before its disqualification provision attaches

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).

 

[Dante]

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

 

[Dante]

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

 

[Dante]

Issues addressed in the ruling that get ignored, because political arguments, and arguments that may -- may be brought up in an appeal are what people are engaging in.

1. Standard of Review

2. Presidential Primaries Under the Election Code

3. The District Court Had Jurisdiction to Adjudicate the
Electors’ Claim Under the Election Code

4. States Have the Authority to Assess Presidential
Candidates’ Qualifications

5. The Electors Have Stated a Proper Claim That Is Not
Precluded by Frazier and Kuhn

6. Limiting Presidential Primary Ballot Access to
Constitutionally Qualified Candidates Does Not
Interfere with CRSCC’s First Amendment Rights

7. Section 1-1-113 Proceedings Provide Adequate Due
Process for Litigants

C. The Disqualification Provision of Section Three Attaches
Without Congressional Action

D. Section Three Is Justiciable

The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various
rulings by the district court. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold as
follows:

• The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s
status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the
Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating
whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under
Section Three.

• Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section
Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that
sense, self-executing.

• Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section
Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

• Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone
who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court
committed reversible error.

• The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of
Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

• President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.

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.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly.

 

[justoffal]

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.

The decision will be history long before November. They know it....

 

[JGalt]

You logic is a liability:
How many rioters were charged with rioting? None? I guess that means a riot didn't happen.

next

Issues addressed in the ruling that get ignored, because political arguments, and arguments that may -- may be brought up in an appeal are what people are engaging in.

1. Standard of Review

2. Presidential Primaries Under the Election Code

3. The District Court Had Jurisdiction to Adjudicate the
Electors’ Claim Under the Election Code

4. States Have the Authority to Assess Presidential
Candidates’ Qualifications

5. The Electors Have Stated a Proper Claim That Is Not
Precluded by Frazier and Kuhn

6. Limiting Presidential Primary Ballot Access to
Constitutionally Qualified Candidates Does Not
Interfere with CRSCC’s First Amendment Rights

7. Section 1-1-113 Proceedings Provide Adequate Due
Process for Litigants

C. The Disqualification Provision of Section Three Attaches
Without Congressional Action

D. Section Three Is Justiciable

The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various
rulings by the district court. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold as
follows:

• The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s
status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the
Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating
whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under
Section Three.

• Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section
Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that
sense, self-executing.

• Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section
Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

• Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone
who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court
committed reversible error.

• The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of
Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

• President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.

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.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly.

Unless you can magically get a sedition or insurrection charge against Trump, you're pissing in the wind. The USSC will rule that to be unconstitutional.

 

[Dante]

Unless you can magically get a sedition or insurrection charge against Trump, you're pissing in the wind. The USSC will rule that to be unconstitutional.

Be clear.

What exactly will they rule to be unconstitutional?

 

[Dante]

The FBI concluded there was no insurrection.

Scant evidence, not No Evidence as you say in your lies:

Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

www.reuters.com

and?

Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Statement by Director Christopher Wray before the House Oversight and Reform Committee

www.fbi.gov

Conclusion

Looking forward, the FBI assesses DVEs pose an elevated threat of violence to the United States, and some of these actors have been emboldened in the aftermath of the breach of the U.S. Capitol. We expect racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, and other DVEs will very likely pose the greatest domestic terrorism threats in 2021 and likely into 2022. The FBI urges federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government counterterrorism and law enforcement officials and private sector security partners to remain vigilant in light of the persistent threat posed by DVEs and their unpredictable target selection in order to effectively detect, prevent, preempt, or respond to DVE threats and terrorist attacks in the United States.

Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As I hope I will make clear to you, the FBI takes very seriously the threat of terrorism, from any place, by any actor, against any individual or group, and we will continue to follow all the leads, identify those responsible, and hold them accountable. We work daily to carry out the FBI mission to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States. We are grateful for the support that you and this committee have provided to the FBI, and I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

 

[JGalt]

Be clear.

What exactly will they rule to be unconstitutional?

Punishing Trump with "insurrection" or "inciting a riot" without being a trial and conviction.

I don't know what kind of a shithole country you were raised in, but we have something called the "Fifth Amendment" here.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

[Dante]

Punishing Trump with "insurrection" or "inciting a riot" without being a trial and conviction.

I don't know what kind of a shithole country you were raised in, but we have something called the "Fifth Amendment" here.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You obviously have not read the ruling. That is not what the Colorado Supreme Court was asked to rule on.

"The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various rulings by the district court." -- from the ruling.