Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
CO Supreme Court Decision OBLITERATED
CO Supreme Court Decision OBLITERATED
By Buffalo
5 Jan 2024 8:28 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
5 Jan 2024 8:28 am
CO Supreme Court Decision OBLITERATED
“The question of eligibility to serve as President of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide,” Donald Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court decision reads. “By considering the question of President Trump’s eligibility and barring him from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court arrogated Congress’ authority.”
Indeed, the brief notes that when cases arose questioning the eligibility of John McCain, Barack Obama, and Sen. Ted Cruz, the federal courts uniformly ruled that the Constitution gives Congress and not the courts the power to determine eligibility. Beyond this, Trump’s lawyers note that the ruling overturned by the entirely Democrat-appointed Colorado Supreme Court “ultimately concluded that section 3 was inapplicable to President Trump because he never took an oath ‘as an officer of the United States.’” In other words, he takes a different oath than officers of the United States, and the Constitution excludes the president when speaking of officers of the United States.
The Colorado Supreme Court, which remained unbothered when the state elected a former private in the Confederate Army as Colorado’s governor and later as a U.S. senator, judges Donald Trump as ineligible for office for delivering a speech more than a mile away from the Capitol on Jan. 6.
However disgraceful the conduct of so many on Jan. 6 strikes even some Trump supporters, sensible people can differentiate between a war that killed more than 600,000 people and a protest-turned-riot in which not even the worst of the rioters fired a shot.Then-President Trump told supporters, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Selena Zito famously observed of Trump in 2016, “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Here Trump’s enemies demand the courts disregard his actual words and instead assume he spoke in code intelligible to QAnon Shaman but mysterious to less advanced beings unable to decipher words beyond their actual meanings.
Recall these same people insisted that Trump’s supporters bludgeoned a Capitol policeman to death when he actually died of a stroke, minus evidence of any head wounds the next day. They took the riot seriously but not literally.
The New York Times falsely claimed that “pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. [Brian] Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.” None of this happened — as the postmortem and lack of criminal charges indicated — but Democrats bizarrely placed this falsehood in their bizarre post-presidency articles of impeachment anyhow. They took the riot seriously but not literally.
“The question of eligibility to serve as President of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide,” Donald Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court decision reads. “By considering the question of President Trump’s eligibility and barring him from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court arrogated Congress’ authority.”
Indeed, the brief notes that when cases arose questioning the eligibility of John McCain, Barack Obama, and Sen. Ted Cruz, the federal courts uniformly ruled that the Constitution gives Congress and not the courts the power to determine eligibility. Beyond this, Trump’s lawyers note that the ruling overturned by the entirely Democrat-appointed Colorado Supreme Court “ultimately concluded that section 3 was inapplicable to President Trump because he never took an oath ‘as an officer of the United States.’” In other words, he takes a different oath than officers of the United States, and the Constitution excludes the president when speaking of officers of the United States.
The Colorado Supreme Court, which remained unbothered when the state elected a former private in the Confederate Army as Colorado’s governor and later as a U.S. senator, judges Donald Trump as ineligible for office for delivering a speech more than a mile away from the Capitol on Jan. 6.
However disgraceful the conduct of so many on Jan. 6 strikes even some Trump supporters, sensible people can differentiate between a war that killed more than 600,000 people and a protest-turned-riot in which not even the worst of the rioters fired a shot.Then-President Trump told supporters, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Selena Zito famously observed of Trump in 2016, “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Here Trump’s enemies demand the courts disregard his actual words and instead assume he spoke in code intelligible to QAnon Shaman but mysterious to less advanced beings unable to decipher words beyond their actual meanings.
Recall these same people insisted that Trump’s supporters bludgeoned a Capitol policeman to death when he actually died of a stroke, minus evidence of any head wounds the next day. They took the riot seriously but not literally.
The New York Times falsely claimed that “pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. [Brian] Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.” None of this happened — as the postmortem and lack of criminal charges indicated — but Democrats bizarrely placed this falsehood in their bizarre post-presidency articles of impeachment anyhow. They took the riot seriously but not literally.
5 Jan 2024 8:28 am
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blamed the riot for “almost 10 dead.” But this includes law enforcement officers who committed suicide as distant as months later, a protester who overdosed on fentanyl, two men not in the Capitol who suffered heart attacks, and an unarmed, 115-pound woman shot dead by a Capitol policeman. Siegfried died the next week — why not include him in the tally as well? AOC took the riot seriously but not literally.
The peculiar and incessant use of insurrection—the same word mentioned in Article 3 of the 14th Amendment—from the jump signals the contrived manner of all this.
Progressives take the Constitution neither seriously nor literally. And as the late National Review senior editor Joe Sobran frequently observed, a living-document Constitution necessarily becomes a dead letter. People who take liberties with the manner of a policeman’s death to score political points find no compunction against doing likewise with the 14th Amendment. They reverse-engineer from deciding the optimum outcome backward to determining the best way to interpret the document’s text to arrive at that outcome. The peculiar and incessant use of insurrection — the same word mentioned in Article 3 of the 14th Amendment—from the jump signals the contrived manner of all this.
Leaving aside from the current inside baseball of how “Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article,” discussions of the 14th Amendment usually start and end with how it guarantees due process and the right to vote. Colorado and Maine — in the name of the 14th Amendment no less—seek to strip Trump of the former right and his supporters of the latter.
CO Supreme Court Decision OBLITERATED | Patriot Truth News
The peculiar and incessant use of insurrection—the same word mentioned in Article 3 of the 14th Amendment—from the jump signals the contrived manner of all this.
Progressives take the Constitution neither seriously nor literally. And as the late National Review senior editor Joe Sobran frequently observed, a living-document Constitution necessarily becomes a dead letter. People who take liberties with the manner of a policeman’s death to score political points find no compunction against doing likewise with the 14th Amendment. They reverse-engineer from deciding the optimum outcome backward to determining the best way to interpret the document’s text to arrive at that outcome. The peculiar and incessant use of insurrection — the same word mentioned in Article 3 of the 14th Amendment—from the jump signals the contrived manner of all this.
Leaving aside from the current inside baseball of how “Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article,” discussions of the 14th Amendment usually start and end with how it guarantees due process and the right to vote. Colorado and Maine — in the name of the 14th Amendment no less—seek to strip Trump of the former right and his supporters of the latter.
CO Supreme Court Decision OBLITERATED | Patriot Truth News
5 Jan 2024 8:29 am
Its an argument. Nothing has been "obliterated". Yet.Buffalo » 05 Jan 2024, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑ CO Supreme Court Decision OBLITERATED
“The question of eligibility to serve as President of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide,” Donald Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court decision reads. “By considering the question of President Trump’s eligibility and barring him from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court arrogated Congress’ authority.”
Indeed, the brief notes that when cases arose questioning the eligibility of John McCain, Barack Obama, and Sen. Ted Cruz, the federal courts uniformly ruled that the Constitution gives Congress and not the courts the power to determine eligibility. Beyond this, Trump’s lawyers note that the ruling overturned by the entirely Democrat-appointed Colorado Supreme Court “ultimately concluded that section 3 was inapplicable to President Trump because he never took an oath ‘as an officer of the United States.’” In other words, he takes a different oath than officers of the United States, and the Constitution excludes the president when speaking of officers of the United States.
The Colorado Supreme Court, which remained unbothered when the state elected a former private in the Confederate Army as Colorado’s governor and later as a U.S. senator, judges Donald Trump as ineligible for office for delivering a speech more than a mile away from the Capitol on Jan. 6.
However disgraceful the conduct of so many on Jan. 6 strikes even some Trump supporters, sensible people can differentiate between a war that killed more than 600,000 people and a protest-turned-riot in which not even the worst of the rioters fired a shot.Then-President Trump told supporters, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Selena Zito famously observed of Trump in 2016, “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Here Trump’s enemies demand the courts disregard his actual words and instead assume he spoke in code intelligible to QAnon Shaman but mysterious to less advanced beings unable to decipher words beyond their actual meanings.
Recall these same people insisted that Trump’s supporters bludgeoned a Capitol policeman to death when he actually died of a stroke, minus evidence of any head wounds the next day. They took the riot seriously but not literally.
The New York Times falsely claimed that “pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. [Brian] Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.” None of this happened — as the postmortem and lack of criminal charges indicated — but Democrats bizarrely placed this falsehood in their bizarre post-presidency articles of impeachment anyhow. They took the riot seriously but not literally.
5 Jan 2024 8:37 am
It is pretty clear in the Constitution that only Congress can decide who is eligible or not to run for President, not some partisan state court.
5 Jan 2024 8:38 am
Buffalo » 05 Jan 2024, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑ CO Supreme Court Decision OBLITERATED
“The question of eligibility to serve as President of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide,” Donald Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court decision reads. “By considering the question of President Trump’s eligibility and barring him from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court arrogated Congress’ authority.”
Indeed, the brief notes that when cases arose questioning the eligibility of John McCain, Barack Obama, and Sen. Ted Cruz, the federal courts uniformly ruled that the Constitution gives Congress and not the courts the power to determine eligibility. Beyond this, Trump’s lawyers note that the ruling overturned by the entirely Democrat-appointed Colorado Supreme Court “ultimately concluded that section 3 was inapplicable to President Trump because he never took an oath ‘as an officer of the United States.’” In other words, he takes a different oath than officers of the United States, and the Constitution excludes the president when speaking of officers of the United States.
The Colorado Supreme Court, which remained unbothered when the state elected a former private in the Confederate Army as Colorado’s governor and later as a U.S. senator, judges Donald Trump as ineligible for office for delivering a speech more than a mile away from the Capitol on Jan. 6.
However disgraceful the conduct of so many on Jan. 6 strikes even some Trump supporters, sensible people can differentiate between a war that killed more than 600,000 people and a protest-turned-riot in which not even the worst of the rioters fired a shot.Then-President Trump told supporters, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Selena Zito famously observed of Trump in 2016, “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Here Trump’s enemies demand the courts disregard his actual words and instead assume he spoke in code intelligible to QAnon Shaman but mysterious to less advanced beings unable to decipher words beyond their actual meanings.
Recall these same people insisted that Trump’s supporters bludgeoned a Capitol policeman to death when he actually died of a stroke, minus evidence of any head wounds the next day. They took the riot seriously but not literally.
The New York Times falsely claimed that “pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. [Brian] Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.” None of this happened — as the postmortem and lack of criminal charges indicated — but Democrats bizarrely placed this falsehood in their bizarre post-presidency articles of impeachment anyhow. They took the riot seriously but not literally.
5 Jan 2024 8:39 am
You have no idea what you're yapping aboutBuffalo » 05 Jan 2024, 9:37 am » wrote: ↑ It is pretty clear in the Constitution that only Congress can decide who is eligible or not to run for President, not some partisan state court.
5 Jan 2024 8:42 am
If/When the Supreme Court says it, then the CO Supreme Court Decision will be obliterated. Until then, its just an argument. There is nothing that I am aware of in the US Constitution that says State Supreme courts CAN'T limit who can be on the ballot. Remember, when it comes to what the states can and cannot do, the Constitution is a limiting document. In other words, States can do whatever the F- they want, unless such activity is specifically precluded by the US Constitution. For example, a State cannot establish an official religion.Buffalo » 05 Jan 2024, 9:37 am » wrote: ↑ It is pretty clear in the Constitution that only Congress can decide who is eligible or not to run for President, not some partisan state court.
5 Jan 2024 8:55 am
Oh ya, maineman was all over the sidenick thingy...Buffalo » 05 Jan 2024, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑ CO Supreme Court Decision OBLITERATED
“The question of eligibility to serve as President of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide,” Donald Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court decision reads. “By considering the question of President Trump’s eligibility and barring him from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court arrogated Congress’ authority.”
Indeed, the brief notes that when cases arose questioning the eligibility of John McCain, Barack Obama, and Sen. Ted Cruz, the federal courts uniformly ruled that the Constitution gives Congress and not the courts the power to determine eligibility. Beyond this, Trump’s lawyers note that the ruling overturned by the entirely Democrat-appointed Colorado Supreme Court “ultimately concluded that section 3 was inapplicable to President Trump because he never took an oath ‘as an officer of the United States.’” In other words, he takes a different oath than officers of the United States, and the Constitution excludes the president when speaking of officers of the United States.
The Colorado Supreme Court, which remained unbothered when the state elected a former private in the Confederate Army as Colorado’s governor and later as a U.S. senator, judges Donald Trump as ineligible for office for delivering a speech more than a mile away from the Capitol on Jan. 6.
However disgraceful the conduct of so many on Jan. 6 strikes even some Trump supporters, sensible people can differentiate between a war that killed more than 600,000 people and a protest-turned-riot in which not even the worst of the rioters fired a shot.Then-President Trump told supporters, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Selena Zito famously observed of Trump in 2016, “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Here Trump’s enemies demand the courts disregard his actual words and instead assume he spoke in code intelligible to QAnon Shaman but mysterious to less advanced beings unable to decipher words beyond their actual meanings.
Recall these same people insisted that Trump’s supporters bludgeoned a Capitol policeman to death when he actually died of a stroke, minus evidence of any head wounds the next day. They took the riot seriously but not literally.
The New York Times falsely claimed that “pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. [Brian] Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.” None of this happened — as the postmortem and lack of criminal charges indicated — but Democrats bizarrely placed this falsehood in their bizarre post-presidency articles of impeachment anyhow. They took the riot seriously but not literally.
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..." 
5 Jan 2024 9:04 am
How many billions of dollars was the JEW YORK TIMES forced to pay for this falsehood...?
"The New York Times falsely claimed that “pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. [Brian] Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.” None of this happened — as the postmortem and lack of criminal charges indicated — but Democrats bizarrely placed this falsehood in their bizarre post-presidency articles of impeachment anyhow."
"The New York Times falsely claimed that “pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. [Brian] Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.” None of this happened — as the postmortem and lack of criminal charges indicated — but Democrats bizarrely placed this falsehood in their bizarre post-presidency articles of impeachment anyhow."
5 Jan 2024 9:06 am
Are you so dumb that you don't understand the obvious ramifications of attempting to do something so stupid?
Or are you equally OK with the states that are now planning to throw Biden off the ballot because of HIS refusal to follow the Constitution, breaking his oath of office? Or did that reaction come as a shock to you liberal idiots?:
Republicans Pull Trigger on Plan to Remove Joe Biden From Ballots
Newsweek by Rachel Dobkin
Republican lawmakers in three swing states have announced their plan to remove President Joe Biden from their state ballots.Aaron Bernstine of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Cory McGarr of the Arizona House of Representatives and Charlice Byrd of the Georgia House of Representatives released a joint statement on Thursday announcing their plan to remove Biden from the 2024 general election ballots in those three states.
5 Jan 2024 9:08 am
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is there for a reason, Zeet.Zeets2 » 05 Jan 2024, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑ Are you so dumb that you don't understand the obvious ramifications of attempting to do something so stupid?
Or are you equally OK with the states that are now planning to throw Biden off the ballot because of HIS refusal to follow the Constitution, breaking his oath of office? Or did that reaction come as a shock to you liberal idiots?:
We aren't here to cater to your Daddy Issues.
5 Jan 2024 9:12 am
Zeets2 » 05 Jan 2024, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑ Are you so dumb that you don't understand the obvious ramifications of attempting to do something so stupid?
Or are you equally OK with the states that are now planning to throw Biden off the ballot because of HIS refusal to follow the Constitution, breaking his oath of office? Or did that reaction come as a shock to you liberal idiots?:
I'll bet you he is too much of a cowardly liar to answer your question with a yes or a no.
5 Jan 2024 9:14 am
"Indeed, the brief notes that when cases arose questioning the eligibility of John McCain, Barack Obama, and Sen. Ted Cruz, the federal courts uniformly ruled that the Constitution gives Congress and not the courts the power to determine eligibility."
I suppose you know more that federal courts...YOU DON"T!!! So, go **** yourself!!!
5 Jan 2024 9:15 am
Wrong!Buffalo » 05 Jan 2024, 10:14 am » wrote: ↑ "Indeed, the brief notes that when cases arose questioning the eligibility of John McCain, Barack Obama, and Sen. Ted Cruz, the federal courts uniformly ruled that the Constitution gives Congress and not the courts the power to determine eligibility."
I suppose you know more that federal courts...YOU DON"T!!! So, go **** yourself!!!
Sec 3 of the 14th didn't apply to ANY of those cases.
5 Jan 2024 9:16 am
So is Section 1 of the 14th:R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:08 am » wrote: ↑ Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is there for a reason, Zeet.
We aren't here to cater to your Daddy Issues.
5 Jan 2024 9:21 am
That sounds like valid precedent. But, based on what?Buffalo » 05 Jan 2024, 10:14 am » wrote: ↑ "Indeed, the brief notes that when cases arose questioning the eligibility of John McCain, Barack Obama, and Sen. Ted Cruz, the federal courts uniformly ruled that the Constitution gives Congress and not the courts the power to determine eligibility."
5 Jan 2024 9:22 am
It doesn't apply to Trump case EITHER!!!R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:15 am » wrote: ↑ Wrong!
Sec 3 of the 14th didn't apply to ANY of those cases.
Look up Charles S. Thomas, dick sucker!!!
5 Jan 2024 9:25 am
There are a number of problems relying on that constitutional provision for disqualifying Trump and keeping him off the ballot:R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:15 am » wrote: ↑ Wrong!
Sec 3 of the 14th didn't apply to ANY of those cases.
- First and foremost, there was no trial, no conviction, not even an indictment. Without a conviction for a felony, yes, it is very similar to what happened in "those other cases". I would agree with you, however, if Trump was tried and convicted of a felony.
- Second, Trump did not actually violate Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The facts just don't bare this out in the historical context of what that provision had been used for in the past.
5 Jan 2024 9:26 am
5 Jan 2024 9:31 am
and, as has been noted here on more than one occasion, people have been disqualified for public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without ever being convicted of any crime.
Who is online
In total there are 4386 users online :: 12 registered, 16 bots, and 4358 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, Buffalo, ROG62, RebelGator, FJB, Beekeeper, jerra b, SouthernFried, nefarious101, sole
Bots: ADmantX, aiohttp, TTD-Content, Not, MicroMessenger, proximic, DuckDuckBot, CriteoBot, DuckDuckGo, YandexBot, Mediapartners-Google, Googlebot, Applebot, facebookexternalhit, curl/7, bingbot