Voters, represented by the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, had argued he should be barred from the ballot for inciting the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.<\/p>\n
Colorado\u2019s highest court\u00a0– whose seven-member bench was entirely appointed by Democratic governors –<\/strong>\u00a0overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol,\u00a0but said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.<\/strong><\/p>\n In its ruling, the Democrat-controlled court found that Trump engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud and directing them to the Capitol. The state justices determined that the office of the president is covered under the insurrection clause, which specifically lists those who previously took oaths to support the Constitution as \u201ca member of Congress,\u201d \u201cofficer of the United States,\u201d \u201cmember of any State legislature\u201d or an \u201cexecutive or judicial officer of any State.\u201d The district court had previously ruled that the office of the president was not covered under the clause.<\/p>\n The majority opinion was unsigned but joined by four of the seven justices.<\/p>\n Those who voted for fascism are the following four Democrat-appointed judges:<\/p>\n Three justices dissented from Tuesday\u2019s decision:\u00a0Chief Justice Brian Boatright<\/a>,\u00a0Carlos Samour\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a0Justice Maria Berkenkotter<\/a><\/strong>. Each wrote separate dissents taking issue with how the plaintiffs brought their 14th Amendment lawsuit using a provision of Colorado election law.<\/p>\n Berkenkotter wrote that \u201cthe majority construes the court\u2019s authority too broadly.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute,\u201d wrote Boatright. \u201cThe proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory timeframe because the Electors\u2019 claim overwhelmed the process.\u201d<\/p>\n Samour similarly wrote that Colorado\u2019s election law provides no \u201cengine\u201d for such a lawsuit, also noting that no federal legislation existed to enforce the 14th Amendment\u2019s insurrection clause.<\/p>\n \u201cEven if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past\u2014dare I say, engaged in insurrection\u2014there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office. Procedural due process is one of the aspects of America\u2019s democracy that sets this country apart,\u201d Samour wrote.<\/p>\n Ironically, all this ruling will do is further cement Trump’s status as leading presidential candidate as it not only affirms his status as target #1 of the Biden Department of Justice and liberal court system, but will test the Conservative-dominated Supreme Court appeal over its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which according to many including a Colorado District court,\u00a0\u00a0does not apply to the Presidency<\/a>.<\/p>\n Indeed, as Vivek Ramaswami observed, the 14th Amendment was part of the \u201cReconstruction Amendments\u201d that were ratified following the Civil War. “It was passed to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office.\u00a0These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States: the Civil War.\u00a0<\/strong>That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the 45th President on the same grounds, equating his speech to rebellion against the United States.”<\/p>\n And there\u2019s another legal problem:\u00a0Trump is not a former \u201cofficer of the United States,\u201d as that term is used in the Constitution, meaning Section 3 does not apply.\u00a0<\/strong>As the Supreme Court explained in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), an \u201cofficer of the United States\u201d is someone appointed by the President to aid him in his duties under Article II, Section 2. The term does not apply to elected officials, and certainly not to the President himself.<\/strong><\/p>\n The Framers of the 14th Amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provision\u2014intended to bar former U.S. officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public office\u2014being weaponized by a sitting President and his political allies to prevent a former President from seeking reelection. Our country is becoming unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The court put its ruling on hold until Jan. 4, so Trump can first seek review from the Supreme Court, which he will. Until then, Trump\u2019s name automatically remains on the ballot until the justices resolve the appeal.<\/p>\n \u201cWe do not reach these conclusions lightly,\u201d wrote the court\u2019s majority. \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Naturally, Trump\u2019s campaign immediately denounced the ruling.<\/p>\n \u201cUnsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group\u2019s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump\u2019s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice,\u201d a campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/marquez.jpg?itok=HNYbyIH0\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/colorado%20hood.jpg?itok=LyxqW4sY\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/richard%20gabriel.jpg?itok=OPAJJJ7I\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/melissa%20hart.jpg?itok=9-peIDJB\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/trump%20responds%20to%20coloardo.jpg?itok=CcJ4sKVl\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n