“No person shall… hold any office… under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States… 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.”
These words are directly taken from the Fourteenth Amendment, and these words are precisely what the Supreme Court will shortly weigh in on with regards to Trump’s presence (or lack thereof) on the ballot in Colorado.
That’s right: Despite other states, even Illinois, backing down from
Little wonder that Colorado has some of the most liberal narcotics laws in the nation, which would certainly explain the crazed justification that woke militants have attempted to use for removing Trump from the ballot of a state that’s largely useless in the general election anyway.
And, to give insight into just how truly “baked” they are, consider the opposing side’s “arguments” against Trump appearing on the ballot.
“The thrust of Trump’s position is less legal than it is political. He not-so-subtly threatens ‘bedlam’ if he is not on the ballot. But we already saw the ‘bedlam’ Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost. Section 3 is designed precisely to avoid giving oath-breaking insurrectionists like Trump the power to unleash such mayhem again … Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law,” lawyers for Colorado voters whined.
Hm, interesting. In that case, would Coloradans care to comment on the fact that Obama remains the only U.S. president in history to greenlight the arbitrary execution of an American overseas?
Not to mention the disastrous fallout from Benghazi, the wanton killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and, of course, the dramatic uptick in illegal surveillance of American citizens, as attested by Edward Snowden.
Meanwhile, Trump informs his supporters to “go in peace,” and he’s blasted for “bedlam” and “insurrection.”
Needless to say, Trump’s attorneys are a tad more on the ball, probably because they are not perpetually checked out.
“President Donald J. Trump won the Iowa caucuses with the largest margin ever for a non-incumbent and the New Hampshire primary with the most votes of any candidate from either party. He is the presumptive Republican nominee and the leading candidate for President of the United States,” Trump’s legal team declared.
Indeed. Take that, Coloradans.
“In our system of ‘government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people,’ … the American people – not courts or election officials – should choose the next President of the United States … Yet at a time when the United States is threatening sanctions against the socialist dictatorship in Venezuela for excluding the leading opposition candidate for president from the ballot, respondent Anderson asks this Court to impose that same anti-democratic measure at home,” the Trump legal team added.
An inconvenient fact that woke lawyers have opted to ignore.
Whereas woke lawyers focus on speculation, Trump lawyers focus on facts.
“The [Supreme] Court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots,” Trump’s attorneys added.
Should they ever.
The question is – will they?
Author: Ofelia Thornton