Associated Press
A divided Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, setting up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.
The decision from a court whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision.
Colorado’s highest court overturned 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, but said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.
Key points
- The 4-3 decision was made by the Colorado Supreme Court, whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors.
- It is the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
- Trump’s attorneys had promised to appeal to the nation’s highest court, which may eventually decide if Trump can be on the ballot in 2024.
The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case. Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by Jan. 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the court’s majority. “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.”
Trump’s attorneys had promised to appeal any disqualification immediately to the nation’s highest court, which has the final say about constitutional matters.
Trump’s legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said in a statement Tuesday night: “This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy. It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.”
Trump didn’t mention the decision during a rally Tuesday evening in Waterloo, Iowa, but his campaign sent out a fundraising email citing what it called a “tyrannical ruling.”
Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel labeled the decision “Election interference” and said the RNC’s legal team intends to help Trump fight the ruling.
Trump lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and doesn’t need the state to win next year’s presidential election. But the danger for the former president is that more courts and election officials will follow Colorado’s lead and exclude Trump from must-win states.
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed nationally to disqualify Trump under Section 3, which was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War. It bars from office anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it, and has been used only a handful of times since the decade after the Civil War.
“I think it may embolden other state courts or secretaries to act now that the bandage has been ripped off,” Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor who has closely followed the Section 3 cases, said after Tuesday’s ruling. “This is a major threat to Trump’s candidacy.”
The Colorado case is the first where the plaintiffs succeeded. After a weeklong hearing in November, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump indeed had “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and her ruling that kept him on the ballot was a fairly technical one.
Trump’s attorneys convinced Wallace that, because the language in Section 3 refers to “officers of the United States” who take an oath to “support” the Constitution, it must not apply to the President, who is not included as an “officer of the United States” elsewhere in the document and whose oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.
The provision also says offices covered include Senator, Representative, electors of the President and Vice President, and all others “under the United States,” but doesn’t name the presidency.
The state’s highest court didn’t agree, siding with attorneys for six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who argued that it was nonsensical to imagine that the framers of the amendment, fearful of former confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land.
“President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the court’s majority opinion said. “Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”
The left-leaning group that brought the Colorado case, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, hailed the ruling.
“Our Constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government,” its president, Noah Bookbinder, said in a statement.
Trump’s attorneys also had urged the Colorado high court to reverse Wallace’s ruling that Trump incited the Jan. 6 attack. His lawyers argued the then-president had simply been using his free speech rights and hadn’t called for violence. Trump attorney Scott Gessler also argued the attack was more of a “riot” than an insurrection.
That met skepticism from several of the justices.
“Why isn’t it enough that a violent mob breached the Capitol when Congress was performing a core constitutional function?” Justice William W. Hood III said during the Dec. 6 arguments. “In some ways, that seems like a poster child for insurrection.”
In the ruling issued Tuesday, the court’s majority dismissed the arguments that Trump wasn’t responsible for his supporters’ violent attack, which was intended to halt Congress’ certification of the presidential vote: “President Trump then gave a speech in which he literally exhorted his supporters to fight at the Capitol,” they wrote.
Colorado Supreme Court Justices Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez and Hood ruled for the petitioners. Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright dissented, arguing the constitutional questions were too complex to be solved in a state hearing. Justices Maria E. Berkenkotter and Carlos Samour also dissented.
“Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law,” Samour wrote in his dissent. “Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office.”
The Colorado ruling stands in contrast with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which last month decided that the state party can put anyone it wants on its primary ballot. It dismissed a Section 3 lawsuit but said the plaintiffs could try again during the general election.
In another 14th Amendment case, a Michigan judge ruled that Congress, not the judiciary, should decide whether Trump can stay on the ballot. That ruling is being appealed. The liberal group behind those cases, Free Speech For People, also filed another lawsuit in Oregon seeking to bounce Trump from the ballot there.
Both groups are financed by liberal donors who also support President Joe Biden. Trump has blamed the President for the lawsuits against him, even though Biden has no role in them, saying his rival is “defacing the constitution” to try to end his campaign.
Trump’s allies rushed to his defense, slamming the decision as “un-American” and “insane” and part of a politically-motivated effort to destroy his candidacy.
“Four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election,” House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik said in a statement.
___
Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
25 comments
Earl Pitts "Your Roving SNN Reporter" American
December 20, 2023 at 8:23 am
Good ‘Mornting America,
STAND BY FOR NEWS ON YOUR “SAGE NEWS NETWORK”:
Good morn’tng America this is your roving SNN News Reporter, Earl Pitts Amrican, reporting on all the “Sage News” you need to know this morn’ting.
“America Let Not Your Hearts Be Troubled” over this holiday season and over and above all else going on in your busy lives remember to “Relax Your Sphincters”.
This Colarado foolishness was intentionally released just Prior to the Holidays in order to ruin every Sage Patriot’s Holiday. Because the next “News Cycle” will technically be “After The New Year”.
This foolishness will be shot-down by SCOTUS on or about the second week in January, 2024.
WHAT THIS SNN REPORTING MEANS TO YOU:
American Patriots this “Colorado Foolishness” is totally ment to arm your “Dook 4 Brains Brother-In-Law” with “FAKE COLORADO FOOLISHNESS” so he can spout off his annoying leftist screed at all the “Holiday Family Gatherings Nation-Wide”.
American Patriots;
Try your very best not to “Go Out To Your Truck, Get A Tire-Tool, And Give Your Brother-In-Law A Little Attitude Adjustment On The Top Of His Head”. My Sage advice here is to controll your inner “BOCEIPHUS” and just ignore your Brother-In-Law for the Babbeling Fool he has always been.
If you know in advance you wont be able to control yourself my advice is to clear your calandar for the next 2 weeks as The Local Sherriff will always let you out of jail on something like that in 2 weeks.
AND THAT, AMERICA, IS THE REST OF THE STORY!!!!!!
Earl Pitts (SNN) American
Earl Pitts is a Pedophile
December 20, 2023 at 10:42 am
Another long lunatic rant by our resident pedophile.
Hang yourself tonight, Earl.
JD
December 20, 2023 at 8:58 am
Not only are the wheels coming off of DeSantis’ campaign, they’re coming off Trumps, and the GOP party.
F@ck the GOP – let them do a pure caucus, but he’s still not allowed on the general ballot either.
Now we see how corrupt SCOTUS really is and if Biden packs it or not.
Earl Pitts "Your Roving SNN Reporter" American
December 20, 2023 at 9:16 am
Good Morn’ting JD,
Honestly I always harbored an annoying little voice in my head that kept saying:
“Pssst Earl this “JD Person” sure reminds “your little voice” of our annoying brother-in-law”.
See you at “The Holiday Family Gathering”, JD.
I’ve cleared my calandar two weeks out and we will be arriving in my pick-up-truck.
Thank you JD,
Your Brother-In-Law Earl Pitts “Boceiphus” American
JD
December 20, 2023 at 1:13 pm
The pickup with the slide-in camper? I fully expect your “the sh!tter’s full” from Christmas Vacation even tho you have a chamber pot and folding pooping canopy.
Dont Say FLA
December 20, 2023 at 9:30 am
The only thing Rhonda had to do was sit and wait, but even at that, Rhonda failed miserably.
If they’d kept a low profile, they could have pounced now. Instead, they sent Rhonda on meets and greets.
Meeting and greeting never goes well for the little gyy because Everybody Hates Rhonda the very instant they become familiar with Rhonda.
Had the instant of people meeting Rhonda happened over the new few weeks, Rhonda might had a chance.
But, as is written all over Rhonda face: As usual, Rhonda blew his tiny load way too soon.
Dont Say FLA
December 20, 2023 at 10:39 am
If reporting is accurate, Clarence is corrupt AF. The rest of the conservative justices seem to be Constitutionalists which is hilarious that conservative presidents appoint Constitutionalist justices considering how the majority of today’s G0P’s platform is contrary to the US Constitution. No comprendo why G0P Presidents appoint constitutionalists to SCOTUS. The appointments are self defeating. What they ought to be doing is appointing more people like Clarence Thomas than can be bought as sold which is not intended as a slave reference but that metaphor is totally appropriate. Clarence is enslaved by the folks who own him and his wife.
rbruce
December 20, 2023 at 9:12 am
1. A 2017 document form the DOJ defines an “Office” holder referred to in the 14th Amdt. The Appointment Clause of the Constitution grants the President sole authority to name officers. No one appoints the President. Therefore, since the President is not appointment, the 14th Amdt does not applied to him.
2. There has been no insurrection. No one has been charged or convicted of insurrection.
3. No enemy list exists. Who exactly are the enemy?
Earl Pitts "Your Roving SNN Reporter" American
December 20, 2023 at 9:29 am
Thank you rbruce, sage wisdom indeed sir,
For additional details just released by the new and exciting SNN NETWORK please refer to my cameo news reporting in the comentary above.
Earl Pitts “SNN REPORTER” American
Silly Wabbit
December 20, 2023 at 10:15 am
You kwazy.
Dont Say FLA
December 20, 2023 at 10:17 am
1. What you’re alleged here is that when the 14th amendment was written, nobody had it in mind to ban Jefferson Davis, the president of the losing Confederate States of America, from ever becoming US President.
If banning Jefferson Davis from being US President was not intended, why’d they even bother writing the 14th? Please explain sir. Good luck, ’cause NewsMax isn’t airing that explanation because it does not exist.
Try thinking once in a while, not just parroting NewsMax Take off your MAGA cap and put on a thinking cap.
2. Trump was found quite guilty of participation in the J6 insurrection and DC prisons are full of “martyrs” found guilty of sedition and insurrection.
3. Who are the enemy of Trump? Every voter in the USA. Even his own voters. They’ll find out just as soon as he’s done with them.
Dont Say FLA
December 20, 2023 at 9:20 am
Team Trump claims they will take this to the SCROTUS.
Rudolph Giuliani claimed he would provide all the evidence against those Georgia election workers.
Guiliani was a no show at court. He had no evidence to support what he said. So he stayed home.
Trump also has no evidence with which to defend himself. Makes you wonder if he’ll really appeal. To sort that, what are the potential outcomes at SCOTUS?
What does Trump have to gain if he wins at “his” SCOTUS? What does Trump have to lose if “his” SCOTUS does what USA based Conservative justices tend to do, and take the side of the US Constitution?
Take a look at Colorado. It’s solidly Democrat. Seems like it might not help Trump very much being on the ballot. A SCOTUS ruling against Trump, however, could take him off the ballot in every state.
But wait, there’s more to it. Colorado is in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which, being in a G0P run state, we are not in that compact and have most likely never even heard of it.
What is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? It’s states that have all agreed to award their electoral college to the winner of the national popular vote. Why? Because G0P only gets in anymore due to the electoral college, with the exception of Dubya’s 2nd term with his wars ongoing.
Therefore, Trump’s votes in Colorado DO matter. Colorado basically opted out from the electoral college nonsense, as have many states, via awarding their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote at the national level, the goal being the person awarded the office of the President of the USA is more likely to be the person who won the popular vote rather than the other guy as it so often goes due to the electoral college.
So, this is a more complex issue that it seems. Trump needs the Colorado votes due to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Without the popular votes of Colorado’s MAGAs, Trump loses millions of votes off the popular vote which does, in fact, matter, because it sways the electoral votes for every state in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which, again, living in G0P led states, most of us have never even heard of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, same as we never heard of a recall vote before Gavin Newsom in CA made national news surviving one very handily.
Trump has to go to SCROTUS and hope for the wink wink nod nod from his appointees, plus of course Clarence will give Trump the wink wink nod nod. But will Roberts or any other serious conservative justice? Or will they side with the US Constitution with is very clear on this issue and Colorodo’s win is, in the language of experts on the issue, “unassailable.”
I can promise on thing: Up in D.C., it’s gonna be wild! Again!
Dont Say FLA
December 20, 2023 at 9:32 am
Well that sure got in & out of moderation fast.
That was a Rhonda level fast in & out.
Thank you, mods, ’cause my points today are actually interesting, not just mocking! 😀
Dont Say FLA
December 20, 2023 at 10:08 am
“Sways” is not the right word for what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I apologize for that misrepresenation. It was accidental and I am self correcting right here:
Without the popular votes of Colorado’s MAGAs, Trump loses millions of votes off the popular vote which does, in fact, matter, because it DICTATES (not sways) the electoral votes for every state in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
NPVIC states don’t merely lean (or sway) their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It’s winner take all. The winner of the national popular vote gets ALL the electoral votes for ALL the states in the NPVIC.
The NPVIC’s effect on this Trump situation was likely not envisioned or foreseen, but it is remarkable. It forces Trump to take the risk of actually going to SCOTUS, and not just falsely claiming like Giuliani that he’ll make his case in court (which was my first thought about Trump’s promise to appeal to SCOTUS)
JD
December 20, 2023 at 1:15 pm
Upvote on all of these.
Dont Say FLA
December 20, 2023 at 9:25 am
While my full comment at length awaits moderation, I will say one thing:
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact makes this issue more complicated than it is at face value. Colorado is a Democrat state, but they give all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
Earl Pitts "Your Roving SNN Reporter" American
December 20, 2023 at 9:33 am
Good Morn’ting Dont Say,
Just a quick heads up my Besty Lefty;
There is an exciting new news network named the “Sage News Network (SNN)”. You should “check it out”.
EPA
Dont Say FLA
December 20, 2023 at 9:57 am
Hey pops. Haven’t spoke in a while Thanks for the recommendation. I tried to “check it out,” but it was banned up at Mossy Pond Park Liberry.
Dont Say FLA
December 20, 2023 at 10:01 am
I hit the interwebs and found a Canada website for Sage News Network SNN but their most recent stories are dated back in 2017. How does one access the “Sage News Network (SNN)” you found that’s new?
Earl Pitts "Your Roving SNN Reporter" American
December 20, 2023 at 10:06 am
Well right now, my beloved son/daughter My SNN is just rolling out. As of now its just here on Florida Politics courtsey of our beloved F. P. and our main man Peter and his competant staff.
Thank you your Dad who loves you
Dont Say FLA
December 20, 2023 at 10:21 am
Hmm. Have to say, “N” is just not a good letter for the acronym for any right-leaning organization, propaganda or otherwise.
Too many negative N words out there. First that comes to mind is “Nazis,” as in “Shit Nosed Nazis”.
The potential for mockery is infinite, but I will never mock my pops or his endeavors.
My Take
December 20, 2023 at 10:09 am
Trump and his trash are what “attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy.”
Election Interference
December 20, 2023 at 10:34 am
Turmp is correct that it’s all election interference, but it was his own election interference. Now it’s just prosecution of election interference.
When murderers are prosecuted, do folks claim the prosecution to be murderers? Did prosecutors rob the bank when they prosecute a bank robber? LOL. NO.
Would Trump be prosecuted for his own election interference had he not done that? No.
Trump abstaining from election interference would have been not merely a defense to these court proceedings. These proceedings never would have been brought had Trump not did what he did.
Trump interfered. Prosecution of the many cases against him for his interference are, yes, technically going to interfere in the next election, but Trump owns all the interference. He did it. They’re just prosecuting what he did.
If he hadn’t done it, none of this would be happening, just like every G0P President before him never saw this happening to them because they didn’t do what Trump did.
Felons Can't Have Guns
December 20, 2023 at 10:48 am
Can a convicted felon be President of the USA?
Hilariously, due to federal law enacted after Civil Rights, along with outlawing weed in an attempt to suppress black folk, NO.
Felons can’t have guns, but the US President is Commander in Chief of the US military which puts him in charge of millions of guns, plus battleships, tanks, submarines, missiles, drones, etc, none of which a convicted felon is allowed to control.
One felony conviction will ban Trump from being Commander in Chief, and it’s very ironically thanks to the racism of the 1960s. Why the irony? Because Trump strongly supported all of the racist laws that got enacted in response to the Civil Rights movement.
Hilarious!
My Take
December 20, 2023 at 11:38 pm
No TRAITORS allowed, Trumpsuckers.
Deal with it.
Comments are closed.