• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

US Supreme Courts rules Trump to be on Colorado ballot

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Donald Trump in a historic case challenging his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado that would kick Trump off the ballot under the provision after a state trial court found he participated in "insurrection" on Jan. 6 through incitement.

“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States," the unsigned Supreme Court opinion read. "The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”

Supreme Court rules Trump can stay on Colorado ballot in historic 14th Amendment case
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Donald Trump in a historic case challenging his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado that would kick Trump off the ballot under the provision after a state trial court found he participated in "insurrection" on Jan. 6 through incitement.

“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States," the unsigned Supreme Court opinion read. "The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”

Supreme Court rules Trump can stay on Colorado ballot in historic 14th Amendment case
Finally some sense.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
This seems a significant example of the lack of the separation of powers in the American governmental system.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States,
An interesting precedent. Until now, I was under the impression that it was in the sole responsibility of the States to conduct their elections. There are already many differences, elections vs. town halls, open vs. closed primaries, winner takes all vs. split EC votes. Some States even contemplated to skip the primaries and nominate the electoral delegates.
That might all be obsolete if Congress decides to regulate that all from Washington. A bad day for State's rights.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Donald Trump in a historic case challenging his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado that would kick Trump off the ballot under the provision after a state trial court found he participated in "insurrection" on Jan. 6 through incitement.

“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States," the unsigned Supreme Court opinion read. "The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”

Supreme Court rules Trump can stay on Colorado ballot in historic 14th Amendment case
Good decision. An insurrection is a crime against the nation. How can a state rule if a crime against the nation has been committed or not?
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
They are seperated in this case. Why are they not? If Biden had his way Trump would be off the ballot. It seems the separation of powers is working here.
Aren't the members of the Supreme Court there by the nomination of the President (rubber stamped by the Senate) ? If so that is a fundamental flaw imo (whoever the President is).
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado that would kick Trump off the ballot under the provision after a state trial court found he participated in "insurrection" on Jan. 6 through incitement.
That it was unanimous is, I think, a good thing.
That it was unprecedented is simply one of the more recent indications of MAGA's unique malignancy.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
An interesting precedent. Until now, I was under the impression that it was in the sole responsibility of the States to conduct their elections. There are already many differences, elections vs. town halls, open vs. closed primaries, winner takes all vs. split EC votes. Some States even contemplated to skip the primaries and nominate the electoral delegates.
That might all be obsolete if Congress decides to regulate that all from Washington. A bad day for State's rights.
Federal law governs Federal elections. Just as the Court ruled.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Aren't the members of the Supreme Court there by the nomination of the President (rubber stamped by the Senate) ? If so that is a fundamental flaw imo (whoever the President is).
Actually all members of the Supreme Court ruled the same way, including the Democrat nominated Justices; 9 to 0.

If the Democrat Party continues to ignore the law of the land, can they be tried for seditious conspiracy? Can the entire DNC be charged with seditious conspiracy in they continue to run scams that disregard the law and the Constitution?

If you run an angle that gets shot down by the Courts, that is a scam and planned election interference. It is like going into a store, trying on a watch and walking out. If caught, you pretend you forgot. If not caught you steal. Maybe going forward how about the DNC has to pay for the watch; pay all legal expenses that they create, with their seditious conspiracies.

Insurrection refers to acts of violence, but it's not the only charge that could apply. Seditious conspiracy, for example, is an effort to overthrow the United States
government. People can be charged with sedition and conspiracy even if they never carry out the planned violence.

Was the Russian Collusion Coup an example of seditious conspiracy? The DNC tried to over throw a duly elected President. When caught, they claimed they forgot the watch was still on; no punishment. Was the 14th Amendment angle also attempted seditious conspired theft? In the 2020 election, there was FBI censorship, which is not Constitutional. Dd they forget about that watch too? Was that sedition? Biden also used compromised retired intel people to claim the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian Disinformation, knowing it was real. This interfered in the election based on all polls. That was a Rolex theft.

There is a long list of coordinate actions, by the DNC, intel agencies, DOJ and fake news, that include not enforcing immigration laws, harming national security and US sovereignty. Is that sedition? All the DNC controlled state Kangaroo Courts are in violation of the Constitution, since a fair trail is not possible. Is this action by the DNC, sedition? There is not just one act, to be called coincidence, but a long series of connected seditious conspiracies. The DNC had four years to go after Citizen Trump, so why they wait for for Trump to declare so it could become election interference? Is that sedition. Or is the entire pattern of crimes; stolen watches, sedition?

Say concerned citizens saw an earlier patten of seditious conspiracy behavior, and revolved against the cabal of seditious conspiracists stealing the election with censorship and disinformation about the Hunter Biden Laptop. Would that be an insurrection, if the goal was to prevent further crimes and sedition from occurring? Has more sedition occurred since the Capital Riots, by very people who claimed that this resistance to more sedition, was an insurrection?

As a loose analogy, say someone had been able to gain power by seditious conspiracy, and then they and the Cabal use that power to harass witnesses and tamper with evidence, so the known crimes can be denied, delayed and otherwise not be properly or timely prosecuted. Say there was a citizen uprising, against this forming banana republic, would that be an insurrection, or would be called the action of freedom fighters?

Say the forces of the freedom fighters was not sufficient to over throw the cabal, so the Cabal now could use kangaroo courts, to call the patriots criminals and the freedom fighting, an insurrection, is that the end of it? Did this ever go before the Supreme Court, to make the final call, or did the seditious conspiracy prevent that and then just throw people in jail?

Say the seditious conspiracy also involved the Kangaroo courts of Delaware and NYC, that the Cabal has put charge of NE election interference; phases of the bigger sedition. Since they already have a forgone partisan conclusion, even before any trial, can they claim this is a fair trial, and that is it, if the Injustice Department is also part of the sedition conspiracy?

We can list the seditious activities, and we can keep track of new and continuing sedition.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Aren't the members of the Supreme Court there by the nomination of the President (rubber stamped by the Senate) ? If so that is a fundamental flaw imo (whoever the President is).
It is not rubber stamped. There have been many justices that have not been confirmed by the senate but I see your point. The fact that justices are there for life and the President is not mitigates that a bit.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Keeping Trump off ballots was never more than a gesture even if it succeeded. For starters, the states that wanted to do that were likely not going to go red or furnish Trump with electors whether he appeared on their ballots or not.

Furthermore, Trump doesn't need to be on the ballot for MAGA to vote for him.

The net effect was another slap at Trump, like the two impeachments that didn't produce convictions. Several states have gone on record calling Trump an insurrectionist. It becomes part of his biography now, along with being twice impeached, twice losing the popular vote, a failed coup attempt, a failed pandemic response, being officially designated a rapist in court, being issued gag orders, losing well over a half billion in civil cases, and soon, untold numbers of felonies for election tampering, campaign finance fraud, insurrection, and stealing, hiding, and sharing sensitive secrets.
 

Brickjectivity

Brick Block
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes: unanimous is good. The result makes sense, too; but I never thought it would reach the supreme court. I thought they would decline to take the case.
 
Top