The Colorado Supreme court issued a statement whereby they would keep former President Donald Trump off the primary ballot. While they disagreed with the lower court that he should stay, they agreed that he had intended to commit insurrection and therefore he should be disqualified from running for President.
While many supporters are outraged by the findings of the court, Democrats support this usurpation of the constitution. We will lay out the actual court documents and discuss why this is a dangerous precedent. First off, the decision of the Colorado Supreme court is written like a piece of tissue paper. Offering them a monopoly "get out of jail free" card when the US Supreme Court rules. Page 8 and 9 state: "But for our resolution of the Electors’ challenge under the Election Code, the Secretary would be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot. Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court"
Also one should take into consideration the following posted by VivaFrei of http://vivabarneslaw.locals.com:
1) Trump was never convicted of “insurrection”
2) No one involved in Jan. 6 was convicted of “insurrection”
3) Trump was never charged with “insurrection”
4) No one involved in Jan. 6 was charged with “insurrection”
5) Trump was acquitted on the 2nd impeachment on charges that related to the events of Jan. 6
6) The 14th Amendment Sec. 3 does not apply to the President.
Nevertheless, Democrats Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff consistently emphasize the decision as a cornerstone in upholding democracy. In a democratic system where citizens are prohibited from voting for their preferred candidate due to opinions lacking factual support, such a scenario hardly aligns with democratic principles.
In the United States, eligibility criteria for individuals aspiring to run for the presidency are established by the U.S. Constitution. As per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, candidates must meet the following requirements:
Natural-Born Citizen: Candidates must be natural-born citizens of the United States.
At Least 35 Years Old: Candidates must be at least 35 years old.
Resident for 14 Years: Candidates must have been residents within the United States for at least 14 years.
If an individual satisfies these criteria, they are legally qualified to pursue the presidency. It's important to note that the Constitution does not specify any requirements related to criminal investigations or convictions for presidential candidates.
In addition, we believe that this is a partisan issue. Brought forth by a group named CREW (Citizens for Responsibilty and Ethics), "CREW has received financial support from several left-leaning foundations and organizations including the Arca Foundation, the David Geffen Foundation, Democracy Alliance, the Mayberg Family Charitable Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Institute, the Sheller Family Foundation, the Streisand Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Wallace Global Fund, and the Woodbury Fund." This group successfully campaigned to remove Trump from the ballot.
Interestingly enough, despite that all the Judges on the Colorado State Supreme Court, three of seven judges disagreed with the decision despite supporting the Democrat party. Remarkably, those three had received their law degree from a Colorado law school. Four of the Judges attended Harvard, Penn, Yale and Virginia. Begging the question, what are they teaching lawyers on the east coast?
The outcry from the Republican party is strong. Vivek Ramaswamy presidential contender explains it best.
Democratic Presidential contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr. chimed in with:
With years of screaming about unfounded Russian Collusion, the impeachment of President Trump because of a lightly worded request from Zelenskyy to look at Crowd Strike, a second impeachment of Trump over speaking about election interference, for which there were unaddressed allegations of voter irregularities, and numerous accusations that Trump was "literally Hitler" from the Democrats and the media, Americans have had enough.
Despite the attempt to label the occurrences of January 6th where a peaceful crowd turned into riot after police shot rubber bullets and tear gas at the crowd, an insurrection is a distortion of the truth.
Media in its current form, the can be an influential force in shaping public and political opinions. The relationship between the media and politicians is complex, and media coverage can contribute to the development of narratives, influence public discourse, and impact political decision-making.
The media plays a role in setting the agenda by determining which issues receive attention and how they are framed. Politicians often respond to media coverage by prioritizing certain issues over others, which can influence public perception and shape political discourse.
Politicians are often responsive to public opinion, and the media can shape public attitudes through its coverage. If the media emphasizes divisive issues or amplifies polarized perspectives, it can contribute to the polarization of public opinion and political discourse.
Media outlets with distinct ideological leanings may contribute to political polarization by framing issues in ways that align with their editorial perspectives. This polarization can create an environment conducive to civil disputes, as differing political camps may become more entrenched in their views.
The media's tendency to prioritize sensational or controversial stories can amplify conflicts, contributing to an environment where disputes are magnified and tensions heightened.
If media outlets selectively report on events, providing biased coverage that favors one side of a dispute, it can contribute to distorted public perceptions and exacerbate grievances.
Given that the media is acting as the echo chamber for the Democrat party, it is easy to see that they are pushing Americans into direct conflict. We can only pray that more level heads prevail.
In this mix of opinion and law, we passionately advocate for the right of everyone to express their views, even if they differ. In the face of a glaring infringement on Americans' First Amendment Rights orchestrated by high-ranking government officials, we remain steadfast in delivering what we believe is crucial for you to shape decisions about your life. If our articles resonate with you, a thumbs up would mean the world. For those who truly appreciate our content, consider sharing it with your circle. And, in a world where every dollar can make a difference, if you have the means, a humble $1 donation through Cash App at $WecuNews helps us keep our mission alive.
We leave you with this:
Commentaires