Trump will be back on the Colorado Ballot

[Animal]

According to a review by esteemed attorneys at Dotsky, Moran and Definition Law Firm, they have carefully reviewed the case before the Supreme Court regarding Donald J Trump and the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court to ban him from the primary ballot in Colorado.

At issue is whether the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” bars Trump from appearing on the ballot because of his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

According to the definition, as found by Dotsky, Moran and Definition, this DOES NOT apply to Donald J Trump and the Colorado case BECAUSE, it specifically says "no person shall.....hold any office". It does not say "be on a ballot". And being on a ballot is not the same as holding an office.

Therefore, they will have to vote to strike down the Colorado ruling and allow Trump back on the Ballot. A victory for Definitions!

[Reservoir Dog]

But not being on a ballot is the MEANS by which to enforce "no person shall.....hold any office".

[Animal]

But not being on a ballot is the MEANS by which to enforce "no person shall.....hold any office".

if you have to change the argument to an election, you fail. argue the definition, which clearly states that this only applies to people holding an office. Not being on a ballot.

[Reservoir Dog]

But not being on a ballot is the MEANS by which to enforce "no person shall.....hold any office".

if you have to change the argument to an election, you fail. argue the definition, which clearly states that this only applies to people holding an office. Not being on a ballot.

Hey, don't get me wrong... there's no doubt in my mind that the court will throw all this out and Trump will stay on the ballots.

But I think it might be a tad bit more complicated than you're trying to make it out to be.

[Animal]

But not being on a ballot is the MEANS by which to enforce "no person shall.....hold any office".

if you have to change the argument to an election, you fail. argue the definition, which clearly states that this only applies to people holding an office. Not being on a ballot.

Hey, don't get me wrong... there's no doubt in my mind that the court will throw all this out and Trump will stay on the ballots.

But I think it might be a tad bit more complicated than you're trying to make it out to be.

again, you are changing the argument. the definition is indisputable. The 14th Amendment clearly only applies to a candidate holding an office not being on a ballot. thanks for losing this argument so easily.

[Reservoir Dog]

But not being on a ballot is the MEANS by which to enforce "no person shall.....hold any office".

if you have to change the argument to an election, you fail. argue the definition, which clearly states that this only applies to people holding an office. Not being on a ballot.

Hey, don't get me wrong... there's no doubt in my mind that the court will throw all this out and Trump will stay on the ballots.

But I think it might be a tad bit more complicated than you're trying to make it out to be.

again, you are changing the argument. the definition is indisputable. The 14th Amendment clearly only applies to a candidate holding an office not being on a ballot. thanks for losing this argument so easily.

Go back and read your thread title. I agreed with you, ya dumb cunt.
Just not for the same reason.

[Animal]

But not being on a ballot is the MEANS by which to enforce "no person shall.....hold any office".

if you have to change the argument to an election, you fail. argue the definition, which clearly states that this only applies to people holding an office. Not being on a ballot.

Hey, don't get me wrong... there's no doubt in my mind that the court will throw all this out and Trump will stay on the ballots.

But I think it might be a tad bit more complicated than you're trying to make it out to be.

again, you are changing the argument. the definition is indisputable. The 14th Amendment clearly only applies to a candidate holding an office not being on a ballot. thanks for losing this argument so easily.

Go back and read your thread title. I agreed with you, ya dumb cunt.
Just not for the same reason.

sorry, Hacker McHackenstein. You can keep trying to change the question all you want. It doesn't change the fact that a definition is exactly what a definition is. a definition. and the definition is that Trump isn't asking to hold any offices. He's only asking to be on a ballot. So, by definition he wins this case. Sure you can think he wins for another reason, but that's a hackers attempt to dodge the argument and lose. which is what you have just done.

[Antknot]

SCOTUS Unanimously Rules States Cannot Disqualify Trump from 2024 Ballot

M

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024 ... 24-ballot/

[CHEEZY17]

The Democrats attempt at subverting democracy has failed. The best part is it was UNANIMOUSLY so they cant even claim its a biased Supreme Court!

[CentralTexasCrude]

Yeah, I totally didn't see that 9-0 decision coming

[QillerDaemon]

I'd agree this is the right decision by the court, as much as I despise Trump to my core. This is one of those decisions meant to keep the sword from swinging both ways. If some states can decide Trump can't be on the ballot, it'd be easy for some red states to declare Biden can't be on the ballot for whatever imagined charges they might find. This is Congress' job for a federal office, and if Congress would actually do their job, Trump would not be eligible to run. It's now the job of the voters, and hopefully they're do what's right in November.

[Biker]

Demoncrats: You have to destroy democracy in order to save democracy

[Antknot]

Supreme Court ‘Must Be Dissolved’: Liberals Melt Down over Ruling that States Can’t Disqualify Trump from Ballots



https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024 ... m-ballots/

[Biker]

[necronomous]

Supreme Court ‘Must Be Dissolved’: Liberals Melt Down over Ruling that States Can’t Disqualify Trump from Ballots



https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024 ... m-ballots/

State rights over federal elections.....that's neat.

[Biker]