Colorado’s Trump ban: An anti-democratic move in the name of democracy

Comments

• PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  It’s being cheered by Democrats, who bill themselves as the pro-democracy party, yet are supporting an anti-democratic act that deprives voters of the right to choose.

  It’s anti-democratic…because it “deprives voters of the right to choose”?! Ahahahaha!

  Imagine the reaction if a state court had barred President Biden from the ballot based on some legal theory about his conduct in office.

  What if Trump wasn’t barred because of some legal theory about his conduct, but-and this is crucial-because of his actual conduct? The theory came before Trump’s conduct. Colorado justices are merely applying the theory to it. That’s basically it.

  “Unsurprisingly,” a campaign spokesman said, “the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.”

  Unsurprisingly, it’s potentially the 14th Amendment that removes voters rights to vote for a traitor. A slap to in the face to tens of millions of Trump supporters that maybe, no one should have the right to vote for an insurrectionist. That’s literally why the 14th Amendment was passed.

  source

  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    14th Amendment, Section 3 (Disqualification for Rebellion or Insurrection):

    “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.”

    Article III, Section 3 (Definition of Treason):

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

    source
  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    One thing im curious about. If Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was going to run for president, but states ruled he was ineligible because of the rules in the constitution, would that also be depriving voters of the right to choose? What if a 20 year old wanted to run?

    source

    • Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The constitution says you have to be born in the United States to be president, but the constitution does not specifically preclude those who are born again in Christ while present in the United States from holding the office. As for the 20 year old, I’m sure that if they identify as a 35 year old it would be wrong to not accept them on their own terms.

      Still, I agree with the assertion that it’s not up to states.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • NewPhoneWhoDys@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I wonder how the SCOTUS will rule on it…

    source

    • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I very curious. Not just on the decision but what path they use. I’ve seen presidents were intentionally excluded. I’ve seen states don’t have the authority, only congress. I’ve seen Trump didn’t violate the 14th. Etc etc.

      source
• wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I am waiting to see what SCOTUS says. I’ve read many articles with many different opinions.

  source