President Trump
- Thread starter bobs409
- Start date
Ain't that the truth....wake up folks....
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of a Colorado ruling disqualifying him from the 2024 ballot on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This ruling not only alters the trajectory of the upcoming presidential race but also signifies a momentous reaffirmation of the Constitution amidst a climate of intense division and skepticism about the Court’s impartiality.
In an atmosphere charged with anticipation and the weight of historical consequence, the Supreme Court confronted the contentious issue of whether Donald Trump, accused of engaging in an insurrection on January 6, 2021, could be disqualified from holding office based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This clause, a relic from the tumultuous post-Civil War era, bars individuals who have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and later engaged in insurrection from holding federal office.
The Court’s fast-tracking of the case underscored the urgency of the matter, as Trump had secured early victories in primary states, positioning him as the Republican front runner. If the court upholds the Colorado decision, it will remove Trump from the ballot not just in Colorado but also in other states — disqualification challenges are pending in Massachusetts and over 30 other states. The court’s ruling could therefore shape the result of the November election and the next four years.
The decision is particularly noteworthy as it was supported by justices appointed by Trump himself. This suggests that the justices have distanced their judicial responsibilities from the president who nominated them, demonstrating a commitment to originalist principles over partisan considerations. As one opinion piece highlighted, “By affirming the Colorado decision, the Trump-appointed justices would make it clear that they are not merely rubber-stamps for the president who propelled them through the Senate.”
This ruling, therefore, has far-reaching implications beyond the immediate political ramifications. It could signify a pivotal moment in the Supreme Court’s history, one where the Court’s role as an institution upholding constitutional tenets over political affiliations is reinforced. The Court’s decision to adhere to the Constitution’s provisions on disqualification may indeed help reconstruct its legitimacy, which has been battered by accusations of politicization in recent years.
Moreover, the ruling has the potential to reshape the political field for the 2024 election. With Trump potentially off the ballot, the Republican Party may see the rise of a new front runner and a possible return to traditional conservative values. This could prompt a realignment of the GOP and a shift in the dynamics of the electoral race, where issues and ideas might prevail over the polarization that has characterized the Trump era.
In an atmosphere charged with anticipation and the weight of historical consequence, the Supreme Court confronted the contentious issue of whether Donald Trump, accused of engaging in an insurrection on January 6, 2021, could be disqualified from holding office based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This clause, a relic from the tumultuous post-Civil War era, bars individuals who have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and later engaged in insurrection from holding federal office.
The Court’s fast-tracking of the case underscored the urgency of the matter, as Trump had secured early victories in primary states, positioning him as the Republican front runner. If the court upholds the Colorado decision, it will remove Trump from the ballot not just in Colorado but also in other states — disqualification challenges are pending in Massachusetts and over 30 other states. The court’s ruling could therefore shape the result of the November election and the next four years.
The decision is particularly noteworthy as it was supported by justices appointed by Trump himself. This suggests that the justices have distanced their judicial responsibilities from the president who nominated them, demonstrating a commitment to originalist principles over partisan considerations. As one opinion piece highlighted, “By affirming the Colorado decision, the Trump-appointed justices would make it clear that they are not merely rubber-stamps for the president who propelled them through the Senate.”
This ruling, therefore, has far-reaching implications beyond the immediate political ramifications. It could signify a pivotal moment in the Supreme Court’s history, one where the Court’s role as an institution upholding constitutional tenets over political affiliations is reinforced. The Court’s decision to adhere to the Constitution’s provisions on disqualification may indeed help reconstruct its legitimacy, which has been battered by accusations of politicization in recent years.
Moreover, the ruling has the potential to reshape the political field for the 2024 election. With Trump potentially off the ballot, the Republican Party may see the rise of a new front runner and a possible return to traditional conservative values. This could prompt a realignment of the GOP and a shift in the dynamics of the electoral race, where issues and ideas might prevail over the polarization that has characterized the Trump era.
Did Trump cause an insurrection or did the government? My brother in law was a few blocks away from where Trump was giving his speech. Three buses escorted by State Highway Patrol came through. BIL saw the people get off the bus.....all dressed as Trump supporters carrying flags ect. BIL thought they were antifa.....I SAY THEY WERE FBI....THEY SURE AS HELL DIDN'T ESCORT TRUMP SUPPORTERS IN LIKE THAT. MORE TREASON.
WERE THEY THERE TO HELP OR TO FRAME TRUMP?
WHY WOULD PELOSI TURN DOWN TRUMPS REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD TO BE PRESENT?
Let's follow the Constitution and remove Biden from office and the ballot for his treasonous border policies. He took an oath.
It's just asinine that the SOCUS ruled against the razor wire in Texas.
Oh, never mind......
WERE THEY THERE TO HELP OR TO FRAME TRUMP?
WHY WOULD PELOSI TURN DOWN TRUMPS REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD TO BE PRESENT?
Let's follow the Constitution and remove Biden from office and the ballot for his treasonous border policies. He took an oath.
It's just asinine that the SOCUS ruled against the razor wire in Texas.
Oh, never mind......
Last edited:
I would think that the Supreme Count will make their decision solely on whether an individual that has not yet been convicted of a crime can be removed from the ballot because they were being investigated of a crime. I really don't think the Court will get into the matter of the "insurrection" because there has been no lower court decision regarding guilt. If that were the case, it would open the door to have Joe Biden removed from the ballots also.
Last edited:
wristpin
Well Known Member
That polarization was flamed with fuel by that ass wipe POS Obama and Biden. Liberals can suck my ass
Free sent to you. Border will be spelled correctly. Limit 4. PM your address.
FJB
FJB
Hey liberal. Can you show me exactly and precisely please, any legal document ( not liberal infused hate, insanity, falsified documents etc. but legal US court filing of ) showing Trump with being charged with Insurrection? I cannot find it.
Hey know it all, all it is, is information too hopefully get a speedy answer from the SCOTUS and move on. You won't know a liberal if it bit you in the A##
I seem to recognize you
By the way liberal, where is the charge of insurrection? I notice that whenever your post are challenged with facts, you redirect, call names, don't reply. Trump may have been charged with insurrection, I don't know, but I cannot find it. You seem to be saying he was. I ask you again, where is it? Please show me where it is, or stop repeating what you are being told to say by you political party.
You don't have any facts and I don't have any facts, we both just have opinions. It's Jack Smith's job too have the facts (in trumps indictment) and trumps defense team too dispute. As for states for ballot removal it's their job too have the facts and again trumps defense team to dispute and the SCOTUS in it's decision making on the 14th amendment/ballot removal and moving on.I seem to recognize you
I don't trust their "facts", one point being the recent rape trial. A stacked deck is not JUSTICE. The woman couldn't recall where or when the rape supposedly happened or any details. The judge wouldn't let the defense tell their side of the story. That is facts and justice????
There's a reason people are crying "lawfare" and it's not just about Trump.
Wondering why Pelosi denied Trump the National Guard he asked for on J6? There were some very peculiar events on J6. Pipe bombs for one. How much FBI involvement? I believe the left will do anything to keep Trump out of the Oval Office, anything, including snuffing him.....
There's a reason people are crying "lawfare" and it's not just about Trump.
Wondering why Pelosi denied Trump the National Guard he asked for on J6? There were some very peculiar events on J6. Pipe bombs for one. How much FBI involvement? I believe the left will do anything to keep Trump out of the Oval Office, anything, including snuffing him.....
Here are some facts liberal, see section 3. Where is Trump being charged with insurrection as you and your people claim?
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
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.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.