> As an outsider I guess I just don't understand the intention of removing
> Trump from the CO ballot when he has not been tried or convicted of an
> offense? How is this at all legal?

I am a Republican who is trying to take emotion out of it.

The case was not brought by Democrats but was apparently initially brought
forth by the Colorado Republican Electors who questioned whether or not
Trump should be on their ballot per the US 14th Amendment, which removes the
rights of persons involved in insurrection from holding office -- this
amendment was put into place to prevent Civil War era Southern politicians
from holding office after the war.

There was a court case that included testimony and Trump lawyers, so Trump
did indeed have due process.  The lower court ruled that Trump was certainly
an insurrectionist but that the Colorado SoS did NOT have the authority to
remove him from the ballot.  BOTH parties, the party that brought the case
AND Trump's team, asked the Supreme Court in Colorado to review.  So,
again, more due process.

As part of the review, they cited a 2012 case where then Judge and now US
Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch ruled that Colorado could remove from
the state ballot a candidate who was not eligible to hold the office of
President per the US Constitution -- in this case, he was not a natural
born citizen.

The Colorado Supreme Court concluded 4-3 that the lower court was correct in
labeling Trump an insurrectionist BUT that the lower court was incorrect about
ballot removal.  They ruled that Trump was not eligible to hold future office,
per the 14th Amendment, and that the Colorado SoS therefore had a legal
obligation to remove him from the ballot.

The desenting opition was that Trump has yet to be convicted of
insurrection and therefore was not in violation of the 14th Amendment.  So
they are questioning due process from that angle.

Trump has appealed to the Supreme Court.

IMHO, there are three possible outcomes here:

(1) The Court can rule that he is not an insurectionist -- this is the only
way out I really see -- and therefore is eligible to hold office per
the 14th Amendment;
(2) They can uphold the lower courts in agreeing that he is/may be an
insurrectionist but that the 14th Amendment does not apply to him -- this
one would be dangerous as he was a sworn officer of the US so it almost has
to apply.  This was part of the lower court's initial decision -- that it
did not apply;
(3) They can, per the Amendment, kick it back to Congress to decide.
Congress can reinstate a candidates right to hold office by a 2/3rds
majority vote in both houses -- as the Republicans don't hold a majority in
the Senate, I don't see this working out for Trump.

To read the whole court ruling, see here:
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1220583273/tru...

I don't agree that he is an insurrectionist so that is where I question the
ruling.


 * SLMR 2.1a * "I will lower taxes!" (Pause) "Psyche!!!" - Bill Clinton
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)