Category Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Colorado “Insurrection” Ballot Eligibility Case

Mar 5 2024

Crying over the Supreme Court Decision – Get Over It


Posted originally on Mar 4, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Crying

Some critics are obviously anti-Trump who have come out crying that’s really unusual for the Court to give such little notice that they would release a decision. They are indeed crying that this was because of Super Tuesday and therefore they are trying to support Trump.

Let me explain something here to these absolutely biased idiots. Let’s say the Supreme Court waited until May or June to release its decision, and you have Colorado, Maine, and Illinois who blocked Trump. Then what would happen? The entire 2024 election might be seriously impacted and then challenged in court in another array of suits. They had to rule, and it was UNANIMOUS before Super Tuesday to avoid a constitutional crisis. EVERYONE on the court agreed – Colorado had no such jurisdiction – PERIOD!

GET OVER IT!

THIS WAS NOT A 5-4 DECISION

IT WAS UNANIMOUS

Trump v Anderson My Amicus Brief-F

As I wrote in my Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court, the last time any state refused to allow a candidate on the ballot was 1860 when Abraham Lincoln did not appear on the ballots in the South. What followed? The Civil War.

The Founding Fathers never intended to allow a rogue state to interfere in either national commerce or national federal elections, as implied in the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause
3 of the U.S. Constitution. Could Colorado remove a senator or congressman of another state claiming that they were part of the January 6th event they called an unarmed insurrection? There is no jurisdiction for a single state to remove a national candidate from the ballot – PERIOD! Assuming such power would mean they too could interfere in the commerce of other states. That would lead to complete chaos. Even Sotomayor, the favorite of the Democrats, wrote clearly:

“Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.”

Brainwash Menticide

Anyone who cannot see that is so biased; they no longer have a functioning brain cell. They have been so brainwashed, they are no longer competent even to vote. We are either a nation with a national identity or a patchwork of states that no longer should pretend to be united.

Mar 5 2024

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Removing Trump from the Ballots


Posted Mar 4, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 
Trump_v._Anderson_03_04_2024_

Trump v Colorado Decision

COMMENT: Marty, the Supreme Court bought your argument that there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the states to remove Trump from the ballot. Even the Democrats on the Court unanimously agreed that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. You were right.

“This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency”

BP

REPLY: If this had not been political nonsense, it was a case that should have been dismissed as frivolous. A court is supposed FIRST to determine if it has the jurisdiction to hear the case. This was such a biased maneuver by those who brought the actions and the judges involved that it illustrates more than anything how BROKEN and MORALLY CORRUPT our legal system has become. It is no more trustworthy today than it was in Rome before the fall.

As I submitted to the Court, there cannot be such jurisdiction to allow one state to prejudice a national election for all. Under the precedents, those involved committed a crime because their motive was to interfere in the 2024 election. These people are only concerned on winning at all costs and to keep the prospect for war alive. They advocated the overthrow of the government, which is the very thing they have accused Trump of.

As I wrote to the Court, allowing a single state to interfere in a national election undermines the very structure of the Constitution. One rogue state cannot block everyone else in the country from voting. Elections are for the people to decide – not backroom deals and conspiracys of bureaucrats seeking to retain power.

Even the concurring opinion of Sotomayor agreed there is no state jurisdiction to enforce the 14th Amendment. She wrote:

“Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.”

“The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. “

Feb 14 2024

Trump v Colorado – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction


Posted originally on Feb 13, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Trump_v_Anderson_My_Amicus_Brief

Trump v Anderson My Amicus Brief-F

QUESTION: Your argument on the Commerce Clause is spot on, I believe. Why do the lawyers involved in the Colorado case removing Trump does not grasp the structure of the Constitution as you do? They admit that ruling in favor of Colorado would result in national chaos. Your analysis of the Commerce Clause demonstrates that the writers of the Constitution understood such a result would break the union. Any comment on this oversight would be greatly appreciated.

BW

ANSWER: Sometimes, lawyers focus too intently because statutory law is wordsmithing. They are arguing if Trump is an officer when they should be looking at the subject matter jurisdiction of the law. I have had to study law from a global perspective, looking at its evolution from ancient times to the present. Continental Europe followed Canon Law, whereas England created Common Law. There are huge differences such as under French law, not even your brother-in-law can be compelled to testify against you, whereas under English Common Law, the king is ruthless, so the only one with such a privilege is a spouse. They can throw your children in prison on contempt until they testify against a parent. We do not respect the family unit, whereas, under Canon Law, anyone related by marriage is covered.

I was so appalled that the oral arguments were focused on wordsmithing I decided to submit my own Amicus Curiae brief. The Court is not supposed to raise an argument that is not presented. They will probably reject it because it was after oral argument. But if they want a clean escape that is constitutionally correct rather than not addressing the issue directly, then just maybe they might make an exception and accept a Pro Se Amicus. It might be a first, anyway.

Feb 9 2024

Oral Argument in Supreme Court Trump v Colorado


Posted originally on Feb 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Sup Ct Oral Argument Trump v Colorado

Feb 3 2024

Supreme Court Grants Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold 10 Minutes to Justify Her Position on Disqualifying President Trump From Ballot


Posted originally on the CTH on February 2, 2024 | Sundance 

Apparently the Lawfare crew have been working and coaching overtime to give Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold a framework to explain to the Supreme Court how Colorado’s very specific election laws allow for presidential candidates to be disqualified despite meeting all constitutional requirements.  State Solicitor General Sharon Stevenson would be the legal mind representing Jena Griswold. This should be an interesting attempt.

Griswold asked the Supreme Court for 15 minutes to explain how Colorado law supersedes the U.S. Constitution.  In an order announced earlier today [pdf here], the court has granted Ms. Griswold 10 minutes to make her case.  The oral arguments will take place on Thursday, February 8th.

[Source Link]

President Trump’s attorneys will have 40 minutes.  The Lawfare group “Colorado voters”, funded by CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), will have 30 minutes, and the Colorado Secretary of State will have 10 minutes.

(Via MSN) – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear directly from Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold next week as it considers an appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision finding former President Donald Trump ineligible for the state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.

The Supreme Court granted Griswold’s request to speak during oral arguments in an order Friday that allotted her 10 minutes. The justices also will hear from lawyers for Trump and the Colorado voters who challenged his eligibility during Thursday’s hearing in Washington, D.C. (read more)

Jan 6 2024

Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Can Be Removed from Ballots


Posted originally on Jan 5, 2024 By Martin Armstrong

Alaska Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can be prevented from standing for president because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. This is fantastic news, for we need the Supreme Court to decide this question simply for the sanity of the nation. The Court acknowledged they need to reach a decision quickly, given the fact that primary ballots across the country will begin soon. The court agreed to take the case from Colorado stemming from Trump’s role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol.

I seriously doubt that many will accept the Supreme Court decision. As I have said, “insurrection” would have required Trump to violently attack the capital. Even proposing a violent attack on the sidelines is sedition, but that is not covered in the 14th Amendment. It is a fairly basic law that you cannot violate the Constitution by pretending to uphold one provision. Trump was not trying to overthrow the Constitution, he was asserting that he really won. That is not the same as “insurrection” in the context of the Civil War, which was to overthrow the Constitution.

I personally would be shocked if the Supreme Court agreed and kicked Trump off the ballot. It would be a very dark day for such a precedent to allow anyone to make such an allegation, never charge the person, and never put them on trial to prove their theory. That would be the end of the United States and the Constitution, regardless of who is running. We just cannot go there.

Of course, if the Supreme Court overrules Colorado, the LEFT will claim it did so because most are Republicans. I am not sure if the Supreme Court’s decision would be accepted any more than the final vote in November.

It’s getting worse. Pennsylvania Congressman Scott Perry is also the target to remove him from the ballot because of claims he violated the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment Insurrection Clause by simply supporting Trump’s “false” 2020 election fraud claims. So, anyone who supported Trump in Washington they want removed from office. This is not what democracy is about – it’s totalitarianism. You are talking revolution at that point if there is absolutely no rule of law left.