In an effort to somehow try and take Trump out of the 2024 election, the Colorado Supreme Court just made him far more popular. Even Biden’s advisors should have him make a statement to stop this as the people are going to turn out for the Donald even more.
These people think they are all bold by trying to not allow him to run, but he’ll be on the ballot and even more electable. If by chance they succeed, watch both his write in vote in Colorado and the vote in all the other states skyrocket.
Even if you don’t like him, people know this is just get even-ism and childish behavior. If they can pull it on him, they can screw the general public even more. No one wants that.
—
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot appear on the state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot “because he engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.”
“A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” wrote the court. “Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
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.
The Colorado Supreme Court just happened to remind people that justices don’t have to be Originalists. After all, if you stick with the plain language in the Constitution you cannot bend it to your will and agenda (I took out the notations):
If the language is clear and unambiguous, then we enforce it as written, and we need not turn to other tools of construction. However, if the provision’s language is reasonably susceptible of multiple interpretations, then it is ambiguous, and we may consider “the textual, structural, and historical evidence put forward by the parties,” and we will construe the provision “in light of the objective sought to be achieved and the mischief to be avoided.”
Section 3 is not ambiguous. Like 99% of the rest of the Constitution it is crystal clear: You cannot hold office if you engaged in an insurrection or rebellion.
Let’s look at the word engaged. Merriam-Webster has six definitions of engaged. The two that best matches the word in section three are “involved in activity” and “involved especially in a hostile encounter.”
I look at the thesaurus to get a deeper understanding of a word.
Strongest synonyms of engaged as a verb “as in start a fight; attack:” face, meet.
Strongest synonyms of engaged as a verb “as in interconnect; bring into operation:” join, lock.
Delusions of Adequacy 