CO judge hands down ruling crushing Dem dreams of removing Trump from ballot
Trump should appeal this ruling as the judge ruled that Trump DID participate in insurrection, an obvious misuse of the word as defined by all dictionaries . . .
BY STAFF WRITERS | NOVEMBER 18, 2023 |
2 HOURS AGO
In a landmark decision, a Colorado district court judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump must remain on the state's 2024 presidential ballot. This ruling comes amidst claims that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021.
Judge Sarah Wallace, appointed in 2022, concluded that Trump did engage in insurrection but the Fourteenth Amendment's provisions do not apply to presidential candidates.
The case revolved around the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding federal office. Trump's legal team argued vigorously against these claims, citing the First Amendment to defend Trump's actions and speech.
Historical Context of the Ruling
Judge Wallace's ruling on November 17, 2023, was a significant moment in Trump's ongoing legal battles. Her appointment in 2022 by Democrat Governor Jared Polis added a layer of political intrigue to the case, given the governor's party affiliation.
The lawsuit against Trump's inclusion on the ballot stemmed from the events of January 6, 2021. On this day, Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, an incident that led to Trump's Senate acquittal on charges of insurrection in February 2021.
Despite the Senate's decision, Judge Wallace disagreed with the acquittal, stating in her ruling that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection. However, she found that the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions on holding federal office did not extend to presidential candidates.
The Legal Nuances of the Fourteenth Amendment
The judge's interpretation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the office of the president has sparked debate among legal scholars. This interpretation sets a precedent that may influence similar cases in the future.
Trump's defense hinged on the assertion that his actions were protected under the First Amendment. His lawyers argued that his comments and actions on January 6, 2021, did not constitute incitement or engagement in insurrection.
However, the judge's ruling directly contradicted this defense, finding that Trump did engage in insurrection, a significant legal and political assertion.
Political Implications of the Decision
This decision holds substantial political implications, particularly for those seeking to prevent Trump's participation in future elections. The judge's ruling effectively allows Trump to continue his presidential campaign in Colorado despite the insurrection claims.
Trump has faced similar challenges in other states, but most of these have been dismissed. The Colorado case stands out for its unique legal interpretation and its potential to influence other jurisdictions.
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump, hailed the ruling as a victory. He expressed satisfaction with the decision, viewing it as a dismissal of what he deemed "un-American ballot challenges."
We applaud today’s ruling in Colorado, which is another nail in the coffin of the un-American ballot challenges.
The controversy surrounding Judge Wallace's political affiliations and past donations was also a point of contention. Despite motions to consider these factors, the judge remained firm in her decision to proceed with the case.
Future Legal Battles and Potential Appeals
Trump's acquittal by the Senate in 2021 has been a cornerstone of his defense in various legal challenges. Despite this acquittal, the recent ruling in Colorado presents a new twist in the ongoing saga of Trump's legal and political battles.
An appeal of the Colorado ruling is likely, with the potential for the case to reach the Supreme Court. This would add another chapter to the legal and political narrative surrounding Trump's actions on and after January 6, 2021.
The implications of this ruling are far-reaching, not just for Trump but for the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its application to presidential candidates.
Conclusion and Invitation for Discussion
In summary, Judge Sarah Wallace's ruling in Colorado has added a new dimension to the legal discussions surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment and its applicability to presidential candidates.
While the judge affirmed that Trump engaged in insurrection, she also declared that this does not disqualify him from appearing on the Colorado presidential ballot.
Judge Sarah Wallace ruled Trump engaged in insurrection but can stay on the Colorado ballot.
The Fourteenth Amendment's applicability to presidential candidates was questioned.
Trump's legal team defends his actions under the First Amendment.
Potential for the case to escalate to the Supreme Court.
If you found this article insightful, please consider sharing it on Twitter and Facebook.
Tired of missing the real news? Tired of censorship? Tired of our corrupt liberal mainstream press that only shows you what they want you to see? Subscribe to Ineptocracy Chronicles today and get the other side of the real news in your inbox daily. It’s free.
Ineptocracy
A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers
.