January 1, 2024
The ability to arbitrarily label your political opponents insurrectionists as a way of justifying their exclusion from ballots in upcoming elections is the dream of every Petty Little Dictator; and apparently most Democrats too.
When the Colorado Supreme Court held in Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO 63, No. 2023SA300 that states possess authority to determine that a presidential candidate is disqualified under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that former President Trump is therefore disqualified from upcoming ballots as an insurrectionist, his political critics cheered.
Some have even gone so far as to label the decision a win for Constitutionalism, the Rule of Law, states’ rights, and “democracy” in general. As per usual however, these Democrat delusions couldn’t be further from the truth. Motivated by a subjective worldview, an “ends justifies the means” mentality, and a chronic case of Trump hatred, these Democrats have justified in their minds a completely incorrect reading of the 14th Amendment. They have rationalized behavior that upends the Rule of Law concept, disregards Federalism, and would cause havoc in our electoral system if universalized. They have turned a blind eye to the violation of the First Amendment associative rights of Colorado citizens, and threaten those of us all. Would they be throwing a fit if their opponents were attempting to do the same to them? Of course. But the temptation to “get Trump” now is too tantalizing for them to consider the appropriateness of the maxims of their acts or potential long-term implications of their current positions in this case if they became universalized as standing precedent.
This is all par for the course for hypocritical anti-democratic Democrats. This being and extremely imporant election year however, perhaps they have finally jumped the shark with this high-profile lawfare tactic though.
Lucky for the rest of us, the Supreme Court is not likely to agree with these lawsuit-obsessed, rabid partisans and will likely overrule the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in whole or in relevant part. The reasons for this, which will be briefly discussed below, are actually very clear even though it apparently takes scores of pages to explain precisely why. Democrats in the know seem to have primed their minions for the inevitable defeat with talking points in the media, as nearly every Democrat that is confronted about their support for this DOA Colorado Supreme Court decision instantly retorts that the current Supreme Court is corrupt and stacked with Trump lackeys. I wonder what they will say when even some of the Liberal-leaning Justices find against them too? We will see.
How can I be so confident in the outcome? What do I know? I’m not even a lawyer. Well it is simple, instead of just stopping at blindly agreeing with what my favorite talking heads on tv think about the merits of the actions thus far taken, I read the Colorado Supreme Court decision and dissent, and the documents that have so far been filed for the upcoming Supreme Court case. I looked at the analysis, the points and counterpoints and checked the veracity of the claims presented in the various arguments. I see how the current Justices interpret the key controversies based on current precedent and can confidently conclude they will more than likely side against the majority on the Colorado Supreme Court. There will be a lot of Democrat gnashing of teeth to come. We shouldn’t let them forget this either, as it is good evidence of their willingness to trash universal principles to get what they want and they will no doubt do it again unless we make this the year that exposes them and these types of tactics no longer become practical.
For our purposes here, this affair should be looked at as more than just a legal case, it ought to be considered a case study for how modern partisans shape public opinion with lawfare and propaganda. I would even go so far as to suggest many of the people that have pushed these arguments and cases in the first place know they will not likely hold up; the effort is more a part of a larger strategy to foment divisive sentiment against ideological enemies, challenge unfavorable current Constitutional structures, and erect roadblocks for political opponents. No matter how valid and sound the argument is against this Colorado Supreme Court decision, the message will be that its overturning was a corruption. In their minds, the 14th Amendment says what it says, Trump is clearly an insurrectionist, and any good American ought to support the rejection of his ballot access. Some people reason just cannot reach, but for the sake of those that can bend their will in accord with reason, let’s consider the points against the preconceived conclusions of these partisans.
In the minds of the average Democrat, this case is very simple and the logic follows the structure of a basic syllogism:
-Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars insurrectionists from office.
-Trump is an insurrectionist,
-Therefore Trump can be disqualified from appearing on ballots to run for office.
In reality however, there is much more to consider with all of this. Of course the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision went much further to back up and rationalize their logic, but obviously many disagree with its veracity (including the three dissenters on the Court). Read the Colorado Supreme Court decision and then read this Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the Supreme Court case. It summarizes the key questions as follows:
The Questions Presented are:
- Whether the President falls within the list of
officials subject to the disqualification provision of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment? - Whether Section Three of the Fourteenth
Amendment is self-executing to the extent of allowing states to remove candidates from the ballot in the absence of any Congressional action authorizing such process? - Whether the denial to a political party of its
ability to choose the candidate of its choice in a
presidential primary and general election violates that party’s First Amendment Right of Association?
Democrats say, “Just read the actual text of the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it is clear!” I agree, everyone should read it. The text of the 14th Amendment, in relevant part, says,
“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 5 The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Question 1 identified above requires the determination of whether or not the President of the United States is “an officer of the United States” because that is the only term that could conceivably apply to former President Trump. The Colorado Supreme Court reasoned that the POTUS is such an officer, while the petitioners in the Supreme Court case hold the POTUS cannot possibly fit that label. Logically, the petitioners have presented a valid and sound case on this point, which you can read for yourself. If the POTUS is not such an officer, then this alone is enough to derail the entire 14th Amendment-based Colorado Supreme Court argument.
What’s more, as indicated in Section 5, it is Congress that has the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the 14th Amendment. It is not “self-executing,” that is, it is not up to state courts, state officials, or any other individuals to make such determinations, including what constitutes an “insurrection” or who or what qualifies as to “giving aid or comfort” to America’s enemies. Congress has not done this in a manner required for the Colorado Supreme Court’s argument, and as the petitioners noted when addressing Question 2, the closest Congress came to spelling any of this out with a statute is 18 U.S.C. § 2383, and President Trump was not only never convicted of violating that statue, he was never even charged with violating it. So while it appears clear to me that the Colorado Supreme Court misapplied the relevant law and precedent to reach its conclusion, it ought to at least be acknowledged that this matter is far from as clear as Democrats in the media want to make it seem. I urge everyone to read the argument pertaining to Question 2 presented in the petitioner’s document for themselves.
Finally, if you talk to Democrats about this, many of them will try to mock Conservatives/Republicans regarding their general stance on states’ rights, as if to say “I thought you were for states’ rights? Why don’t you support Colorado’s right to decide who/what appears on their ballot?” This shows a profound misunderstanding of Federalism and the 14th Amendment too. It has never really been the position of mainstream Conservative or Republican thought to suggest states have a disproportionate authority relative to the Federal government in all instances, rather the position has always been (including during the Civil War) that the balance of power ought to be in line with the Constitutional division. We have a government that shared national and federal character and our Federalist structure extends both vertically and horizontally. This means for each issue we must determine what that division is and what each level of government is responsible for in our Federalist system.
Prior to the Civil War, it was largely the Democrats that wanted to keep an inordinate amount of state power to justify keeping their slavery laws in the South. Republicans took this away from them after the Civil War, including with the 14th Amendment. The confusion now seems to be due to the fact that Democrats, ever trying to usurp power to get what they want, have been steadily using the Federal government to grow the bureaucracy and push things in their direction at the expense of the rights of states and the rights of the people. Republicans and Conservatives oppose this now not to bolster state power in itself, but rather to attempt to restore the proper balance that ought to have been there in the first place.
On this issue with keeping political opponents off the ballot, Democrats must remember this is pertaining to a Federal election, for POTUS (the only nationally elected person for an office that plays a role in maintaining the Federalist character of our system with checks and balances/balance of power), and that the petitioners in the case are citizens of the state in which they reside and they have constitutional rights that must be protected. So this is not only an issue of the rights of a state, it is a First Amendment rights case and one that has to do with Federalism (the Court is interested in ensuring states do not take unconstitutional liberties with selection of the POTUS at the expense of the interests of other states and of Congress, similar to the arguments against the proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact scheme). We must ensure that states and individuals are not infringing upon constitutional rights or wrecking our federalist constututional structures in order to achieve their goals. Universalizing such actions as occurred in Colorado would threaten just that. These entities cannot cite one part of the Constitution in order to violate other parts of the Constitution. As the petitioners note in their document when addressing Question 3 above, “The Colorado Supreme Court reasoned that, “nothing in the U.S. Constitution expressly precludes states from limiting access to the presidential ballot to such candidates.” Pet. App. 45a. But a state cannot purport to justify an infringement on a party’s First Amendment rights by arguing from the absence of a parallel constraint on state’s rights.” Both the Constitution and Colorado State Law apply to protect these associative rights, “under C.R.S. § 1-4-1204(1)(b) and the First Amendment, the Colorado Republican Party, not the Secretary of State, has the ultimate authority to determine whether an individual is a “bona fide candidate for president of the United States pursuant to political party rules.” Id. The Colorado Republican Party, not the Secretary, sets its internal rules and determines the requirements for Republican nominees. By directing the Secretary of State to disqualify candidates based on amorphous and contested factual findings subject to deferential review, Pet App. 160a, the Colorado Supreme Court violated the Republican Party’s right to freely associate and choose its political standard bearer.”
Time will tell just how badly the Supreme Court with smack down this Colorado Supreme Court travesty of a decision. Until it happens, it is our job to push back against these Democrats (and others) that insist the case is clear. Even if you do not like Trump, we all ought to recognize the danger inherent in this type of behavior. RFK Jr., one of Trump’s rivals, put it perfectly,
“Every American should be troubled by the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove President Trump from the ballot. The court has deprived him of a consequential right without having been convicted of a crime. This was done without an evidentiary hearing in which he is given the basic right of confronting his accusers. When any candidate is deprived of his right to run, the American people are deprived of their right to choose. I hope the Colorado Supreme Court swiftly reverses this decision. At the very least, it contributes to the perception that the elites are picking the President by manipulating the legal system, and through other interventions. If Trump is kept out of office through judicial fiat rather than being defeated in a fair election, his supporters will never accept the result. This country will become ungovernable. It’s time to trust the voters. It is up to the people to decide who the best candidate is. Not the courts. The people. That’s Democracy 101.”
Make 2024 the year we put an end to the anti-democratic, unconstitutional, rights-infringing, power-grabbing corruption of the Democrat Party establishment.