Clearly, the most powerful pieces written by the Respondents and supportive AC point toward the correctness of the Colorado SC decision, arguing strongly upon constitution grounds for rightfully barring tRump under §3. But, as is noted, the petitioners are taking the "political" route to argue against removing the insurrectionist, and wh…
Clearly, the most powerful pieces written by the Respondents and supportive AC point toward the correctness of the Colorado SC decision, arguing strongly upon constitution grounds for rightfully barring tRump under §3. But, as is noted, the petitioners are taking the "political" route to argue against removing the insurrectionist, and which, I'm sorry to say, a SCOTUS majority is likely to tee up in overturning the CO ruling. It is what it is, but I'm hopeful of some stinging dissents that would embrace much of the constitutional arguments for tossing tRump off the ballot, not just in Colorado, but in any other states' ballots where the same §3 arguments can be raised.
Which raises the salient question: If the Constitution can't protect us against an insurrectionist running for federal office, who or what can?
Clearly, the most powerful pieces written by the Respondents and supportive AC point toward the correctness of the Colorado SC decision, arguing strongly upon constitution grounds for rightfully barring tRump under §3. But, as is noted, the petitioners are taking the "political" route to argue against removing the insurrectionist, and which, I'm sorry to say, a SCOTUS majority is likely to tee up in overturning the CO ruling. It is what it is, but I'm hopeful of some stinging dissents that would embrace much of the constitutional arguments for tossing tRump off the ballot, not just in Colorado, but in any other states' ballots where the same §3 arguments can be raised.
Which raises the salient question: If the Constitution can't protect us against an insurrectionist running for federal office, who or what can?