“A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits for-
mer President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential
nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election,
from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme
Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado
secretary of state to exclude the former President from the
Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any
write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.
Former President Trump challenges that decision on sev-
eral grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress,
rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3
against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.”
At what point was Trump “charged and convicted” because that is what I wrote. Obviously it doesn’t matter what a “group of Colorado voters contends” or that “the Colorado supreme court agreed”, it didn't meet the limitations imposed by section 3 of the 14th, because they cant, only congress can using section 5.
> At what point was Trump “charged and convicted” because that is what I wrote.
You wrote other words too. I assume your assertion was that he was not legally excluded from the presidential ballot for insurrection. Colorado found otherwise.
> it doesn’t matter what a “group of Colorado voters contends” or that “the Colorado supreme court agreed”
Once again, "Colorado begs to differ". They found that he participated in an insurrection and, to be entirely honest, I trust them more than you.
Scotus isn't on your side here, they just said states can't disqualify federal candidates.
I don’t have a “side”. I said Trump was qualified to run for president because he satisfied all the qualification boxes—-if you dispute that, make your case. Colorado attempted to make their case and lost. He age qualifies, he citizenship qualifies, his residency qualifies, and he didn’t violate the 14th.
So I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Frankly, there doesn’t seem to be one beyond just arguing a failed point.
I think you mean "he hasn't been found to have violated the 14th", we all witnessed the insurrection. And even that would be an inaccurate statement on your part, he was found to have violated the 14th by Colorado. Scotus did not vacate this finding.
> 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.
You keep trying to use Trump's ability to run for federal office as some backwards way to claim he was neither the participant in an insurrection nor found legally to have been one.
https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2023/23s...
> He quite obviously ran and was elected. That fact alone means he satisfied all the qualification tests.
Did you not read what I wrote above? Here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf