[kcplate]

“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.

[cosmicgadget]

> 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.

[kcplate]

> Scotus isn't on your side here

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.

[cosmicgadget]

> he didn’t violate the 14th.

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.

[kcplate]

I think this is just some weird political fantasy porn you are appealing to here. You want that Colorado case to have a meaning beyond its failure.

Trump ran. Trump was elected. Challenge it or so be it.

[cosmicgadget]

He was, you're absolutely right! You're welcome to claim the Colorado finding is meaningless because of the scotus decision, just don't use it to fabricate a different set of facts.

[kcplate]

Care to explain how it had any actual bearing on Trumps ability to run for president? How about how it changes my point that he was qualified, ran, was elected, and still holds the office? He was on the Colorado ballot, he received over 1.377M votes from folks in Colorado. You keep pointing to it as meaningful and how it somehow disproves my point that he was qualified to run for the office (and won and now holds the office) but where was this case’s impact on the result?

Apparently whatever nuanced point you think you are making, reality seems to disagree with you.