Colorado Convicts Trump Without Even A Trial
The Constitutional Crisis Storm Has Arrived
We can dispense with the usual rhetoric on Donald Trump. His candidacy for the 2024 Presidential election is now a genuine Constitutional crisis.
Yesterday, the Colorado Supreme Court in effect convicted Donald Trump of “insurrection” without so much as even a sham trial.
In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
Calling the ruling “unprecedented” is an understatement!
Several points of law and the Constitution are now on a collision course before the nine robed justices of the Supreme Court—and no matter what the Supreme Court rules, at least some significant portion of the electorate will decry the decision as “political” (and, to be blunt, it almost certainly will be).
Colorado is also stepping on Jack Smith’s toes, as the ruling that Donald Trump is an “insurrectionist” strikes at the heart of Smith’s persecution prosecution of The Donald, for which Smith himself already is seeking the blessing of the Supreme Court.
At the core of the Colorado ruling, Smith’s case against Donald Trump, as well as the numerous and ongoing prosecution of the J6 protestors, is whether the J6 protest cum riot was itself an “insurrection”. The media has consistently held that the event was, although many who have watched the video footage have taken exception to that description.
Insofar as Donald Trump arguably played a role in those events, if it were an insurrection, then, according to the Colorado Supreme Court, Trump cannot appear on the ballot as he is precluded from holding office by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
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.
However, the Colorado ruling has a problem, one arguably more severe than Smith’s own indictment of Trump: Donald Trump was not merely tried but acquitted of incitement of insurrection at his second impeachment trial. The first impeachment article was for “incitement of insurrection.”
Potentially, the Colorado ruling makes a case for applying the Fifth Amendment prohibition against “double jeopardy” to impeachment trials. Regardless of the political aspects of the trial and the vote by the Senators sitting on that impeachment trial, the inarguable fact is that Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate of incitement of insurrection. The Colorado courts are, in effect, seeking to overturn that impeachment verdict—and not even the most expansive reading of the Tenth Amendment reserving all unspecified powers to the states can plausibly be seen as granting state courts review of the Senate verdict.
The danger for Smith’s case against Trump is that if the Colorado Supreme Court is overturned, even if the US Supreme Court does not directly address Smith’s case in their ruling, if Trump is deemed not to have engaged in insurrection, the legal foundation for Smith’s case is severely diminished if not destroyed.
Ironically, this ruling comes just as I had completed a follow up to my last article on Smith’s case against Trump, exploring the utility and necessity of impeachment as a prerequisite to criminal cases against a former President (scheduled to come out in just a little while). I suspect this case only amplifies that thesis considerably.
All of this is mind-boggling. WHAT is going on in the courts? Are judges being bribed and blackmailed? Have the political elites completely taken over the legal system? THIS is the true threat to our Constitutional Republic!
Can you say "Soviet show trials?"
Oh wait. There weren't even trials, so we now one step even below the Soviets.
And yet, most people I know are still clueless, and the few that aren't are too morally cowardly to want to get involved, thinking they can just hide in their houses watching TV and 'sit this one out." Truth is, they can't; they won't... and they never intended for these cowards to be ABLE to.