Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A DIVIDED COLORADO Supreme Court has declared former president Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the US Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot.
The decision sets up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the Republican nomination can remain in the race.
Coming from a court whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors, the decision marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision.
“We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us.
“We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favour, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach,” it added.
Colorado’s highest court overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that Mr Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, but said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.
The court stayed its decision until 4 January, or until the US Supreme Court rules on the case. Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by January 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the court’s majority.
“We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favour, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Mr Trump’s attorneys had promised to appeal any disqualification immediately to the nation’s highest court, which has the final say about constitutional matters.
Mr Trump’s legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said in a statement on Tuesday night: “This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy.
“It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.”
Mr Trump did not mention the decision during a rally yesterdat evening in Waterloo, Iowa, but his campaign sent out a fundraising email citing what it called a “tyrannical ruling”.
Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman Ronna McDaniel labelled the decision “Election interference” and said the RNC’s legal team intends to help Mr Trump fight the ruling.
Mr Trump lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and does not need the state to win next year’s presidential election.
The danger for the former president is that more courts and election officials will follow Colorado’s lead and exclude Mr Trump from must-win states.
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed nationally to disqualify Mr Trump under Section 3, which was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War.
It bars from office anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it, and has been used only a handful of times since the decade after the Civil War.
The Colorado case is the first where the plaintiffs succeeded. After a week-long hearing in November, District Judge Sarah B Wallace found that Mr Trump indeed had “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol, and her ruling that kept him on the ballot was a fairly technical one.
Mr Trump’s attorneys convinced Ms Wallace that, because the language in Section 3 refers to “officers of the United States” who take an oath to “support” the Constitution, it must not apply to the president, who is not included as an “officer of the United States” elsewhere in the document and whose oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.
The provision also says offices covered include senator, representative, electors of the president and vice president, and all others “under the United States”, but does not name the presidency.
The state’s highest court did not agree, siding with attorneys for six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who argued that it was nonsensical to imagine that the framers of the amendment, fearful of former confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land.
The court’s majority opinion said: “President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oath breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land.
“Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”
The left-leaning group that brought the Colorado case, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, hailed the ruling.
“Our Constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government,” its president, Noah Bookbinder, said in a statement.
Mr Trump’s attorneys also had urged the Colorado high court to reverse Ms Wallace’s ruling that Mr Trump incited the January 6 attack.
His lawyers argued the then-president had simply been using his free speech rights and had not called for violence.
Mr Trump’s attorney Scott Gessler also argued the attack was more of a “riot” than an insurrection.
In the ruling issued yesterday, the court’s majority dismissed the arguments that Mr Trump was not responsible for his supporters’ violent attack, which was intended to halt Congress’ certification of the presidential vote.
They wrote: “President Trump… gave a speech in which he literally exhorted his supporters to fight at the Capitol.”
Colorado Supreme Court Justices Richard L Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Marquez and William W Hood III ruled for the petitioners.
Chief Justice Brian D Boatright dissented, arguing the constitutional questions were too complex to be solved in a state hearing. Justices Maria E Berkenkotter and Carlos Samour also dissented.
“Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law,” Mr Samour wrote in his dissent.
“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office.”
Mr Trump’s allies rushed to his defence, slamming the decision as “un-American” and “insane” and part of a politically-motivated effort to destroy his candidacy.
House Republican Conference chair Elise Stefanik said in a statement: “Four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The EU moto is ‘Unity in Diveristy’. Not much Unity if less than half the member states can decide the course of the Union.
I think you said it all there Ryan
People voted for this in the Lisbon Treaty. So they haven’t a leg to stand on now.
It is all very fucked though.
Ah the big boys are becoming worried ……
The Treaty is the stumbling block…
the Dow Jones and The Wall St Journal???….
It is all coming ot now.
Time to get out of the Euro.
Stand up to these Economic Terrorists.
Once again, Europe is not suffering from a “Democratic Deficit”; it is however, suffering from a Dictatorial Surplus.
Again we have the usual build up just in case a referendum is needed. Already I can see the “sky is falling” arguments that will come from those lesser gifted members of the public who sit in the Dáil. But they have already told us we won’t need another bailout so we can happily vote against this treaty if it goes to a referendum, isn’t that right boys?
Pull on your green jersey Mark! Pull it on I say!!
“orders must be obeyed at all times without question”!
Mercozy will get what they want one way or another….we don’t have any true politicians within the government to tell them to go fuck themselves.
By the time the treaty is agreed and signed chances are that Sarkozy won’t be the president of France anymore. The French presidential election takes place in April/May this year and he is trailing the socialist candidate François Hollande in all of the recent opinion polls by quite a distance. I don’t think Hollande will have the same approach to this problem that Sarkozy has so it could be interesting to see what happens if the gets elected.
Barring something strange Merkel has until September next year to stay in power but the smaller party in her coalition government is being hammered in the polls at the moment so who knows what might happen.
Yes I saw that last night on twitter and the fear factor will now be cranked into panic mode.
If we don’t sign they eu will not fund us that appears to be the mantra.
Well mr and mrs EU if that’s the case then you leave us no choice but to declare we are paying nobody else.
The E U would never allow that as the confusion and panic it would put the markets in would be massive.
However Mr and Mrs E U give us a 66% write down and I am sure we could persuade Market.
There is a massive assumption that we have to dance to a tune but let’s get some people to go on the offensive now by saying we will delay NOT default on next weeks payment of 1.25 million and see what trees that rattles.
We cannot just sit back and take this.
The E U would have more respect for us if we fought back.
Very true. We have gutless politicians with no backbone. So much for a EU of equals.
Sorry 1.25 billion
While Merkosy struggle to maintain a united front on how to proceed, division rather than concensus is growing at national level in the rest of Europe. Considerable arm twisting will, no doubt, be applied.
Only Ireland has a chance of a referendum and we must not be bullied into accepting this treaty. This crisis cannot become a vehicle for crushing democratic principles and leading to even more instability.
Petition attached for those who believe this decision is too important to be left to government.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/call-for-a-referendum-on-the-esm-treaty/
Finlands misgivings over Europes current direction.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/finland-derides-crisis-as-excuse-for-eroding-sovereignty.html
Draft treaty in full.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9026142/The-EU-fiscal-draft-treaty-in-full.html
Let the scaremongering begin………We’ll go bust before next Christmas without it………….We’ll be kicked outta Europe………Merkel will eat your first born if we don’t sign. Please, save me the scare tactics.
Let’s scare them “ok guys we are declaring a default now fuck off to the insurers and get paid ”
It’s risky who stands to loose more e u system and world trade agreements or us?
Excellent Mark, couldn’t have said it better myself. However, prepare yourself for the inevitable bulls–t when they tell us they were taken “out of context” when they told us that lie.
A yes.The two teir europe is coming.Looks like those who dont sign up to this will be kicked to the kirb.
Which would mean we’d be away from the train wreck if we voted no to this thing, Can’t wait to see the majority No vote if there is a referendum I’d say it’ll be ultra-decisive.
Yep, proletariat, unite! Let’s build this utopia! The states that don’t want it are simply too stupid to think for themselves, so will will force onto them for their own good!
That first tweet doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
The treaty can only come into force for countries that sign up for it. So it shouldn’t matter whether its 1 country, 5, 12 or 27 that sign it. The provision will only afffect those who agree to it.
For examply the UK has already said it won’t sign up for the treaty so therefore none of its rules will apply to the UK. The same would be true for any other country the didn’t sign up for it and a few of them are considering whether to do so or not.
The second tweet is fairly self-evident. If you want to avail of funds from the new mechanism then you agree to sign up to the rules that apply to it.
have your say