Why the Colorado Court barring Trump from the ballot is an abomination — on many levels

tyrants thwarting the people's will

The recent ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court to bar President Donald Trump from their ballot is irrefutable evidence of the contempt in which that four person judicial majority holds the citizens of Colorado, the Constitution of the United States, the foundational elements of judicial and legal fairness, and of their personal lack of intellectual honesty and emotional discipline. Having declared President Trump guilty of involvement with an insurrection for which he has never been charged, much less convicted, confirms that the shadows of those four individuals are far, far taller than their souls.

Contempt for the citizens of Colorado:

In the 2020 election, some 1,364,607 votes were credited to Donald Trump, while 1,804,352 were credited to Joe Biden in the state of Colorado. In light of the obvious and abject failure of the Biden “administration” to implement beneficial policies, it is entirely possible and even likely that in 2024, President Trump could garner significantly more popular vote than he received in the 2020 election. Yet these four partisan hacks feel no compunction in arbitrarily depriving a huge proportion of Colorado voters of their opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice. This is a disgusting example of abuse of judicial power that must not stand, if our constitutional republic and our liberty as sovereign citizens are to survive.

Contempt for the Constitution of the United States:

Amendment 1: Restrictions on Powers of Congress

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

On Jan. 6, 2021, President Trump said to his supporters “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”.

Clearly, President Trump had every right under the guarantees of the First Amendment to say whatever he thought about the authenticity of the election results; and his supporters had every right to peacefully gather at the Capitol building.

Another quote from the speech is “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”.

This is the basis of the Colorado court’s decision that President Trump incited insurrection, and is therefore disqualified from the ballot. No impartial person could possibly characterize that phrase, particularly in light of the first quote, as a call to violence. How many times have we all heard those exact words from politicians of all stripes? Joe Biden and Jamie Raskin, to mention just two, are on record as having used it. It’s standard political boilerplate, nothing more.

At the Capitol, violence did ensue, and the most egregious of it was committed by the Capitol Police in the shooting murder of Ashley Babbit and the clubbing of unconscious, dying Rosanne Boyland. The affiliations of those who instigated the violence remain unclear, but there is absolutely no evidence that President Trump willfully did or said anything to incite it.

In fact, strong arguments can be made that President Trump tried hard to avoid any sort of violence at the rally or disruption of the certification process.

First, President Trump offered to provide 5,000 National Guard troops to police the events of Jan. 6. This offer was refused by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, claiming “bad optics”. Would he have made that offer if he planned to exhort his supporters to embark on a violent takeover of the Capitol?

Second, President Trump mentioned several times in his speech that he hoped Vice President Pence would exercise his authority to send the election back to the states for recertification. President Trump had 11 Senators and a group from the House of Representatives lined up to vote in favor of recertification. President Trump undoubtedly knew that any violent disruption would destroy any chance of recertification, so why would he undermine his own plans by inciting violence? He would not. But forces intent on squelching any attempt at recertification very well might. The Colorado court majority failed to consider any exculpatory factors and declared President Trump an insurrectionist by judicial fiat. What kind of morbidly colossal ego does it take to do such a thing? What trained attorney could take such a decision with a clear conscience when it so blatantly flies in the face of basic legal fairness, and violates so many of the safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution? Are these four judges so intellectually dishonest as to argue that to save our democratic constitutional republic, they must override the choices of the people? Was this decision driven by sober consideration of the facts, or by irrational emotion?

Amendment V: Criminal Proceedings and Condemnation of Property

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.

The four judges ignored the requirement that no person can be tried for an infamous crime such as insurrection without a grand jury indictment. Without an indictment and then a trial in the proper venue returning a guilty verdict, no one can legally and properly be subjected to a judicial taking. Yet, based upon nothing more than unproven accusations, unsupported opinions, and a despotic decree, this is exactly what the Colorado Supreme Court has done to President Trump and the citizens of Colorado. His right to run for office, and the people’s right to vote for him, have been illegally taken by a brazenly partisan, deeply authoritarian judiciary.

Amendment VI: Mode of Trial in Criminal Proceedings

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

Amendment VI indicates clearly that the Colorado court had no jurisdiction over an alleged insurrection case that took place in Washington, D.C. Their action was a flagrant and dangerous usurpation of authority with far-reaching negative implications if allowed to stand.

Amendment XIV: Citizenship, Representation, and Payment of Public Debt

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

The right to vote is unquestionably something of great value. The term intangible personal property means an item of value that cannot be touched or physically held. The term value does not require a monetary price; many things we value most highly have no pecuniary price, such as reputation. The right to run for office, appear on a ballot, or vote for the candidate of your choice would certainly seem to fit that definition. So, not only has the robed renegade majority deprived both President Trump and Colorado voting citizens due process as outlined above, they have, as Colorado State officials, improperly and illegally deprived them of constitutionally protected property.

This decision is nothing more than election interference of the most shameless and malicious kind. Election interference or fraud committed by the party in power constitutes preemptive refusal to transfer power peacefully. I believe it is inescapable to conclude that these four persons have intentionally colluded to interfere with the 2024 Presidential election, which is likely a crime in and of itself under 18 U.S. Code sec. 595.

In so doing, they have callously perpetrated a grievous injury to the most basic fabric of our Constitutional Republic, our right as citizens to choose without limitation who we entrust with the levers of power. If this decision is allowed to stand, America will inevitably devolve from a bastion of liberty and fair treatment of all, to just another miserable fiefdom run by power junkies who have zero regard for anyone but themselves. Over time, prosperity and happiness will become faded memories, destroyed by gov’t gangsters operating under color of law, vicious and greedy beyond imagination. The lives of the people will be prescribed from womb to tomb, and managed for the benefit of the gangsters without regard for the individual subject-citizens. They will be treated as just another renewable resource, much less valuable and far more expendable than slaves were in the antebellum South.

In 1835, English ministers Andrew Reed and James Matheson published an account of their tour of the United States earlier in that decade. In it, they wrote “America will be great if America is good. If not, her greatness will vanish away like a morning cloud”. America is only as good as those who administer her laws. Are we witnessing the vanishing of the greatest country the world has ever seen? Has the word “jurisprudence” become an oxymoron?