Colorado Denies Trump Ballot Access

Last night, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a ruling with significant implications: it would disqualify President Trump from appearing on presidential ballots in the state in 2024, citing an insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This marks a historic moment in American history for multiple reasons, with several layers to unpack.

No candidate has ever been denied eligibility for criminal reasons. However, a significant oversight exists in the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, which will undoubtedly be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court (more on that later). Disqualifying Trump on the basis of insurrection would, in normal times, be laughed out of court because Trump has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, insurrection. In fact, the one instance where questions regarding a Trump insurrection were brought forward was his second impeachment shortly after leaving office in 2021, when he was ACQUITTED by the U.S. Senate.

Since then, the only conviction has come from mainstream media. However, the general public has even evolved on how they view the alleged January 6th insurrection, as polls show Americans becoming increasingly skeptical of the narrative that has been fed to them, due in large part to relatively newly released, unedited evidence from Tucker Carlson earlier in the year, followed by more released by the House GOP this past month which revealed that federal agents were present in the crowd during that day.

Within moments of this landmark announcement, President Trump and his team released a statement announcing that they will be immediately appealing the ruling to the United States Supreme Court. One doesn’t have to be a legal scholar to predict that the court will very likely overturn this ruling. In fact, even the Colorado Supreme Court has signaled skepticism in their expectation of their ruling being upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court by stating:

“If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires, it shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.”

Their skepticism is the only sensical part of their ruling. A court cannot keep a candidate off the ballot due to insurrection if there never was an insurrection declared by federal law or if the president never invoked the “Insurrection Act,” which President Trump did not as the events were unfolding that day. Furthermore, those currently imprisoned for their role that day have been charged with varying charges, such as seditious conspiracy, assault, and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, but not a single one was charged with insurrection. Mainstream news and leftist-controlled outlets parroting this claim over and over for years may condition one to believe there was an insurrection, but that doesn’t make it true.

So, the most glaring question that remains is this: If they will not be successful in preventing Trump from appearing on the ballot, thereby setting a precedent for other states considering similar attempts, and they are aware of this, then why proceed with it?

By now, it has become obvious that those in support of these measures are fearful of Trump and would prefer voters not have the chance to vote for him, whether it be through indictments, frivolous cases such as these, or other means. Perhaps it is an instance of leaving no stone unturned, one of their many election interference Hail Mary’s they hope will eventually result in a Trump election-prevention avenue succeeding. If you have been paying attention to the verbiage used by many of the regular Trump-hating talking heads, they revealed long ago they do not intend on allowing Trump to be an option.

Joe Biden has stated, “We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power if he does run,” an odd choice of words for the ”leader” of an allegedly civilized, Democratic country. Liz Cheney has said that she will “Do whatever I have to do to stop Trump,” another vague warning about what stopping Trump might entail beyond legal campaign mechanisms. And former Trump-hating Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan boldly and confidently stated that he does not believe Trump would be the GOP nominee, in spite of Trump’s clear stronghold on the GOP base. Comments such as these by prominent swamp mainstays from both parties that seem to contradict all visible trends regarding the current outlook raise suspicions about whether there are any boundaries powerful Trump-opposers won’t cross to stop him, including law-fare.

There is a clear irony to all of this. Those claiming to be saviors of democracy, while claiming Trump is the existential threat to it are attempting to remove a candidate from consideration before the people have the chance to decide for themselves. In other words, they are taking one of the most significant steps to destroying democracy in the most obvious way possible for the entire world to see. Even foreign leaders such as Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele weighed in, stating, “The United States has lost its ability to lecture any other country about “democracy.” He’s right.

Even with coordinated irregularities occurring on election night and the days that follow, it is clear those in power are now fearful that allowing Trump as an option will spell the end for their reign. Whether they are right or wrong remains to be seen, but that decision should be left to the people. And it will be.