Alaska’s and 24 other attorneys general tell Supreme Court to allow Trump on the Colorado ballot or expect ‘widespread chaos’

34
1098

Attorneys general from 25 states, including Alaska, have signed onto a brief that backs former President Donald Trump in Colorado, where a legal battle rages over whether he will be allowed to appear on the primary ballot.

In a 22-page “friend of the court” brief, the attorneys general called on the high court to strike down a Colorado State Supreme Court decision barring Trump, using as its rationale the Constitution’s 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist” ban.

The Colorado Supreme Court removed Trump from the ballot over his culpability in the Jan. 6, 2021 disruption of the certification of the presidential election. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the case.

The top attorneys for the states — all Republican run — argue that the Colorado Supreme Court overstepped its authority.

The “Colorado court’s decision will create widespread chaos,” they wrote. “Most obviously, it casts confusion into an election cycle that is just weeks away. Beyond that, it upsets the respective roles of the Congress, the States, and the courts.”

The legal brief says the U.S. Supreme Court’s immediate intervention is required.

“Now that the Colorado court has intruded into an arena where courts previously have feared to tread, swift intervention is essential,” the attorneys wrote. ““Our country needs an authoritative, consistent, and uniform answer to whether former President Trump is constitutionally eligible for President, Granting the Petition would at least be a step in that direction.”

The 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War and has been so seldom used that there is no legal precedence to advise the justices on what “engaging in insurrection” actually means.

In addition to Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor, those from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming signed the brief.

34 COMMENTS

  1. This inflammatory demagoguery of trying to portray the 1/6/21 capitol protest as an “insurrection” is so extreme, so insane, and so politically corrosive and damaging, that all those who continue to engage in that fraudulent lie are in fact the REAL anti-democratic insurrectionists.

    “We have to destroy democracy in order to save OUR democrazy!”

    – every US radical leftist extremist

    • What is the definition of “Insurrection?”

      From Merriam-Webster: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

      From Dictionary.com: an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government

      From Oxford Languages: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

      Don’t the actions taken by people on January 6, 2021 fit any of those three definitions? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it sure seems to me that the actions taken by people on 1/6 were in fact an insurrection.

      • Pathetic, Pablo, even for you.

        But keep peddling your masters’ outrageous lies, and stoking the growing flames of civil war. And be careful what you wish for, and are actively working toward, or you are going to get it, good and hard.

        • Please explain how what happened on January 6th, 2021 was not an insurrection.

          I’ll wait.

          The “peaceful protestors” were there to stop VP Pence from certifying the 2020 Presidential Election.

          By Webster’s definition that is an insurrection. By Dictionary.com, that is an insurrection.

          We can argue that it was not violent, but I trust my eyes when I see a group of people hitting cops with flag poles and spraying cops with mace/bear spray, so that qualifies under Oxford Languages definition of an insurrection.

          Please cite some facts and prove me wrong.

        • Where is insurrection defined in the Constitution? Not even the 14th amendment has a definition of insurrection in it.

          • Pablo, an insurrection would include arms, would it not?
            As far as I can tell the only gunfire came from a Cop who killed an unarmed woman.
            I can only deduce that those involved in this ” mostly peaceful protest” on 1-6-2021 were there to protest what arguably was a very suspect election. Absent that , if it was an actual insurrection, well they were incredibly stupid since they forgot to bring their heaters!

          • Oosik Puk,

            There is video of those “peaceful protestors” using bear spray/mace, flag poles and other blunt instruments as weapons on January 6th.

            Firearms are not the only weapons out there, and furthermore, as no one was actually arrested on January 6th, while in the Capitol, how do you know no one who stormed the Capitol carried a firearm?

      • Well don’t the BLM and Antifa summer of love Riots, meet any of those definitions? The citizens are granted a grievance clause in the constitution to address the government if it acts not in the best interest of the general public. Sorry, it supercedes your dictionary. Oh by the way, who attacked who on 1/6? Wasn’t the un armed crowd full of guberment assets. How’s Ray Epps sorry ass slap on the wrist?

        • Have you seen me defending those despicable acts that happened in 2020? Nope. I say throw the book at them all. No one should have gotten a pass for what they did in those riots.

          Both those who participated in January 6th storming of the Capitol or those who participated in the riots on 2020 should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

      • Pablo, the January 6th, 2021 protest was, at worst, a minor riot by a handful of the participants, that resulted in minor vandalism to three windows and one door. And NONE of the participants were armed, or attacked any Capitol police or security.

        Please explain to me, if you dare, how damage to three windows and one door, by a completely unarmed crowd who were overwhelmingly peaceful, constitutes an “insurrection”.

        The demagoguery and hyperbolic “insurrection” language used by you and your establishment masters on this subject is willfully antagonistic, utterly unjustified, and almost criminal in its politically corrosive effects. You are instigating violence and civil war by continuing to engage in it, and you and your radical leftist globalist masters will fully deserve all the blowback you receive from it as a result.

        • So you don’t consider bear mace/spray a weapon?

          There were several deaths on January 6th, one of them was a woman who was crushed to death by other “protesters” attempting to get into the Capitol.

          There is video footage of “protestors” carrying stun-guns, actual firearms, and other blunt instruments that were used as weapons. There is also video footage of those “protestors” beating capitol police/security.

          Lastly, it wasn’t just damage to three windows and one door, there was graffiti, feces and other damage to the interior of the Capitol. Didn’t you see the guy carrying out the Speaker podium? Didn’t you see the “protestors” break down AOC and Pelosi’s office doors and ransack the place?

          How is holding people accountable for their actions instigating violence and civil war?

          • “There were several deaths on January 6th,”
            Nope.
            There was one death. The other “deaths” attributed to the events of Jan 6th happened well after that day. And, initial reports that the events at the Capital were the cause were later proven incorrect.
            .
            Also, how exactly did the protestors break down AOC’s door when her office is in a different building. A building that no one in the crowd actually entered.
            If you “saw” this video, it was fake.
            How much of your other “evidence” is fake as well?

          • Actually… let me clarify my statement.
            I am sure there were dozens of deaths on January 6th.
            Only one of them is attributable to the events on Capital Hill. The rest of the deaths recorded that day were for other reasons like old age, disease, heart attack, etc…
            .
            One person died on Capital Hill on Jan 6th, Ashli Babbit, and her death at the hands of a Capital Police officer was so completely unwarranted that the shooter made a radio call afterward claiming he was being fired upon. A call that is not supported in any way by anyone else on scene.

          • Face it, Paola: you are nothing more than a brainwashed lemming and a weak-willed, weak-minded conformist. The fact that you spout the inflammatory lies peddled by the corrupt and pro-globalist corporate media is proof enough of that.

            Paola, it is SO informative for me to observe that virtually EVERY radical leftist extremist, like you, simply parrot the EXACT SAME pro-establishment talking points and sound bites, with never, NEVER any ability to argue logically or to debate them rationally. ALL you have is your conformity with the ruling class, and your hare-brained emotionalism.

            You are really not even human, or might as well not be, for all the reason that you employ, or fail to employ.

      • Even if the protestors (goaded on my the Capital police and FBI agents) actually crossed the line into insurrection, how does that implicate Trump in it?
        In order for the 14th Amendment clause to apply, one has to participate in the insurrection.

    • No we are part of it. We are already on the list to correct.the politicized buffonary from Maine. Go read the US Constitution and educate yourself.

  2. If anything is ruled in Trump’s favor, it should be revealing how the peaceful woke society reacts. Hold fast. Hide.

  3. I think SCOTUS understands the consequences of they would not have taken the case. Goes with presidential immunity. Consider that if it allowed to stand then then any president or candidate could be controlled by any lower court or possibly even another country. “We don’t like your politics, We will just bring charges, no matter how warrantless” .
    If they happen to rule against the group of twenty five should immediately file charges against FJB and remove hime from the ballots in 25 states.

  4. Does anyone doubt that removing Trump from the ballot is designed specifically to create chaos? If you fling enough stuff up against the wall, pretty soon something will stick. Doesn’t have to be much, just enough to get to Democrats to their goal: defeating Republicans, seizing power and ramming their agenda down the throats of Americans. There are no rules anymore. It’s just that Republicans either don’t recognize it, or are unwilling to do something about it.

  5. Susanne run the video of Don young at a meeting in Palmer saying it absolutely was not an insurrection. He was there.

    This is nothing but smoke and mirrors to draw stupid people’s attention off 178 perverts who like little girls and the boarder nightmare. The mainstream media is evil as hell.

  6. BTW, do any of you understand, even if they by chance remove him, you cannot stop a write in candidacy. Wow, what a thought, eliminates the dominion machines and write in ballots as they won’t be able to calculate how many phony votes to make the 2020 blip…..

    • Denali: Do you know that Fox news paid Dominion like $728 million for its defamation of the company?

  7. Mail in ballots and Dominion machines, my apparatus changed my wording. BTW, Haley cannot technically run, she has the Ted Cruz problem. Not a natural born citizen as defined by the constitution.

    • Haley can run for President. She was born in South Carolina in 1972. Doesn’t matter that her parents were not citizens at the time because that pesky Constitution you mention allows anyone who is physically born in the USA to be a natural born US Citizen.

      A non Natural born US Citizen is someone who becomes a US Citizen by going through a naturalization process. This would be a person who came to this country, got a green card, then took and passed a citizenship test after a few years. They become naturalized citizens, but are not natural born citizens. Cant run for President if you are one of them, but you can if you were born here or born to US Citizen parents.

      Oh that pesky Constitution.

      • You need to read the US Constitution. Natural born citizen is born to 2 citizens of the country. Nikkis parents were not Naturalized citizens upon her birth. One naturalized in 1979 and the other in 2003. Not a Natual Born Citizen plain and simple. Got any more questions go reference Ted Cruz, and the constitution.

        • Wrong.

          Per SCOTUS case US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, children born on US soil are Natural Born Citizens regardless of their parent’s citizenship. There were exceptions to this, like diplomats children born in the US do not get citizenship or children born to enemy aliens during a hostile occupation.

          Does not matter the parent’s immigration status, if the child is born in the US, they get US citizenship.

          Haley’s parents are not natural born US Citizens, and I never claimed they were.

          The definition of a Natural Born Citizen is never explicitly stated in the US Constitution, so we need to rely on precedent set by SCOTUS or laws passed and enacted by Congress. As no laws have been enacted by Congress establishing a definition of Natural Born Citizens, we must use the SCOTUS decisions instead.

  8. so we shouldn’t follow the rule of law because it might be messy?That’s the gist of this article.Really?

  9. Wide-spread CHAOS…that’s funny considering it already happened in 2020 by way of the BLM organization/riots. Ops, I meant to say, “mostly PEACEFUL demonstrations”.

  10. The Constitution sets out qualifications for running for President. For example, you have to be 35 years old and you have to be born here. Another qualification is that a person who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the United States to preserve, support and protect the Constitution , later engages in insurrection or rebellion against the same. The bar against an insurrectionist being a presidential candidate is really no different than the bar against a foreigner or a 20 year old running for President. It doesn’t really matter whether you desperately support and fervently want a 20 year old born in a foreign country to be our next President. Your preferred candidate can’t run. That isn’t really undemocratic. Those rules have existed for at least 150 years.

    It’s interesting that Mr. Trump’s supporters claim that these Constitutional provisions are anti-democratic, but have no problem with the fact that Trump won the 2016 election even though he lost that election by millions of votes. The electoral college system for selecting a President is certainly “anti-democratic” in that millions more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Donald Trump. Yet he won and she lost under the rules set out in the Constitution. Yet Mr. Trump’s supporters embraced this result because it favored their candidate.

    Many conservatives from red states like to say that we are a republic, not a democracy. They say this in response to those complaining that states with small populations like Alaska get the same number of U.S. Senators as large states with tens of millions of citizens. This is yet another example of a Constitutional provision that seems to be undemocratic, but it’s the rule.

    As to the claim that the precedent of barring Mr. Trump would allow state government officials or judges to disqualify a Presidential candidate they don’t like, based on their personal politics, that tens of millions of voters favor, let’s remember that the Colorado court held a trial in which Mr. Trump was represented and allowed to introduce evidence and present his side of the case, and that he has the right to appeal that decision. So the Colorado decision was not an arbitrary ruling based on a process that Mr. Trump was not allowed to present his case. The decision by the Maine Secretary of State is a bit more problematic, but she claims her decision was based on the lengthy findings of fact by the Colorado court. Moreover, the January 6 Committee in Congress conducted an extensive investigation in which it uncovered substantial evidence that Mr. Trump and his close aides conspired to disrupt Congress’ certification of the 2020 election, as part of a scheme to have Mr. Pence disqualify the certified ballot results in numerous states (many of them states run by Republicans who refused to support the scheme). That scheme collapsed when Mr. Pence refused to play along, causing Mr. Trump to decide to hold his “Stop the Steal” rally a short distance from the Capitol, whip the crowd into a frenzy with a pack of lies about the election being stolen, attacking Mr. Pence for his decision to uphold the law, and then encourage them to march to the Capitol to stop him from certifying the election. As the mob stormed the Capitol (breaking into the building, storming the Senate chamber, trying to break into the House chamber, chanting”Hang Mike Pence”, smearing feces on the wall, stealing property, attacking police officers) Trump eagerly watched events unfold on his t.v. He refused to mobilize the National Guard or any federal law enforcement officials for hours. It wasn’t until hours after the crowd stormed the Capitol, when the media reported that Mr. Pence and Congress members had been safely evacuated, and would reconvene to certify the election, that Mr. Trump issued a statement calling on his supporters to stand down.

    Thus the Colorado Court and the January 6 Committee both found substantial evidence that the January 6 event was part of a scheme organized by Mr. Trump and his supporters to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election under a process set out in the Constitution and federal laws. Many of Mr. Trump’s supporters refuse to believe this, most likely because they refuse to even consider the evidence. Rather, they have been misled by sociopaths like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and other internet trolls into believing that the FBI organized and led the assault (a claim with no factual basis that has been repeatedly disproven), and that the attack launched to stop the certification of the election was just minor mob violence, no different than disorderly protests following the murder of Mr. Floyd by Milwaukee police officers.

Comments are closed.