"Why doesn’t every American understand that If they can do this to a former US President, EVERYONE is vulnerable to punishment for crimes with which they have never been convicted. -- Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Dec. 21, 2023, posting on social media the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disallowing Trump on the 2024 ballot.
                                                               *    *     *     *     *  

Forrest Gump was an Einstein compared to the brainiacs sitting on the bench of Colorado's Supreme Court.  His movie comment, "Stupid is as stupid does" would have been too easy a headline selection, and an obvious give-away for this article.

I'll just leave it to the reader to recall the conclusion of his remark -- "You never know what you're gonna get" when comparing the court's recent Trump resolution to Forrest's chocolate candy observations. 

Four of the seven justices – all Democrats -- rendered a decision so mind boggling in legal interpretation as to defy the credibility of their law degrees. 

If, in fact, they went to law school.  Presumably, three did, since they correctly voted in the minority. 

At issue was the argument Donald J. Trump should not be permitted to be on the Colorado election ballot in 2024.  Regardless if he is the Republican Party's leading contender. 

Their contorted reasoning was based upon contorted reading of the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3, of the United States Constitution.  A post-Civil War amendment ratified July 9, 1868. 

Either reading of the amendment was skewed, resulting in a flawed opinion, or they intentionally perverted their decision in order to hinder Trump. 

Or, so it seems. 

Basically, the amendment was enacted in response to the Confederacy of the Southern States rebelling against the Northern States of the United States.  

It indicates no one can be a Senator or Representative, or other officers of the United States, or any state who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion," or "given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof" can be a candidate for elective office in the United States. 

In other words, the Congress of the mid-1860's wanted to make sure no former Confederate officials, including military, sympathizers, or anyone else involved in the South's uprising, could seek an office within the government of the United States, or the individual member states. 

Not specifically mentioned in the amendment is the Office of the President and Vice President, since there is only one of each in the United States.  The requirements needed to seek these positions are also detailed in the Constitution. 

Residing in a state which had withdrawn from the United States, would automatically negate any Constitutional rights and privileges citizens previously had when those states were part of the Union. 

Interestingly, no United States president has ever rebelled or been convicted of insurrection – including Trump. 

Now, 158 years later – when every person living in that era of the 14th Amendment has probably been deceased for at least 90-100 years -- four judges in Colorado have suddenly decided Trump isn't permitted to be on the ballot because he was, supposedly, involved in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol Hill "Insurrection;" disqualifying him to run for president due to the limitations of the 14th Amendment. 

Never mind he hasn't been indicted, tried or convicted of the crime of insurrection.  Nor, was he a member of the Confederacy.  In fact, he wasn't born until 81 years after the end of the Civil War. 

Plus, the Jan. 6th protests have never been declared an actual insurrection.  Unless, an "unarmed insurrection" definition has been included in Webster's New Woke Dictionary and adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court. 

After reading the 14th Amendment, and knowing the history leading to its enactment, there is absolutely no way any sober judge could possibly arrive at such a ludicrous decision. 

Amazingly, several Democrats have spoken out about the Colorado travesty. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., former Democrat turned Independent candidate for president, believes Colorado's court judgement can only lead to more unrest in the country. 

He's right.  This craziness will inspire additional demented state judges to follow the trend, ignoring ethical, legal or Constitutional components. 

For instance, Maine's Sec. of State (D) has recently said she single-handedly removed Trump's name from next year's ballot. 

How idiotic can it get?  One state government employee believes she has the lawful authority to decide federal elections laws when determining who Maine's thousands of voters can vote for?    

Likewise, in handing down their ruling, Colorado's Supreme Court also failed to recognize they do not have the lawful authority to decide, or alter, federal election laws, or Constitutional Amendments. 

They cannot abrogate a presidential candidate's right to seek office, regardless of individual opinions – or what happened in American history over 150 years ago. 

Apparently, in their zeal to cite the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3, as the basis for their decision, they overlooked – either by error or design -- the mandates included in Sec. 1 of the same Amendment:  "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." 

I would say Colorado's judges, and Maine's Sec. of State, are attempting to abridge Trump's privilege to run for public office, as well as depriving him due process and equal protection of law by holding him accountable for inciting an insurrection that he has never been charged with or convicted of.  

Ironically, the very same Amendment the judges insist grants them authorization to prohibit Trump's name on the ballot, also protects Trump's name to be on the ballot. 

Even an old, semi-literate retired truck driver – like myself -- can see the fallacy of these judges' thinking.  Actually, "thinking" is probably not the proper word to use in this particular instance.  

I'm confident the U.S. Supreme Court will not allow this b.s. to stand.  The election of presidential candidates should not, and cannot, be determined by the whims of black-robed activists, or delusional state officials, whose personal preferences and political ideologies may not be compatible with established law or the public's interests.    

If Colorado's judges desire to do the proper thing, they need to immediately step down, resign from the court, and pursue a different line of work more compatible with their thought processes. 

Failing that, a recall should at once be instituted by the citizens of Colorado.  Maine's Sec. of State needs to be promptly impeached by the state legislature.  

There is also the possibility Red states could reciprocate in a similar manner by demanding Biden's name be stricken from the ballot.  In Joe's case, probable cause evidence is more readily available as the House Oversight Committee is uncovering. 

Our country is already widely divided.  We don't need a replay of an 1840-1865 America by repeating some of the same failed mistakes. 

Mike Bibb 

Safford, AZ