In the spirit of Patrick Henry, we should rail as we witness before the Supreme Court of the United States, Docket No. 23-719, Trump v. Anderson. On February 8th, 2024, SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, heard Oral Arguments to determine the Constitutional validity of removing Donald Trump from Colorado’s presidential primary ballot.
Whenever politicians invoke the U.S. Constitution, and then make statements or demands that are the antithesis of the Rule of Law and Individual Rights, they pose a great threat, a form of Constitutional Blasphemy against our Liberty. Many government officials, including judges, have been using biased and often absurd arguments to usurp the law. If the Colorado State Supreme Court conspired to secure a politically motivated outcome and formulated an “Assumption of Guilt” to support a verdict against an opponent, the very concept of Justice is in peril.*
The Question Presented Is
Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23SA300**
The oral arguments were filled with complicated textual technicalities stemming from statutes from 1868. Their relevance was more to whether the president was covered as an officer under the constitution, presidential immunity, and whether only Congress can exclude a candidate from the ballot argued. But the underlying reality is dependent on whether an insurrection took place, that Trump was responsible, and can a state make that determination to exclude him from the ballot.
When lost for a response to SCOTUS questioning, Respondents for Colorado fell into embarrassing Circular Reasoning. The lead attorney tried to evade answering, even attempting to put Trump on trial again before the court. He insisted there was proof of an insurrection, evidently sufficient to some judges in Colorado. Justices pushed the point that states do not have the authority to disqualify national candidates. They were getting irritated with “The Cart before the Horse” fallacies asking, “Who decides engagement of insurrection?” It would be Congress and certainly not one state.
The Justices pointed out that every state would be able to make these and similar types of disqualifications against candidates, ad infinitum.
From the questioning and temperament of the court’s leanings, it seems obvious there should, and will be a 9-0 decision. Imagine the vulgar principle that a presidential opponent with “no Federal conviction,” no less charge, can be found guilty of insurrection and then punishment administered. This exemplifies how Colorado’s “Star Chamber’s” spurious argumentation operated. And their collective media minions worship and offer praise.
Public Response to Typical Swindlers
Responses to the Amicus Brief from the NAACP presented to a variety of people provide some illumination. Most College students simply say, “I don’t get it” or “Ah. OK.” But others recognize the incomprehensible rhetoric when asked what they thought about the NAACP’s claim, ” … in support of neither party”:
“Today, our nation is at a precipice not seen since the Civil War. After former President Trump lost the 2020 election, he engaged in a series of extraordinary efforts to stay in power and repeatedly made false claims that the 2020 election had been stolen by voter fraud. Those claims revealed that, even today, the principle of equal citizenship remains highly contested. President Trump’s false claims of voter fraud were targeted at cities with large numbers of Black voters and other voters of color, thereby suggesting that they should not have a full and equal voice in determining the fate of our democracy. On January 6, 2021, a violent mob of the former President’s supporters stormed the Capitol of the United States and sought to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, hoisting – for the first time in history – the Confederate battle flag in the citadel of our democracy. Three years later, former President Trump continues to repeat his false and racially targeted claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him because of voter fraud. In the decision below, the Colorado Supreme Court determined that former President Trump engaged in an insurrection in connection with the events of January 6, and that, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition on insurrectionists serving again as officers of the United States, he is disqualified from being included on the ballot. This brief does not address whether the Colorado Supreme Court’s ultimate determination was correct, and it is submitted on behalf of neither party. Instead, Amicus submits this brief to defend the Fourteenth Amendment and to urge the Court to fulfill its duty thereunder. That Amendment, along with the Fifteenth Amendment, constitutes our judicially enforceable commitment to a multi-racial democracy. As LDF’s Seventh President and Director-Counsel Sherrilyn Ifill has written, it was meant both to “protect Black people against” the belief that they were “meant to be subjugated to the demands of Whites,” and to protect “the nation against insurrection, which was understood to constitute an ongoing threat to the future of our country.”” (Excerpt P. 8-9)
Jimmy, a NYC chess player has had enough, “Absurd, ridiculous, preposterous analysis yet again put forth by a predictable confederacy of dunces.”
Doug from Nassau adds, “It says Trump’s claim was false and racially targeted. What nonsense. But like the recent libel judgment against him for hundreds of millions of dollars it shows liberals will stop at nothing to punish those who deviate from the party line.”
Astute Lenny from Yonkers, “What illogical tripe! They support unproved allegations of insurrection by throwing in accusations of racism against Trump, all the while pretending to support neither party. That being said, I guess anyone can find some “traffic judge” to say that, due to the NAACP’s DEI front for race baiting and inciting violence. They should be condemned as a Domestic Terrorist Organization.”
A Connecticut Library Patron offers an ironic quip, “How vulgar. The NAACP has long since been a bought out political tool and a front for Progressives, The National Association for the Advancement of Communist Propaganda. From indirectly if not directly pushing the idea that math is racist to the CRT false history in order to foster the hatred of White People and America. People need to read more books like 1620 to de-brainwash from that 1619 Project gibberish. And they support LGBTQ whatever, porno for kindergarten students. Don’t get me started. And, what about the ‘obvious crimes’ of every Democrat in the House who voted for Trump Russia Collusion and the Impeachment Hoaxes? They should all be removed from voting ballots.”
The NAACP does “support” a party, an ideology, Progressive Liberal, which may explain their twisted reasoning argumentation. A Constitutional Conservative ideologist predominantly derives points of view from relying on proof and empirical evidence as a source or base in Reality.
Unfortunately, Progressives are predominantly motivated by superior pseudo-morality theories and utopian fantasies, an underlying self-aggrandizement where facts and evidence are unnecessary, if not a hindrance.
Their points of view may be unfounded or illogical, and even when supplied with contradictory evidence, they remain steadfast, believing they cannot be disputed. Writer and Editor Joseph Epstein best compared Conservative and Progressive perceptions of others:
“Disagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left and he is more likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insensitive, possibly evil.” ***
Related Overreach by “The Anointed and Elite”
SCOTUS has likely not seen anything this absurd since the encroachment on our Property Rights when the Fish and Wildlife Service tried to “designate” a man’s land and lumber operation as a habitat to proliferate an out-of-town endangered frog. Yes. You read correctly: WEYERHAEUSER CO. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE No. 17-71****
See similar encroachments on the Fishing Industry by Government agencies: https://www.nationalfisherman.com/mid-atlantic/congress-hears-arguments-on-vessel-speed-limit-to-protect-whales
A Decision to Protect Our Civil Liberties Is Pending
Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce 22-1219
Loper Bright Enterprises V. Raimondo 22-451
Among other recurring issues, fishermen pay up to $700 a day for agents to monitor their catch, and they have had enough.
Here are some excuses an agency uses to take action:
- To help save a frog while circumventing individual liberties and property rights.
- Declaring an “Emergency” with often arbitrary COVID shutdowns.
- Lowering boat speed limits to 10 MPH to better protect the Right Whale, a speed which not only increases certain dangers but would decimate the fishing industry and a multitude of other businesses all along the East Coast. (Monitored by satellite to issue fines)
The court should rule that agencies packed with unelected bureaucrats not answerable to the voters cannot interpret the law at the expense of the livelihoods and safety of citizens.
We Wait on Supreme Court
A nation is at the brink of collapse when authorities simultaneously refuse to enforce fundamental standing laws while bureaucrats implant their own pseudo-laws at every level of the judicial system.
We see arson and widespread looting, and the continuous invasion – the illegal foreign “colonization” at America’s southern border go unpunished and even rewarded. And now, an attempt looms to remove a political candidate from the ballot to permanently dispense with the Will of the Citizenry.
Meanwhile, the reprobates responsible not only consider their corrupt decisions virtuous, but call it Democracy. The U.S. Supreme Court must unanimously admonish Colorado’s judges for their disregard of the law. If our Constitutional Checks and Balances fail, so must the nation.
Honor does exist as displayed by up-and-coming political leader Vivek Ramaswamy, who pledged to withdraw his candidacy from any state that removes Donald Trump from its ballot:
Brief of Amicus Curiae Vivek Ramaswamy in Support of Petitioner:
“Those who seek to disqualify presidential candidates from even appearing on the ballot fundamentally distrust the American people. They fear that the voters, if allowed to evaluate a full range of options, may make the “wrong” choice as perceived by political elites, and so they seek to deprive voters of that choice entirely.” (Excerpt P. 5-6)
Will any member of SCOTUS sacrifice integrity to accommodate biased politicians and their “Pravda-like” media or will all interpret the U.S. Rule of Law as demanded by their station under the U.S. Constitution? Anything less than jurisprudence would reek of gross incompetence, treachery and disrespect for America.
In 1804, Justice Samuel Chase was the only U.S. Supreme Court justice ever impeached by the House of Representatives (acquitted by the Senate) on the “grounds of letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions.”
I trust it unlikely from the argumentation, but a tyrannical-like decision at the highest court level today poses great danger. It could usher in an end to American Citizenship, an end to “We the People.”
From parasitic politicians to a collaborating public, too many dance like marionettes to the media’s tune. These lethargic, abiding drones along with the enforcement of unjust laws by corrupted authorities, will foster an environment where all ownership, beliefs, and even what people are permitted to think will be determined by bureaucratic puppeteers.
In reflection of SCOTUS’s unconscionable Texas Border decision, and party-wide never-ending “Banana Republic” type attacks on Former President Trump, any U.S. Supreme Court Justice that does not answer YES to the question as to whether the lower court erred would signal “an unfitness for the bench.”
Trump v. Anderson and Insurrection Argument
*ANDERSON RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER DONALD J. TRUMP’S PETITION
Whether, by intentionally mobilizing, inciting, and encouraging the violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, Trump “engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution for purposes of Section 3? (Excerpt P. 2)
23-719 TRUMP V. ANDERSON DECISION BELOW: 2023 WL 8770111 ORDER OF JANUARY 5, 2024: THE CASE IS SET FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2024. EXPEDITED BRIEFING. CERT. GRANTED 1/5/2024
QUESTION PRESENTED: The Supreme Court of Colorado held that President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President because he “engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution of the United States-and that he did so after taking an oath “as an officer of the United States” to “support” the Constitution. The state Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Secretary of State should not list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot or count any write-in votes cast for him. The state supreme court stayed its decision pending United States Supreme Court review.