Colorado Sec. of State Agrees to Put Trump’s Name on Primary Ballot
Sometimes a win is not quite what it appears to be, and I am here to warn everyone to pump the brakes a bit before celebrating the ruling in Colorado to add Donald Trump’s name back to the primary ballot.
Yes, the Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, has announced that she will be adding Trump’s name to the primary ballot.
However, it comes with a caveat and the case in Michigan has opened up the door to far more serious issues for Trump.
Looking Further Down the Road
My job is to break down every angle, good or bad, and that is what I am about to do here.
First, the decision was made in lieu of Trump’s campaign appealing the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, which was covered in the announcement by Griswold.
She stated, "Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and was disqualified under the Constitution from the Colorado Ballot.
"The Colorado Supreme Court got it right. This decision is now being appealed. I urge the U.S. Supreme Court to act quickly given the upcoming presidential primary election."
She would go on to say that Trump’s name will be on the ballot unless the Supreme Court rejects the case of upholds the lower court ruling.
Even if the Supreme Court overrules the Colorado Supreme Court, there is another issue here that will have to be dealt with, that being the very specific language of Section III, which states, “No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state.”
The argument against that is that it does not specifically state the office of the president, but it does say, “hold any office … under the United States or under any state,” which could easily be interpreted as the office of the president.
From what I have read from legal and constitutional experts, and as stated in the Michigan ruling, if Donald Trump wins the nomination, if he is deemed to have participated in or incited an insurrection, as well as if lends aid to an insurrectionist, he could be disqualified.
The Supreme Court is going to first have to define if the events that took place on January 6 qualified as an insurrection, a phrase that then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had dialed up and ready for use.
If they do decide it was an insurrection, then they have to decide if Trump’s words were responsible for inciting the insurrection.
Even if Trump dodges those two bullets, if he decides to pardon any January 6 defendants who were convicted of sedition, he could immediately open himself up for being impeached via the 14th Amendment.
As you can see, this is quite a sticky situation, and one that we can only hope the Supreme Court clears up beyond the shadow of a doubt when the Colorado case is reviewed.
