This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A brief has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court explaining how Democrat judges in Colorado blundered badly on a constitutional question when they removed President Donald Trump's name from the 2024 presidential primary ballot.
At issue is the lawfare that Democrats, afraid that their candidate, Joe Biden, will lose to Trump in the 2024 race, have been waging against Trump. They want him removed from the ballot, so they won't have to worry about a Biden loss.
Their claim is that he's an "insurrectionist" because of his comments on the faults that were found in the 2020 election.
But he's never been charged with such a crime, and when Democrats in Congress made a similar complaint, he was acquitted by the Senate.
The ACLU reported that there are those trying to "misappropriate the 14th Amendment to keep voters from choosing the candidates of their choice."
"In Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred by removing former President Trump from the presidential ballot and preventing the Republican Party from having the chance to select him as a presidential candidate. We represent the Colorado Republican Party, a party in the case, and are defending at the Supreme Court the Colorado Republican Party’s right to freely select its own presidential candidates," the report said.
It continued, "There are many reasons why the novel theories the Colorado Supreme Court has adopted are irreconcilable with the law."
Its brief focused on several of the leading reasons.
"First, the President is not an officer of the United States to whom Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment applies. Second, Section Three is not self-executing; that is, Section Three does not, absent congressional implementation, empower the fifty states and the District of Columbia each to veto national presidential candidates in their separate jurisdictions," the report said.
"Third, Section Three only applies to holding office, not running for office. Congress can remove any Section Three disqualification, which means Section Three provides no absolute obstacle to a particular candidate holding office, much less running for that office. Fourth, barring political parties from choosing their own candidates violates the right of association protected by the First Amendment."
The ACLJ reported, "There are a host of legal reasons why the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision cannot be sustained. Never before has a former president been removed from the ballot, and there is a reason. In our brief, we have shown how precedent and history confirm that Section Three doesn’t even apply to the president and how Section Three cannot be applied on a whim by a state. Secretaries of State lack the authority to decide for themselves that a candidate is disqualified for 'insurrection.' Moreover, Section Three only prevents people from holding certain offices. It says nothing about whether they can run for office."
The report said, "The question at the heart of this case is whether the people or the courts will select our country’s next president. We are urging the Supreme Court to ensure the decision remains with the people – where it belongs."
