The “insurrectionist” clause of the 14th Amendment says, “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, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Enacted after the Civil War, and ratified by the states in 1868, Congress wanted to prevent officeholders who joined the Confederacy from holding office.
Four of the seven Democrat-appointed Colorado Supreme Court justices ruled this clause prevents former President Donald Trump from appearing on that state’s primary ballot. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a similar lawsuit. But several more states have pending lawsuits based on the insurrection clause.
Despite democrats having appointed all seven Colorado Supreme justices, three dissented. Trump vowed to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court where six of three justices were Republican nominees. It is practically a foregone conclusion that the Colorado case will be overturned, and the Supreme Court’s ruling could even be unanimous. Also, note that while Trump faces three federal conspiracy counts and one count of obstructing an official proceeding, the special counsel DID NOT charge the former president with “insurrection.”
In its 200-page majority decision, the Colorado Supreme Court said that on Jan. 6 Trump told supporters to “walk down to the Capitol” and “fight like hell” and “take back our country.” Not mentioned is that Trump also said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capital building to peacefully and patriotically. Make your voices heard.”
The Colorado Court found “substantial evidence” the Trump was “laying the groundwork for a claim that the election was rigged” before the November 2020 election and before the Jan. 6 riot. But does not Trump, or for that matter, any politician have a First Amendment right to complain, however unjustifiably, about the integrity of an election?
Hillary Clinton frequently called the 2016 election “stolen” and President Trump “illegitimate.” Never mind that former President Barack Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified that there was no evidence that the Russians succeeded in changing a single vote tally. As to the effect of the Russian interference, Johnson said there was no way of knowing whether it affected public opinion or altered the election. But Democrats believe otherwise. A 2018 YouGov poll found that 66% of Democrats believe the Russians, to elect Trump, changed vote tallies. A 2018 Gallup poll found that 78% of Democrats believe the Russian interference “changed the outcome of the election.” But the media do not call Democrats “election deniers.”
About the 2020 presidential election, a Quinnipiac University poll found that “seventy-six percent” of Republicans believed there was “widespread voter fraud.” Republicans, although slightly less likely to call 2020 stolen than Democrats about 2016, are, of course, “election deniers.”
Finally, the anti-Trump media accuses Trump of peddling “the Big Lie” about 2020 voter fraud, irregularities or illegality. After all, there is supposedly no evidence to justify the assertions. John Eastman, a former Trump lawyer who argued that state legislatures and Vice President Mike Pence possess the legal authority to reject certification, now faces disbarment. The California Bar Association asked this once respected and courtly former dean and law professor at Chapman University School of Law for evidence about 2020 election-altering widespread fraud. Eastman turned in over 80,000 pages of documents. In an hourlong speech available for viewing on Rumble, Eastman spoke in detail about just some of what he considered substantial election irregularities. It’s called “Taking a Stand Against a Weaponized Justice System.” I urge the most ardent believer in the “Trump promoted baseless conspiracy theories” narrative to watch the speech. Be prepared for discomfort.