STATE & NATIONAL: An analysis of the Supreme Court and its handling of the case involving a decision made by a Colorrado. trial court to have former President Donald's Trump's name removed from the state's 2024 General Election ballot. The court's decision , made at an intense point in time surrounding Trump's role inthe January 6th insurrection, entered a ruling that the former President violated Article III of the U.S. Constitution and decided, further to remove Trump's name from the 2024 ballot. The trial court decision failed at removing Trump from the ballot given some argument that the presidency is not an office.
By Anne M Erbynstein.
The case remains in deliberation in the Supreme Court while the people of Colorado returned to court to push the law suit that would have former President Tfump's name removed from the state ballot.
Represented by the law firm of Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff and Murray presents the argument , the people of Colorado have cited Article III ofthe Constitution as the sword of domivles tgst eoukd disqualify Trump's eligibility to gun for tge US Presidency. While the argument involving Article III is significant, other portions of tge lower courts arguments reflect testimonies by others who witnessed private discussions engaged by Trump and members of his White House team and attorneys.
According to witness testimony, Trump and proponents met and spoke together in regard to events, its stated, that led to the insurrection along. The private discussion(s) purportedly included talks on plans involving which has led to the state of Georgia RICO Act violations trial and charges associated with interference with votes.
During an interview with SCOTUSBlog, attorney for the people, Eric Olson commented in regard to the efforts being made by the team of attorneys for Donald Trump, who have asserted efforts at establishing Trump's prosecution immunity --a privilege that is, often afforded a seated US President. Olson indicated that the lower court vacated the argument by the Trump team based on the fact by January 6th, Donald Trump stood as a former US President adding that Article IV did not apply to Donald Trump.
Basing the status of the Trump potential for being included in the Colorado hallow, the Colorado state court decided that Trump would not qualify for being named on the state ballot for another 5 years.
Olson stated that , after the lower court 's decision was not effective in securing a ' no ballot ' designation for the former President, the people sppeaked the decision in the Colorado Dupreme Court . The pursuit of removing Trump's name from the Colorado ballot was continued intge basis of violation ofthe US Constitution and Afticke III.
While the case remains pending, the final decision may be made by the Colorado Supreme Court.
Comments