If You Are Living In New York And You Don't Have An Exit Plan ...

 ... especially if you're White, you seriously need to rethink your living situation.

https://x.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/2008033157543870583

Fifth Amendment (Bill of Rights, ratified 1791):
“No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
” This includes two core elements:
The Due Process Clause — prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property by the federal government.
The Takings Clause — requires “just compensation” when private property is taken for public use (eminent domain). 

Fourteenth Amendment (ratified 1868, Section 1):
“No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
This extends due process protections to actions by state governments and has been interpreted to incorporate many Bill of Rights protections against the states.

Trump Asks Supreme Court To End Birthright Citizenship

President Trump has just asked the Supreme Court to end birthright citizenship once and for all, telling the high court that the idea of ‘birthright citizenship’ is a mistake and that the 14th amendment wasn’t meant to confer that right on illegal aliens.
Here’s more from CNN:
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to review the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, pushing the issue back before the justices for the second time this year.
Despite more than a century of understanding that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on people born in the United States, the Trump administration told the Supreme Court that notion was “mistaken” and that the view became “pervasive, with destructive consequences.”
“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the administration’s top appellate attorney, told the Supreme Court in the appeal. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”
CNN reviewed a copy of the appeal, which has not yet been docketed at the high court.
While the Supreme Court handed down an important decision in June that dealt with birthright citizenship, that case was technically focused on a more procedural question of how much power lower courts had to stop a policy implemented by a president. A 6-3 majority of the court essentially limited – but did not completely rule out – the power of courts to block those policies.
That decision sent states and individuals who were challenging Trump’s birthright order scrambling to file new cases to shut down the birthright policy through other means, including class-action lawsuits. The Supreme Court implicitly allowed those other types of nationwide blocks to continue.
A series of new rulings have continued to keep Trump’s policy on hold, and the administration is now asking the justices to take up those cases to settle the issue once and for all.

https://therightscoop.com/breaking-trump-asks-supreme-court-to-end-birthright-citizenship/

Who Counts? Trump Poised To Try To Remove Noncitizens From Census

Following a years-long surge in illegal immigration, the Trump administration is poised to challenge a longstanding but legally fraught practice: counting illegal aliens in the U.S. census.
President Trump tried to end the practice during his first term, but President Biden overturned his predecessor’s policy before it was implemented. Now, buoyed by red state attorneys general and Republican legislators, the second Trump administration is determined “to clean up the census and make sure that illegal aliens are not counted,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller said last month.
What Miller didn’t mention are the political implications of the administration’s move. It could have significant political implications because the census count is used to apportion House seats, determine the number of votes each state gets in the Electoral College for selecting the president, and drive the flow of trillions of dollars in government funds.
Some immigration researchers project that including noncitizens in the census count disproportionately benefits Democratic states with large illegal alien populations. A recent study counters that, based on 2020 census figures, there would have been a negligible shift to the political map had the U.S. government excluded noncitizens from that count. But looking backward, those researchers found, red states would have benefited under the administration’s desired census counting shift. Had authorities excluded such migrants from the 2010 census, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and North Carolina all would have gained one seat in the House, while California would have lost three seats, and Texas and Florida would have each lost one seat – with the total number of Electoral College votes allotted each state changing accordingly.
Since the first census in 1790, the nation has counted not only citizens but also residents to determine such representation. In addition to citing its long history, defenders of the practice say it is only fair that states should be given the power and resources to represent and serve everyone within their borders.
Critics contend the government’s powers come from “We the people” – citizens or eligible voters – a government established before tens of millions of migrants resided in the country illegally. They also say the practice dilutes the representation of American citizens while incentivizing localities to promote illegal immigration.
Trump’s first term hints at what is to come if his administration vigorously pursues a citizen-centric census policy. In July 2020, when the president issued a memorandum to exclude illegal migrants from the census, blue states and immigration groups challenged it in court almost immediately.
Those challenges rose all the way to the Supreme Court. But it did not rule on the merits – whether all residents must be counted and if the president has the authority to exclude nonresidents – setting the stage for a battle over immigration and presidential power.

 
The Meaning of the 14th Amendment
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

Read the entire article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/who-counts-trump-poised-try-remove-noncitizens-census

Donald Trump Is Emphatically Correct About Birthright Citizenship

By Josh Hammer

Birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is, at best, a live and unsettled legal debate. But the original meaning is quite clear.
Less than two weeks into this second Trump presidency, the fearmongering has already reached fever pitch. “He can’t do it!” the critics have invariably howled in decrying President Donald Trump’s landmark day-one executive order upending the status quo on birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship."

The usual suspects in the punditocracy say Trump’s order is “blatantly unconstitutional” and that it “violates settled law.” Perhaps it’s even “nativist” or “racist,” to boot!
Like the Bourbons of old, pearl-clutching American elites have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Because when it comes to birthright citizenship, the virtue signaling and armchair excoriation is not just silly — it’s dead wrong on the law. Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound and fundamentally just. The maestro of Mar-a-Lago deserves credit, not condemnation, for implementing such a bold order as one of his very first second-term acts.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The clause’s purpose was to overturn the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and thereby ensure that Blacks were, and would forever be, full-fledged citizens.
But Blacks were here from America’s beginning. The ruinous slavery debate aside, in 1868 Blacks were thus universally viewed — unlike, for example, American Indians — as “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. (Congress did not pass the Indian Citizenship Act, which finally granted birthright citizenship to American Indians, until 1924.) Our debate today thus depends on whether, in 1868, aliens — legal or illegal — were considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
They weren’t.
In the post-Civil War Republican-dominated Congress, the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which had passed two years prior. Rep. James Wilson (R-Iowa), then House Judiciary Committee chairman and a leading 14th Amendment drafter, emphasized that the amendment was “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.” Similarly, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Mich.), the principal author of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, described it as “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.”
In other words, the 14th Amendment formalized the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And the citizenship clause of that law reads: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” In other words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” necessarily excludes those “subject to any foreign power.” As then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lyman Trumbull (R-Ill.) said during the 14th Amendment ratification debate, “subject to the jurisdiction” means subject to the United States’ “complete” jurisdiction — that is, “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
The 14th Amendment thus constitutionally requires that neither legal nor illegal aliens be afforded birthright citizenship. (Whether Congress passes additional rights-bestowing laws of its own volition is a separate matter.)
This understanding was unchallenged for decades. In the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Samuel Miller interpreted the citizenship clause as “intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” And in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, Justice Horace Gray held that “subject to the jurisdiction” means “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
It’s true that Gray inexplicably reversed course in an oft-cited 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Over a powerful and compelling dissenting opinion joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the sole dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, Gray held that there is some level of birthright citizenship for the children of aliens. But even in that wrongfully decided case, the court emphasized that its holding was limited to children of “resident aliens” who were under “the allegiance” of the United States. The court repeatedly emphasized that its holding only applied to those legitimately “domiciled” here.
In no world whatsoever does Gray’s pro-birthright citizenship opinion in Wong Kim Ark apply to children of illegal aliens. Eighty-four years later, in Plyler v. Doe, the court dropped a superfluous footnote indicating that Wong Kim Ark applies to the children of illegal aliens too. But this nonbinding footnote from Justice William J. Brennan Jr., a leading liberal, does not the “law of the land” make.
Fourteenth Amendment-mandated birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is, at best, a live and unsettled legal debate. But the original meaning is quite clear: The amendment’s draftsmen would have been aghast at the notion that people who broke our laws and entered our soil illegally could then be afforded birthright citizenship for their children. The drafters likely foresaw, as so many today do not, the tremendous perverse incentives induced by such an ill-conceived policy.
The so-called legal eagles are wrong. And Trump, yet again, is right.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/114129-donald-trump-is-emphatically-correct-about-birthright-citizenship-2025-01-31

Original Intent Of The 14th Amendment

Original Intent Of The 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)](13). In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case (12), the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case (10,11, 16) once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)
American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

For more information, see:

1.   P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans (February 1, 2005)
2.   Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq., Illegal Aliens and American Medicine The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10 Number 1 (Spring 2005)
3.   Al Knight, Track 'anchor babies', Denver Post (September 11, 2002)
4.   Al Knight, Change U.S. law on anchor babies, Denver Post (June 22, 2005)
5.   Tom DeWeese, The Mexican Fifth Column (January 27, 2003)
6.   Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform)
7.   Tom DeWeese, "The Outrages of the Mexican Invasion" (American policy Center)
8.   P.A. Madison, Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance The Federalist Blog (December 17, 2005)
9.   Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty - Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims (September 29, 2005)
10.   William Buchanan, HR-73 -- Protecting America's Sovereignty, The Social Contract (Fall, 1999) - includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark 1898 Supreme Court case
11.   Charles Wood, Losing Control of the Nation's Future -- Part Two -- Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens, The Social Contract (Winter, 2005) - includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark court case
12.   U.S. Supreme Court ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94 (Findlaw, 1884)
13.   U.S. Supreme Court Slaughter-House cases ('Lectric Law Library, 1873)
14.   Jacob M. Howard, Wikipedia.
15.   A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 2890 of 3840.
16.   United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Justia.com.

https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

Commie Rep. Jamie Raskin wants to deny Trump Presidency using 14th Amendment and prepare for ‘Civil War Conditions’.

https://x.com/merissahansen17/status/1820501337383244286?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1820501337383244286%7Ctwgr%5E77d419d5d9b43d38ddb5282b1a464356ea9bd9cd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbustednuckles.com%2F

This is what these delusional c*cksuckers keep trying to use to circumvent a legitimate electoral win if Trump wins in November.

Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection and Other Rights
• Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office. 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Contrary to what these Commie F*cks keep telling themselves, Trump has never been convicted of insurrection, for a damn good reason.
They keep dropping the end of the message that he actually said on January 6th and trying to jam a selectively edited version down everyone’s throat while pretending it’s concrete evidence that Trump is guilty of fomenting an insurrection.
Here is what he actually said,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UILCtm_ALMI

“To peacefully and patriotically make your voice heard.”
Nowhere did he mention violence.
Somehow the DemonRats are physically unable to hear those words and claim he incited a riot.
So now this Raskin asshole says out loud that if Trump wins the election that the Demonrats are going to intentionally set up the conditions for Civil War.
Notice right after he says this the very next thing out of his mouth is saying they (The politicians) are going to need more body guards.
Personally … sadly, I don’t think that Republicans have a chance of winning the next Presidential election, after all:

“We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” - Joe Biden

 STFU DICK

People who are terrified that Trump could be the Republican Presidential nominee in 2024 have expressed similar sentiments, arguing that Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia, led the “Stop the Steal” campaign which led to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol building.

So, let’s tear this thing apart, shall we?
For starters, ‘Ginni’ Thomas was not involved in Jan. 6. She was present at the rally but was not among those who went to the Capitol building afterward. She was not even named by congressional investigators as one of the individuals involved in the riot.
The effort to remove Trump from the ballot seeks to use a provision in the 14th Amendment that prohibits people who participated in a rebellion against the government from holding office. It was originally intended to apply to former members of the Confederacy.
Those seeking to use this provision against Trump argue that he fomented an insurrection against the government on Jan. 6, and that Ginni Thomas was somehow involved, which would mean that her husband should not be involved in adjudicating the case. However, if there is no evidence that Ginni was involved, their argument falls apart.
Next, we have the inconvenient reality that there was no actual “insurrection,” nor did Trump incite anyone to violence. At no point did he advocate for rioting or other type of violent activity in response to the outcome of the election. In fact, during his speech, he urged his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically” at the Capitol building. This is not exactly the language one would expect from someone trying to incite a riot, is it?
But we know what this is all about, don’t we? They don’t want Thomas to recuse himself because of his wife. They want him to recuse himself because they know he is more likely to vote against removing Trump from the ballot. Folks on the left see that this strategy might go up in smoke, and they are desperate to do something about it. At the end of the day, the 14th Amendment stratagem isn’t about protecting the Constitution, it is about influencing the upcoming election, nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 BREAKING NEWS Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is DISQUALIFIED from running for president and removed from the state ballot under the 14th Amendment for 'engaging in an insurrection.’

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday removed former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 Republican primary ballot, ruling he violated the insurrectionist clause of the 14th Amendment for his role in January 6.
In a 4-3 decision, Colorado's high court ruled the ex-president and 2024 hopeful isn't eligible for the presidency.
The 14th Amendment was approved after the Civil War and bars officials from seeking future office should they have 'engaged in insurrection.'
'A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,' the court wrote.
The decision may not stick - with Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung confirming Tuesday evening that the ex-president would appeal it to the Supreme Court. 

 

 

'We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits,' Cheung said.
The decision comes after a district court ruled that while Trump incited an insurrection - the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack - the provision in the Constitution was unclear whether it was intended to bar candidates for the presidency.
Tuesday's ruling will be placed on hold pending an appeal until January 4.

The lawsuit was filed by the Washington, D.C.-based group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, on behalf of six Colorado voters, some Republican and some unaffiliated with a political party.
The lawsuit pointed to Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol attack and also his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
The court found 'by clear and convincing evidence' that Trump engaged in an insurrection as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court found the section to be ‘self-executing,’ meaning further action by Congress was not required.
It found the District Court ‘did not err’ when it determined that January 6 constituted an ‘insurrection.’
It did so by citing Trump’s January 6 speech, where he told a crowd on the Ellipse to ‘fight like hell,’ saying it was not protected speech under the First Amendment.
‘The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot,’ the court ruled.
It acknowledged the certain appeal, staying the decision until January 4 to allow for time.
And it included the caveat: ‘We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this case presents several issues of first impression,’ among others.
Cheung said the decision was a product of an 'all-Democrat appointed' court and a 'Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden.'
'Democrat Party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing, dominant lead President Trump has amassed in the polls. They have lost faith in the failed Biden presidency and are now doing everything they can to stop the American voters from throwing them out of office next November,' Cheung said in a statement.
CREW's president and the plaintiffs cheered Tuesday's decision.
'The court's decision today affirms what our clients alleged in this lawsuit: that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist who disqualified himself from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment based on his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and that Secretary Griswold must keep him off of Colorado's primary ballot. It is not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country,' said CREW President Noah Bookbinder in a statement.
'Our Constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government. It has been an honor to represent the petitioners, and we look forward to ensuring that this vitally important ruling stands,' Bookbinder added.
One of the plaintiffs, Norma Anderson, was the former Republican Colorado House and Senate leader.
'My fellow plaintiffs and I brought this case to continue to protect the right to free and fair elections enshrined in our Constitution and to ensure Colorado Republican primary voters are only voting for eligible candidates. Today's win does just that,' she said in a statement.
'Long before this lawsuit was filed, I had already read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and concluded that it applied to Donald Trump, given his actions leading up to and on January 6th. I am proud to be a petitioner, and gratified that the Colorado Supreme Court arrived at the same conclusion we all did,' she added.
 Also piling on was Eric Trump, who made reference to how Trump's poll numbers have jumped even while he faces four criminal prosecutions.
'Prediction: This Colorado decision will add 5%+ points to @realDonaldTrump already runaway polls,' he posted on X.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12883351/Colorado-Supreme-Court-rules-Trump-DISQUALIFIED-president.html

 Judge Rejects Effort To Kick Trump Off Ballot In Colorado Under 14th Amendment.

A judge in Colorado has rejected a challenge filed by a Left-leaning group to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot under the 14th Amendment.
On Friday, Colorado Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled that Trump could not be kicked off the ballot in the state because the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment did not apply to the presidency. The challenge in Colorado was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of six Colorado voters.
“Part of the court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section 3,” Wallace wrote. The ruling comes after similar efforts to block Trump from appearing on state ballots failed in Michigan and Minnesota.
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said that the ruling was another nail in the coffin for the efforts to make Trump ineligible to run for office.
“We applaud today’s ruling in Colorado, which is another nail in the coffin of the un-American ballot challenges,” Cheung said. “These cases represent the most cynical and blatant political attempts to interfere with the upcoming presidential election by desperate Democrats who know Crooked Joe Biden is a failed president on the fast track to defeat.”
Wallace did rule that the Capitol riot was an “insurrection” and claimed that Trump meant to “incite political violence.”
“Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification,” Wallace wrote. “Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same.”
Mario Nicolais, a lawyer for the group who challenged Trump’s eligibility, said that the group planned on appealing.
“The court found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection after a careful and thorough review of the evidence,” Nicolais said. “We are very pleased with the opinion and look forward to addressing the sole legal issue on appeal, namely whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to insurrectionist presidents. We believe that it does.”
Trump, currently the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination, has risen above President Joe Biden in polling from recent crucial swing states.
The ruling from Wallace came the same day that House Speaker Mike Johnson announced that he would be making footage from January 6 publicly available for everyone to view.
Much of the footage that was previously made available focused on protester clashes with police while widely shared footage from Friday’s drop showed people walking down a hallway past law enforcement in an orderly fashion and even waving to officers.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-rejects-effort-to-kick-trump-off-ballot-in-colorado-under-14th-amendment

 “This is the most partisan piece of sh*t “news” piece by ABC News” – Mark Levin.

Mark Levin tweeted a few moments ago an article from ABC News that he says is “the most partisan piece of sh*t” news article regarding the left’s attempt to disqualify Trump.
“This is the most partisan piece of sh*t “news” piece by ABC News, pushing the most outrageous abomination dressed up as a constitutional issue, yet. I have been warning about this scam for over a year, that they would try it and organize a movement behind it, and that is exactly what is taking place. And the corrupt media are all in. Notice, despite the fact I have discussed this on Fox, on my radio show, and on the Internet, not one word from ABC News about my challenge to this entire ruse.”

 

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1695534888856715328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1695534888856715328%7Ctwgr%5E5dbf2ebbb0fbcd6014f614332d078455994faa35%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Fthis-is-the-most-partisan-piece-of-sht-news-piece-by-abc-news-mark-levin%2F

The article is on trying to use the 14th amendment to claim Trump is disqualified because of his efforts to ‘overturn’ the 2020 election:

ABC News - “Separate from the criminal cases, over the past few weeks a growing body of conservative scholars have raised the constitutional argument that Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election make him ineligible to hold federal office ever again.
That disqualification argument boils down to Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which says that a public official is not eligible to assume public office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States, or had “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.
Advocacy groups have long argued that Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election fits those criteria. The argument gained new life earlier this month when two members of the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed it in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review.
“If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency,” the article reads.
Since then, two more legal scholars — retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig and Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe — made the same case in an article published in The Atlantic.
“The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation,” they wrote. “The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.”
The argument even got raised on the Republican presidential debate stage in Milwaukee this week.
“Over a year ago, I said that Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again as a result of what happened on January 6th. More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars,” Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said, eliciting a mix of cheers and boos from the audience. “I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony or who is disqualified under our Constitution.” - ABC News

Notice they claim this is a ‘conservative’ argument, but do they say anywhere that these people are likely ‘Never-Trumpers’. (I say likely because, other than Hutchinson and Tribe, I’m not familiar these people.) No, what this is a leftist argument that the Never-Trumpers would love to see happen.
The entire argument is ludicrous. There was no insurrection or rebellion against the United States. It was just a riot. Plain and simple. Just because Asa Hutchinson used the word ‘insurrection’ during the debate doesn’t make it so. It only makes him look like a moron RINO, which is why he’ll never win the nomination. I honestly don’t even know why he’s running.

https://therightscoop.com/this-is-the-most-partisan-piece-of-sht-news-piece-by-abc-news-mark-levin/