Donald Trump removed from Colorado’s primary ballot due to insurrection clause | LiveNOW from FOX

Donald Trump removed from Colorado’s primary ballot due to insurrection clause | LiveNOW from FOX

The Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause.

Its the first time the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.

Trump’s attorneys had promised to appeal any disqualification immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final say about constitutional matters.

Subscribe to LiveNOW from FOX! https://www.youtube.com/livenowfox?sub_confirmation=1
Where to watch LiveNOW from FOX: https://www.livenowfox.com/
Follow us @LiveNOWFOX on Twitter: https://twitter.com/livenowfox

Raw and unfiltered. Watch a non-stop stream of breaking news, live events and stories across the nation. Limited commentary. No opinion. Experience LiveNOW from FOX.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98XwiF5xuls

Author: phillynews215

HOSTING BY PHILLYFINESTSERVERSTAT | ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2024 | ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. POST QUESTION OR INQUIRIES SEND ME AN EMAIL TO PHILLYNEWSNOW215@GMAIL.COM (www.phillynewsnow.com)

29 thoughts on “Donald Trump removed from Colorado’s primary ballot due to insurrection clause | LiveNOW from FOX

  1. We lost our democracy laws of the land turn the flag don’t allow laws to be made up for sovereignty; Deposition of testimony did any Supreme Court justices take gift a full 10 Judge impeachment

  2. If democrats want another civil war keep moving forward in trying to remove TRUMP from the presidential ballot. I guarantee we will not stand by and watch democrats outright rigging the election in their favor.

  3. So a person never convicted of an insurrection and actually not indicted for insurrection has been disqualified from running?………. And he’s the one supposedly interfering with elections. Someone make this make sense to me.

  4. There are different types of court proceedings. Example: Civil, Criminal, Administrative, Bond, etc.. (1) Civil typically involves equity (money) – This type of trial can have a Jury or No Jury; (2) Criminal typically involves fines, jail time and/or probation. – It too can have a Jury or No Jury; (3) Administrative typically involves issues of fact and only a judge can render a decision on a complaint.  Both sides present evidence and a judge makes a ruling. Example: A hospital petitioning a local zoning board for permission to rezone land. It’s kinda like a bond hearing or arraignment hearing. No Jury. Just a judge.

    The Colorado case was basically an administrative hearing to determine “eligibility” under the US. Constitution to run for President. Not guilty or innocent. That why Trump is not in jail over the ruling. It was just a finding of fact regarding “eligibility”. Due process relates to a person be "deprived of life, liberty or property” without proper notice and the right to be heard. The ruling does not deprived Trump of life, liberty or property. You can disqualify someone for being under age or foreign born without a conviction, it is merely a finding of fact. Both sides presented evidence in Colorado court and the judge made a ruling.

    Arnold Schwarzenegger (a very popular person) can't run for President of the United States because as he is NOT a naturalized citizen. Barack Obama served two terms as president. Under the U.S. Constitution, he is ineligible to run for that office again. Eligibility requirements are established in different sections of the US Constitution. Doesn’t matter how many voters would want Obama to run and would vote for him. A person has to be eligible FIRST. The courts did not create the US Constitution but the do have to interpret the meaning of a law and abided by it.

    Lastly, you don’t need Congress to pass a law to say a person that is not 35 years old is not eligible to run. It’s already in the U.S. Constitution. Also, Congress does not need to pass a law regarding insurrection. It’s already in the U.S. Constitution. We need to stop saying it’s not fair or the system is corrupt because it does not go the way we like. We need to stop with the complaint of judges being in one party or the other. You cannot say we believe in the 2nd Amendment but not the 14th Amendment. It’s not political. It’s just the law.

  5. I've known since Obama was elected in 2008 that Democrats are communists. Congratulations that many of you are just discovering this now. Another right wing conspiracy theory proven true.

  6. SCOTUS will uphold this very good ruling. They have TVs; they know what he is. Dictator wannabe's don't have any use for courts. They are also majority republicans, and removing him will give their moribound party a second chance to nominate a real candidate. Will they take this second chance? Probably not.

  7. you can’t hire a babysitter who’s been formally charged with child rape- so you can’t have a candidate to uphold and protect democracy who’s been formally charged with criminal conspiracy to subvert democracy- that’s patently absurd

  8. you can’t hire a babysitter who’s been formally charged with child rape- so you can’t have a candidate to uphold and protect democracy who’s been formally charged with criminal conspiracy to subvert democracy- that’s patently absurd

  9. IN MY OPINION, EVERYONE IN COLORADO, AND ANY ITHER STATE THAT FOLLOWS THIS DIRECTION, TO WRITE IN DONALD TRUMP IN FOR PRESIDENT……. HOW CAN THESE IDIOTS REFUSE THE OEOPLES REQUEST??????? WE DEFINITELY DON'T NEED ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE PRESIDENTIAL POSITION, BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE ELSE TO STAND FOR THE REAL AMERICAN PEOPLE……… just my opinion

  10. USC Title 18 section 2383 is the law that prescribes punishment for conviction of the crime of insurrection. It says convicts "shall be Fined under this title or imprisoned not more Than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of Holding any office under the United States."

    Since Trump's guilt is plainly evident, in the view of some, I wonder why they haven't brought a case against him under this law. That's weird, right?

    Also, isn't it kind of hard to concluded he incited an insurrection when not a single person that he allegedly incited has been charged with insurrection? That's weird too, right?

Leave a Reply