Amendment, examining the meanings of the words “office,’ “officers,”27 “insurrection,”28
·“engaged”29 and “oath”³0 and, thereby, concludes that the plain language and plain meanings of Section 3, applies to the former president now seeking to hold office again as the President of the United States. See Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO at 79, ¶143; 84, ¶152; 87, ¶158.
In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the U.S. Constitution’s “provisions governing elections reveal the Framers’ understanding that powers over the election of federal officers had to be delegated to, rather than reserved by, the states.”.514 U.S. at 804. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that federal elections is one of the few areas in which the constitution expressly requires actions by the states, with respect to federal elections. Id. As previously identified, qualifications of candidates for federal offices are conducted by the states, not Congress, based on the U.S. constitution, and application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment should not be an exception.
9926
Based on the comparable rationale for interpreting Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and finding that it applies to Respondent-Candidate, as made by the Colorado Supreme Court, this
26 The Colorado Supreme Court found that the U.S. Constitution refers to the Presidency as an “office” twenty-five times. Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO at 72, ¶133; U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. at 861 (“qualifications for the office of President” is stated twice by the High Court.
27 See U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 803 (1995) (recognized that “Representatives and Senators are as much officers of the entire union as the President.”
28 Justice Boatright, dissenting, drew the conclusion that a conviction was necessary for an insurrection, but this Court notes that there no such language in Section 3. Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO at 11 (dissent). 29 Respondent-Candidate cites to an “overt, voluntary act’ being required. 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 141, 164 (1867). He then provides a dictionary meaning of “to be involved, or have contact, with someone or something.” (EB Record, C-6691 V12). He does not refuted that he gave a speech on January 6 at the Ellipse Rally, that he sent out tweets entitled, “Stop the Steal”, Storm or Invade or Take the Capital, and to disburse or be peaceful (but only after violence had occurred almost 3 hours prior). These facts alone created by a preponderance of the evidence using the Respondent-Candidate’s own definition that by his conduct he engaged with the crowd, deemed to be engaging in insurrection. (EB Record C-6691 V12, C-6694 V12); Colorado Trial Exhibit Nos. 49, 68 and 148.
30 Oath of the President of the United States effectively is language that can be interpreted as supporting the U.S. Constitution and the peaceful transfer of power. Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 8 (“preserve, protect and defend”)
30
Source: Elections - nytimes.com
