IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
As the hilarity of Toaderus Orangus being knocked off Colorado's primary ballot ebbs a bit, it occurs to me an examination of the Constitutionality of his removal is in order -specifically the argument that it violates his right to due process. So, first things first:; Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:; No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Seeing as it's 2023, the only parts of that which apply are "35 years of age" and "natural born citizen." Further, it immediately stands out that there's a distinction laid down between natural born and naturalized citizens which keys into the difference between Rights and Privileges. Why's that important? Well, a Constitutional Right applies to all citizens and since A2.S1.C5 cordons off the Presidency from naturalized U.S. citizens, that makes holding the Office of the Presidency a privilege, thus removing the issue from the arena of the 5th Amendment to the domain of the 14th Amendment. To wit:; Amendment XIV, Section 1; 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now that we're solidly in the realm of civil litigation (mhmm... it's a lawsuit brought by Colorado voters under A14.S3, not a criminal prosecution), criminal conviction by judge or jury isn't requisite to the adjudication, disposition of the matter underpinning Colorado's decision to remove Trump from the ballot. As a civil case, the only requisite to meeting the due process threshold is that the defendant's, plaintiffs' attorneys appear before the court, present evidence, make their arguments and, thereafter, that the court renders judgement. Yup... all those times Jeanine Pirro sat in front of cameras and heard people's small-claims cases, she was giving them due process. In other words, the Count of Mostly Crisco got what your favorite right-wing propagandists like to lie he's being denied and, as his representatives have voiced intent to appeal the CSC's decision, he'll get even more when this business lands in the SCOTUS' lap -assuming it doesn't decline to hear the case. Of course, the really bad news for you guys is that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to convince Colorado's lower court Dear Leader engaged in insurrection and the CSC to uphold the lower court's judgement while Dear Leader's attorneys failed to refute said same soooo...
