重磅！ 科罗拉多州，全部由民主党法官组成的最高法院，刚刚做出有关美国国运的重大裁决： 禁止川普在科罗拉多州的总统候选人资格 当然，川普团队将会上诉到美国最高法院。科罗拉多州这一前无古人后无来者的裁决，尚需得到以共和党法官占多数的美国高院的批准。 在我看来，几乎在所有议题上，都以党派与意识形态站队的美国高院，99%会否决科罗拉多州高院的裁决。 但是，但是，任何事情都有例外。 一旦，一旦，美国高院认同科罗拉多州高院的裁决，美国24个民主党当政的蓝州，必将跟进，取消川普在本州竞选总统的资格。 如果，2024年，somehow，川普仅仅凭借26个共和党当政的红州，就能当选美国总统的话，美国必将面临当年林肯的尴尬处境： 一半儿的美国州与美国人，不认同当选的美国总统。 而这，将会是美国分裂甚至第二次内战的开端。
Opinion: Why the Colorado decision disqualifying Trump was absolutely right（ZT）The Colorado Supreme Court just decided that the US Constitution still matters. After all, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is right there in the document — designed to prohibit people who’ve taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and then participated in an insurrection against the United States from holding elected or appointed office. On Tuesday night, the court found that former President Donald Trump should be removed from the state’s ballot because he did just that. Since the debris was cleaned up after the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, there has been a debate about whether this post-Civil War amendment could bar Trump and other instigators from holding future office. Good people can disagree, but the answer has always seemed a self-evident yes to me. Context makes clear that the amendment was designed to be applied to future insurrections and rebellions, not just the Confederacy. As one senator explained at the time, “Being a permanent provision of the Constitution, it is intended to operate as a preventive of treason hereafter … a measure of self-defense.” The next line of argument is usually whether January 6 can be considered an insurrection. As University of Maryland law professor and noted 14th Amendment scholar Mark Graber told me earlier this year: “From a constitutional perspective, there’s no difference between trying to overturn an election by fraud, force or violence — all of them fall under insurrection.” It also may be relevant that a majority of the Senate voted in favor of Trump’s second impeachment on charges of inciting insurrection. And there is at least one other court ruling that has applied the 14th Amendment — a former New Mexico county commissioner, Cuoy Griffin, was ousted from his job and barred from holding future state or federal elected positions in a court case in 2022, stemming from his conviction for trespassing in the Capitol riot. So there’s modern-day precedent for invoking the 14th Amendment as it applies to the insurrection attempt on January 6. While Trump didn’t storm the Capitol, I think it’s clear that he incited a riot whose goal was to stop the certification of the election through violence and intimidation (he denies any wrongdoing). The full text of the 14th Amendment states that it applies to anyone who has given “aid or comfort” to an insurrection or rebellion. That’s the least Trump did with his tweets, speeches and encouragement of the overall plot to overturn the election on the back of his lies. The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision made clear that this was about applying the letter of the law, not partisan wish-fulfillment: “We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority wrote. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.” The idea that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the president, as a lower court declared, always seemed absurd to me. It explicitly applies to “to any office, civil or military, under the United States.” This also could open the door to its provisions being applied to any member of Congress who is found to have coordinated with the insurrectionists. And it’s important to note that respected conservative legal scholars, active in the Federalist Society, did a deep dive into whether the 14th Amendment, Section 3, applies to Trump and found that it did. Now this case will make its way to the US Supreme Court. Given the high court’s conservative tilt, this case is far from a slam dunk. But if philosophical consistency could be expected when it collides with partisan self-interest, any justice who believes in originalism or states’ rights would support this invocation. The court can’t credibly pretend that the Constitution does not say what it clearly says. The principle of equal justice under law means it should apply to presidents if they betray their fundamental oath by engaging in an attempt to overturn our government. It’s true that these criminal statutes and constitutional prohibitions are rarely invoked. But then insurrections rarely happen in the United States. The 14th Amendment was put in place to use in moments like this. Without accountability, coup attempts are just practice. 给川普画像： 
Context makes clear th阿
|
