Supreme Court stopped Colorado from disqualifying Trump's presidential run.

@windinhishair Insurrection is a right of the people against government. People power comes first. We give power to government, and we can take it away.

@sree251 Insurrection is not a right. Treason is a crime punishable by death.

@windinhishair Supreme Court has ruled justly.

@specman No person who has planned and supported an insurrection against the US government should be allowed to hold any position in government. That includes Trump. That's the reason why we have Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

@specman If you like the ruling, you should realize the Second Amendment doesn't have enabling legislation either, or define what "arms" are. So using the same SCOTUS logic, states could ban ALL firearms since Congress hasn't enabled or defined the Second Amendment.

The ruling was a travesty of a Court looking for a particular outcome and writing a poorly conceived decision that could create far more problems than the one it thinks it solved.

@windinhishair You said: "With this decision, Colorado would not be able to remove an insurrectionist Senator from Colorado, who represents Colorado, and was elected by Colorado citizens only."

Colorado have residents, not citizens because Colorado is not a sovereign state. Colorado is a territory of the US. A Senator from Colorado represents all the US citizens residing in Colorado. A Colorado Senator is a member of the US Congress, and only Congress has authority to impeach and remove him.

@sree251 Colorado should be able to remove their own Senator according to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, should that Senator participate and/or provide aid to others who commit insurrection against the Federal Government. That is literally what the Amendment says. But the Supreme Court decided that what the Amendment says is no longer lawful, by twisting the clear intent of the Amendment to suit their political needs.

@windinhishair You said: "But the Supreme Court decided that what the Amendment says is no longer lawful, by twisting the clear intent of the Amendment to suit their political needs."

SCOTUS decided that the Colorado Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on eligibility of US citizens to run for president.

@sree251 SCOTUS decided that no federal official, including representatives or Senators, can be removed by any state (not just Colorado) for committing or aiding and abetting insurrection, which is directly contrary to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. A future Court that is not so blindly partisan will reverse that since it is so clearly wrong.

@windinhishair You said: "A future Court that is not so blindly partisan will reverse that since it is so clearly wrong."

How is it partisan and wrong when you correctly pointed out that SCOTUS decided no state can remove federal officials?

@sree251 Have you even read the 14th Amendment? Nowhere does it state that federal officials are ineligible only if Congress decides so. In fact, it says that Congress can remove the ineligibility, not that they have to declare someone ineligible for insurrection. There is no enabling clause. A future Court will correct the obvious errors in the decision.

@windinhishair Are you saying that you know better than 9 Chief Justices of the US Supreme Court? Did you go to law school?

@sree251 When did the Court go to a Nine Chief Justice mode? Did they want to have no one in charge?

@windinhishair SCOTUS. I meant nine members: one Chief justice and 8 associate justices.

@sree251 That isn't what you said, but you have it correct now.