Theme: Constitutional Order

WHAT’S THE SUPREME COURT GOING TO DECIDE REGARDING TRUMP ON THE BALLOT?

I just recorded a segment for the Stew Peters Show (https://t.co/nAYmaiRMCf) on the Colorado Court’s findings against Trump, barring him from the ballot (not really).

I mean, y’all expect me to be thorough, right? That’s my job. But we only had ten or twelve minutes so I couldn’t get through all the material. And as a result it was a bit of a speed run. But I think I got the main points across if not the usual ‘rigor’ of my arguments.

I’ll post my notes (the full argumet) for the show here on Twitter and on the Website later today (still adding bits to it).

Criteria The Court Must Use In Deciding This Matter

1) What was the State of mind of Trump – What was he attempting to do if anything?

2) What were the ambitions of the participants in Jan6 event – what were their reasons and ambitions?

3) Whether it was an insurrection or not?
(Given: |Severity|: Demonstration > protest > riot > rebellion, > insurrection > civil war > facilitation of conquest by others)

4) Whether defining Jan 6th as an insurrection opens the door to more abuses of the courts in these matters?

5) Whether they want to permit the states to circumvent the people, given the presidency and the electoral college are federal tests of concurrency, in lieu of a high court findings of an insurrection. Conversely, whether the court feels it is the only viable institution capable of making that decision. (Note: Probably. The legislture lacks the constraints of a court, and as such legislatures solve political questions but not legal questions. While say, impeachment is a political question (decision, agreement), insurrection is a legal question (fact,disagreement).)

6) Whether they want to enable the use of similar pretenses of insurrection to disqualify any candidate by his words, his deeds, or by constructive undermining of a candidate through causing conflict and escalation independent of the will of the candidate.

7) Whether any other externalities would be produced that might effect the electoral process as a test of the people by concurrency. There are plenty of rasons the people might want a radical change in the policy of the governmetn without replacing the system of government or even altering the constitutions – such as whether the deep state really exists and really is working against the interests of the people – especially where the test of concurrency exists across our constitution to preserve minority interest not advance majority interests over them.

So I’ll answer these questions and more, in the post I will release later today,

(Short answer? Unless a miracle happens he’ll be on the ballot.)

Cheers

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation