Colorado Official Goes Viral After Ignorant Post Following Trump’s Unanimous Supreme Court Win

Daphne Moon 3 2 min read

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has gone viral as it relates to the state of Colorado. Secretary of State Jena Griswold was heavily criticized for her reaction to the high court’s unanimous decision. The decision has big implications for the upcoming 2022 primary and general elections in Colorado.

Supreme Court ruling

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 controversy began when the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump was ineligible for high office because of his actions on January 6, 2021, leading to the incursion of the United States Capitol. The state of Colorado adopted an “insurrection clause” to keep Trump from appearing on the ballot in the upcoming elections. The decision of the Colorado Supreme Court was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling. The state cannot exclude Trump from appearing on the ballot.

Liberal Disappointment

In response to the court’s decision, Jena Griswold expressed her disappointment on social media. As a Democrat, she was disappointed in the fact that the states have been stripped of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. She believes that Colorado should have the power to keep oath-breaking insurrectionists from appearing on the ballot.

Mockery and ridicule

Griswold’s social media post immediately became a source of mockery and ridicule. Many questioned her knowledge of the Constitution and reminded her that the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate authority when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. They also pointed out that the court’s decision was unanimous, meaning it was not a partisan decision.

Unanimous decision

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court was unanimous, which means that it was not a partisan decision at all. It was a slap in the face to Griswold and those who supported Colorado’s attempt to block ballot access for Trump supporters. The court ruled that states cannot remove any federal candidate from the ballot unless Congress passes legislation permitting them to do so.

In addition to unanimously overturning Colorado’s attempt to block Trump supporters from appearing on the ballot, a five-justice majority also added that states like Colorado cannot remove any federal candidate from the ballot unless Congress passes a law allowing them to do so. The five justices concluded that states do not have the power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, especially the U.S. presidency. This emphasizes the fact that the states must adhere to the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to federal elections.

Griswold’s reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision has been heavily criticized, and her disbelief that states do not have the power to enforce Section 3 has raised concerns about her understanding of the Constitution. The ruling has significant implications for the upcoming 2022 elections in Colorado, as well as for future elections. It reinforces the importance of adhering to the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the Constitution.

Previous Watch: Recently Retired Border Patrol Chief Makes Damning Revelation
Next Check It Out: Hunter Biden’s Chinese To Sue For $1M Refund

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

3 Responses

  1. Democrats are the true threats to democracy. The state of Colorado has become an unconstitutional political belief that people are guilty until proven innocent. Trump has not been charged nor convicted of any crime that could be claimed insurrectionist. So the SOS should read and understand the 14th amendment. The supreme Court in Colorados ruling goes against several constitutional amendments including Trumps civil rights.

    Reply

  2. The 14th Amendment was passed by the radical Republicans in the aftermath of the misnamed Civil war to keep Confederate officials from service in the federal government, But since many former Confederates did, in fact, end up serving in the federal government the amendment proved to be essentially worthless.
    That is, until the American left dredged it up in the ridiculous attempt to use it to punish a former president who had never been convicted of anything related to it.

    Reply

  3. “the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3” – Negative. The states never held that authority. Section 5 specifically delegates to Congress, specifically by legislation, that power – and to no other entity whatsoever. Further, section 3 is specific as to those targeted. The President of the United States is not one of them. It also specifies “officer of the United States.” – All officers of the United States hold their position by Presidential appointment. That obviously does not include the President (unless he appoints himself as an officer of the United States, which I doubt has ever happened). Additionally, the Presidency is not an appointed office; the President holds an elected office. The overwhelmingly hypocritical paradox is that the Progressives claim they are eliminating from voter choice the challenger most likely to defeat them. Justification? “To protect democracy.”

    Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Send this to a friend