Comments by "Charles Brightman" (@charlesbrightman4237) on "Colorado Attorney Claims Before SCOTUS That Trump Could Not Hold An Office If Appointed To One Today" video.

COLORADO: Candidates on ballots: Consider the following: a. I can see what the Supreme Court Justice said about national elections should be controlled basically from the national level and State elections should basically be controlled from the State level. In a way, makes sense. b. BUT: How could a State, even 'if' putting a candidate on a ballot, who later might even win the election in that State, in good faith and legally have it's State's electors side with that candidate on the national level when the State knows full well, (due to the candidate already being found guilty in a valid court of law especially in that State that would exclude the candidate from holding such office elected to), allow it's State electors to put forward that candidate to the national level? c. In other words, even if a State is ruled upon by the Supreme Court to allow basically any candidate on a ballot, what would prevent that State from legally denying the potential winner the State's electors 'if' the candidate was found to be legally not capable of holding such office? d. Aren't the US States and the entire Federal Government all following the same US Constitution? If the States can prevent an unlawful candidate from reaching the higher levels, wouldn't that State just be easing the burden of the Federal Government by not having that candidate excluded from holding office at a later date? What do we have lower courts for if all decisions could only be made by the Supreme Court?
1
@claireingles-sj6xz As I understand it to be, the State of Colorado's valid legal courts have found Trump to be guilty of committing insurrection. So when you say, "The main problem is that he hasn't been convicted in a court of law.", you would be wrong. "Otherwise it would be a slam dunk the other way." That is why it is.
1