Comments by "Charles Brightman" (@charlesbrightman4237) on "‘Do You Think The State Has That Power?’: Justice Alito Presses Colorado Lawyer In Trump Ballot Case" 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?
4
@PKing-px5dg While I personally can see the Supreme Court's current viewpoint as I understand it to be, one could argue that no person should be excluded from the ballot at the State level concerning Federal elected positions. But then that would also mean that any person, regardless of the other provision of the US Constitution, would be allowed to be on all State's ballots for Federal elected positions, even if they were Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and any age. For only at the Federal level could any candidate for a Federal position be excluded from a State's ballot, that of course the States apparently run for each State. That is 'if' a State could not exclude any candidate that is running for a Federal position. Basically, the State cannot decide whom is on their ballot for Federal positions. BUT, all States and all US citizens, including the entire US Government, fall under the US Constitution. The US Constitution appears to be very clear on certain issues for candidates running to be the President of the USA. As I understand it to be, a valid justice system court ruled that former President Trump committed insurrection, which would legally disallow him from holding the office of the President, A valid justice system court just as valid as the US Supreme Court, all supposedly abiding by the same US Constitution. Now sure, Trump could appeal the ruling of the Colorado courts, possibly all the way up to the US Supreme Court, but a valid US court has already ruled until such time as that ruling is overturned, if ever. Trump should be disallowed to run for office of the President, and therefore not be even allowed on a State's ballot, certainly not on the State that found him guilty, but possibly by any State that recognized Colorado's court's ruling, UNTIL, IF EVER, the lower valid court's ruling was overturned and Trump found to have not legally committed insurrection. Another option of Trump would be, in accordance with section 3 of the 14th Amendment, have Congress vote of two-thirds of each House to remove the insurrection disability. And Trump would either have to have the ruling of the lower court overturned and/or both houses of Congress to vote to remove, the insurrection disability, BEFORE the respective State's ballots are printed, whatever the cut off due date of each State is for such ballots. In other words, the clock would be ticking away for Trump to either have Colorado's lower court's ruling overturned by a higher court, possibly even by the Supreme Court, and/or Congress to vote as needed. OTHERWISE, Colorado State (and possibly any other State recognizing Colorado's ruling), would be okay to leave Trump off of their respective ballots, for any position listed in the 14th Amendment. Trump is trying to run the clock out on his indictments, but in this case, the clock would be running out for Trump to legally be allowed to be put on a State's ballot.
3
@AYouTubeUser1 As I understand it to be, the State of Colorado's valid legal courts have found Trump to be guilty of committing insurrection. Now you know.
1
@PKing-px5dg A valid US Court has found Trump to be guilty of committing insurrection. A lower courts ruling is valid UNLESS over turned by a higher court, or in the case of insurrection, by two thirds of both houses of Congress per the Constitutional Amendment. And any State that recognizes Colorado's court's ruling, would also be allowed to exempt Trump from their respective ballots.
1