Even though District Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled that Donald Trump engaged in an act of insurrection in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, she nevertheless added that doesn't mean he should be barred from a Colorado presidential ballot. This despite Section III of the 14th Amendment, which states “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. " The judge's reasoning? She's not sure it applies to a president. Well, rereading that amendment, I do see the word president. Or rather, President. Capitalized just so we wouldn't miss it. OK, it does say "elector of" right before it. So the elector can't engage in an insurrection but the person who the elector elects can? That's a little like arresting a mob boss for murder but then letting the hit man go free (well, that may not be the best analogy in the world as the hit man always can turn state evidence and then disappear in the Witness Protection Program, something I wish Trump would do, even if he witnessed nothing but his own act of treason.)
Oh, well, the judge has ruled, and for the time being we just have to accept it. But it makes me wonder what would happen if such a ruling was applied retroactively.
Fort Sumpter, shmort shmumpter. Jeff, dude, you could be president of both sides of the Mason-Dixon line!
Benedict, baby, you could be a Founding Father!
So what's 30 pieces of silver between apostles? Mister Iscariot, you can be the first Pope!
Lucifer, just blame Dominion.
