A panel of judges made an extraordinary decision. They decided on their own that a person was guilty of treason and/or inciting an insurrection without that person having been charged with either, much less tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers. They did so to make him ineligible to be on the ballot in their state. //

Donald Trump has not been found guilty of either treason or inciting an insurrection, and the U.S. Code for insurrection seems pretty clear that you are ineligible for “any office in the United States” if you’re found guilty. //

Trump has a number of federal-law defenses: that Section 3 isn’t self-executing without implementing legislation or a criminal conviction, that it doesn’t cover the president, that the First Amendment protects Trump’s speech and wasn’t implicitly repealed in that regard by the 14th Amendment, that the Republican Party has a First Amendment right of association to put an ineligible candidate on its primary ballot, and even that Trump may have a legal defense because the Senate didn’t convict him on effectively the same charge. //

I do believe, however, that there is something deeply wrong with the Democrats going along with this and the courts that are making it happen. If you are accused of engaging in treason or insurrection, you should be tried for your crimes and punished appropriately. That is the criminal justice system that we have and it requires a jury of your peers unless you as the accused decide to forgo a jury trial.

But the courts cannot, seemingly on a whim, decide to make a person de facto guilty of a crime in order to justify a ruling they want to make. That is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set and could have far-reaching complications if that sort of mentality takes deeper root in our judicial system.

If he is tried and found guilty of treason or insurrection, I’d be fine with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision because the system worked as it was supposed to. You may not like those results, but it is incumbent on the accused and his lawyers to prove his innocence either in trial or on appeal. But there was no trial. A panel of judges decided he was guilty without a trial.

That should alarm us all. //

anon-ubjh
a day ago
" … but it is incumbent on the accused and his lawyers to prove his innocence either in trial or on appeal." WHAT? So now we are a country where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent? You have it backwards: it is incumbent on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. //

FrankD92
a day ago
Umm, actually, Mr. Cunningham, under our system it is NOT “incumbent on the accused to PROVE his innocence.” It is incumbent upon the accuser to prove guilt. And that is a HUGE distinction between a Republic vs totalitarianism. Quit adopting the language of the Marxist Left. //

Liberius
a day ago
It is NOT the responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence. It is the responsibility of the accuser to prove the guilt of the defendant.

How the heck have so many people in this country forgotten that simple concept?