'Make it make sense': Internet baffled as judge says Trump 'engaged in insurrection,’ but allows him on ballot
DENVER, COLORADO: A recent ruling in Colorado has ignited controversy after District Judge Sarah Wallace dismissed a challenge aiming to bar former President Donald Trump from running for president, despite acknowledging that he "engaged in an insurrection" against the US on January 6, 2021, as per Politico.
The judge allowed him to remain on the 2024 Colorado primary ballot following similar rulings in other states, including Minnesota and Michigan.
Can someone explain to me how a judge rules Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection but keeps him on the ballot? 🤯
— Ryan Shead (@RyanShead) November 18, 2023
“Wallace said she was keeping the former president on the ballot because the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” does not apply to presidents, though she found… pic.twitter.com/o5Rtdmukpg
Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace rules Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Donald Trump
The lawsuit, brought by progressive activists and led by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), contended that Donald Trump's supposed involvement in the Capitol insurrection of January 6, 2021, disqualified him from seeking office.
It relied on a clause in the 14th Amendment stating that those who have "engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against" the Constitution are ineligible for public office.
While Judge Sarah Wallace acknowledged Trump was involved in the insurrection "through incitement," she determined that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals engaged in insurrection, might not apply to the presidency due to insufficient evidence.
"The Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the Presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification," wrote Wallace in the ruling.
Colorado ruling regarding Donald Trump sparks bewilderment among netizens
Soon after Judge Sarah Wallace's ruling came to light, the Internet was left scratching their heads over Donald Trump being able to run for office despite having engaged in an insurrection.
One wrote, "The judge determined that the Commander in Chief of the United States is NOT an 'officer' of the US," as another stated, "Fear of retaliation, professional or personal?"
A person simply said, "Wth?"
"Make it make sense," noted someone else, as another question, "It says ANYONE who is a executive or judicial officer... President is the executive office right??"
"How does it not apply to presidents. Oh my hell," stated a disgruntled user.
It says ANYONE who is a executive or judicial officer...
— Twizted Dream (@Twizted_Dream) November 18, 2023
President is the executive office right?? pic.twitter.com/saVpsGKjKr
Legal experts speculate Supreme Court might be the final authority on Donald Trump's eligibility
While the Colorado ruling is a significant development in Donald Trump's run for the 2024 presidential election, it's not the final word on the matter.
Legal experts speculate that the ultimate resolution on the former president's eligibility might need to come from the Supreme Court, leaving the issue of whether he can run for office once more hanging in the balance.