On Tuesday, December 19, 2023, the Colorado State Supreme Court, in a ruling of four in favor and three against, declared that Donald Trump is “ineligible to appear on the state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.” The court reached this decision using Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, known as the “Insurrection Clause”.

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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. – The Constitution for the united States of America, 14^th Amendment, Section 3.

So, basically, it comes down to the question, “Did Donald Trump engage in insurrection or rebellion when the people demonstrated outside the Capitol Building on January 6^th, 2021, to have Congress address their concerns over an election that was questionable in its results?”

Let me issue this disclaimer. I am NOT a Trump supporter; I am NOT a Biden supporter. I support neither party, as both are unconstitutional. I am a supporter of God’s law (common law), the organic law of the united States (The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution for the united States of America, etc.), and statute law when issued in congruence with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Read the source article first before proceeding.

Now, let’s look at this excellent expose from Ms. Joanna Martin, aka Publius Huldah on elections.

2. We must read each Part of the Constitution in the Light cast by the other Parts

It is impossible to understand any Part of the Constitution without understanding how that Part fits into the Whole; and how each individual Part is affected by the other Parts addressing the same subject. Accordingly, it is an ancient rule of construction that constitutional provisions or statutes that are on the same subject (in pari materia) must be construed together [link].

So it is a serious misconstruction of the 12^th Amendment to assert that Congress’s role on January 6 is the passive one of merely counting numbers; or that the Presiding Officer has discretion to do whatever he wants.

As shown below, specific provisions of the Constitution impose on Congress the Duty to determine whether the Electors were lawfully chosen; and whether the putative President elect and Vice-President elect are qualified for office.

3. When it meets on January 6, Congress must enforce these Constitutional provisions respecting the Appointment of Electors

Article I, §4, clause 1; Article II, §1, clause 2; and Article II, §1, clause 4

Art. I, §4, cl. 1 says that only state and federal legislatures have the power to make laws addressing the Times, Places and Manner of conducting federal elections. So Judges and State executive officials have no lawful authority to change the election laws made by the Legislatures!

Art. II, §1, cl. 2 says that the Electors for President and Vice-President are to be appointed in such manner as the State Legislatures shall direct. So Judges and State executive officials have no lawful authority to change the election laws respecting how the Electors are to be chosen!

So Electors who were appointed in violation of these two provisions were unlawfully appointed and hence are not legally competent to cast votes for President and Vice President.

Art. II, §1, cl. 4 provides that Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors. At 3 USC §1, Congress set the time for chusing Electors for November 3.

So Electors who were appointed after November 3 by means of late ballots (which was made possible by unconstitutional changes to state election laws which unlawfully extended the deadlines for receiving ballots past Nov. 3) were unlawfully appointed and hence are not legally competent to cast votes for President and Vice President. ²

4. Congress must also enforce these Constitutional provisions respecting the qualifications for the Offices of President and Vice-President

Article II, §1, clause 5

Art. II, §1, cl. 5 sets forth qualifications for the Office of President. After our first generation of Presidents [who were all born as subjects of the King of England] had passed away; the qualifications for President are that he must be a “natural born citizen”, at least 35 years of age, and have been for at least 14 Years a Resident within the United States.

The last sentence of the 12^th Amendment shows that no person who is ineligible to be President is eligible to be Vice-President. ³

The 22^nd Amendment

The 22^nd Amendment imposes term limits on the office of President. So any person who has already served two terms is constitutionally ineligible to be President.

The 20^th Amendment, §3

§3 of the 20^th Amendment addresses what happens when the President elect and/or Vice-President elect “fail to qualify”. So §3 underlines Art. II, §1, cl. 5; the last sentence of the 12^th Amendment; and the 22^nd Amendment: If the President elect or the Vice-President elect “fail to qualify”, they are to be passed over.

So! The Constitutional scheme is that the Electors’ choice is subject to Congress’ determinations of:

♦whether the requirements of Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl.2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4 were obeyed when the Electors were selected; and

♦whether the persons whom the Electors chose meet the requirements of Art. II, §1, cl. 5; the last sentence of the 12^th Amendment, and the term limits provision of the 22^nd Amendment.

If not, Congress must disqualify the persons. [Text highlighted by me to keep Ms. Martin’s emphases in Italics]

So, “who” engaged in insurrection here? Read Ms. Martin’s expose in its entirety.

Let’s define “insurrection”. According to Webster’s 1828 dictionary, it is defined thusly:

INSURREC’TION, noun [Latin insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.]

1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.

It is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. Ezra 4:19.

2. A rising in mass to oppose an enemy. [Little Used.]

Are not officials of States, government workers, etc. citizens of the country and State? Yes. Did some officials of some States, government workers, etc. openly and actively oppose the execution of the law in those States as well as actively and openly oppose Constitutional law regarding elections? Yes. Did members of Congress (both chambers) rise against the authority of the Constitution, openly and actively, to violate the tenets of the Constitution? Yes. Did others, such as the media, openly and actively, skew results of the election, which was broadcast to homes in America? Yes. Television news media were recorded by citizens proving alteration of “vote numbers”.

We will continue with Ms. Martin’s expose at point number five.

5. Congress is also bound by these Constitutional provisions

The Guaranty clause at Article IV, §4

Art. IV, § 4 says:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” [emphasis added]

Since the essence of a “Republic” is that power is exercised by Representatives elected by The People; ⁴ the violations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2; and Art. II, §1, cl.4 (which made massive election fraud possible) strike at the heart of our Constitutional Republic.

When Electors are selected in violation of our Constitution by means of last-minute changes unlawfully made to state election laws; and/or an election is stolen by means of fraud, the Right of The People to choose their Representatives is taken away from them – and the Republic is destroyed.

Art. IV, §4 imposes on Congress the Duty to guarantee lawful and honest federal elections. Congress can do this by enforcing Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl.2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4 by disqualifying the Electors chosen in contravention of those provisions.

Congress may (and should) also disqualify Biden and Harris on the additional ground that their pretended election was procured by cheating.  They must be stripped of their sham “win”. ⁵

The Supremacy clause at Article VI, cl. 2

Art. VI, cl. 2 says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” [italics added]

Only those Acts of Congress which are consistent with the Constitution are part of the supreme Law of the Land. ⁶

Accordingly, Sections 5 and 15 of the Electoral Count Act (3 USC §§1-21), are unconstitutional to the extent they purport to:

♦require Congress to accept slates of Electors who were appointed in violation of Art. I, §4, cl.1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4;

♦require Congress, in the case of dueling slates of Electors, to choose the slate signed by the Governor of the State and reject the slate approved by the State Legislature; ⁷ and

♦eliminate the 12^th Amendment’s dispute resolution procedures under which the House of Representatives chooses the President; and the Senate chooses the Vice-President. ⁸

But, contrary to what some have asserted, the 12^th Amendment most manifestly does NOT vest exclusive authority and sole discretion in the President of the Senate (Vice-President Mike Pence) to determine which slates of Electors for a State are to be counted and which slates are to be rejected!

As President of the Senate, the Vice-President has certain Parliamentary powers at his disposal; but he has no “discretion” in deciding whether he will adhere to the Constitutional framework governing the Election. He – and every other Member of Congress – must adhere to and enforce each Constitutional provision. [Highlighted by me to maintain Ms. Martin’s emphases.]

On January 6^th, 2021, Trump was still president since Biden, as all presidents prior, would not be inaugurated until January 20^th, 2021. And, according to this excellent expose by Edwin Viera, Jr., Trump, as president, can call forth the militia, organized and unorganized, to suppress insurrections.

The President, by using the militia * * * shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

I am NOT a constitutional scholar by any means. But, in light of what happened at the State and Federal level during the 2020 election and events surrounding it (before, during, and after), it becomes clear there was a “conspiracy” to deprive certain people in various States and in the united States of their right to lawfully choose electors and those States failed/refused to protect the rights of the people. And, under those circumstances, participants in the “conspiracy” were engaging in insurrection. Congress then failed in its duty under the Constitution to guarantee lawful and honest federal elections. Therefore, Trump had every authority to call forth the militia in those States to deal with the conspirators – which would be those who unlawfully denied the people the right of choosing electors. Moreover, the participation of Congress (both chambers/both parties) in the conspiracy by failure to guarantee lawful and honest federal elections, likewise, participated in insurrection.

Again, who actually participated in “insurrection” and who responded to acts of insurrection?

Now, the Colorado Supreme Court has opined Trump is “disqualified” from holding office under Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment, denying his name being placed on the presidential primary ballot in Colorado. Has there been any due process resulting in conviction of Trump for “insurrection”? Not yet. No one can be denied life, liberty (rights), or property, without due process of law according to The Constitution for the united States of America, Amendment Five.

I urge you to read all the resources contained in the article and all exposes of Ms. Martin on mail-in voting. Remember the famous words of Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels, “accuse the other side of what you are guilty of.”

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation subject to the “rules” and whims of men. But, we have become a nation subject to “rules and whims” of men – corrupt, criminal men. We must stand for the established law, regardless of “persuasion” and cult of personality. To not do so means we become “subjects” and slaves, not free men, of those who disregard law and the God-given rights of man.