Colorado Supreme Court’s Trump Disqualification Decision Analyzed

On January 15, 2024, Rob Natelson, Roger Mangan, and Susan Kochevar joined the show. Analyzed the constitutional defects in the Colorado Supreme Court’s Trump disqualification ruling and discussed his Epoch Times series on states’ reserved powers to combat border invasion Explained new roof enhancement endorsement for hail damage coverage and emphasized consumer advocacy in understanding insurance policies Discussed her experiences fighting regulatory overreach at. Colorado Supreme Court’s Trump Ballot Decision Start listening at 32:00 – Hour 1 Rob Natelson, constitutional scholar and author of The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, breaks down the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. Natelson argues the court’s ruling suffers from fundamental due process failures that should lead to reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court. The trial court relied heavily on the January 6th House Committee report to conclude Trump was an insurrectionist under the 14th Amendment. Natelson contends this report represents inadequate due process since Trump was denied the right to counsel, could not introduce evidence or call witnesses, and all committee members had already voted to impeach him on the same charges. The proceedings amounted to what Natelson calls a “show trial” rather than a legitimate investigation. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s finding that the presidency is not covered by the 14th Amendment’s disqualification provision, but Natelson criticizes this analysis as superficial. He notes that regardless of one’s political views on Trump, the denial of basic constitutional protections sets a dangerous precedent that could affect any American. “His enemies have gone over the top and denying him due process repeatedly. The proceedings in the January 6th committee, where he was denied any right to have counsel, where all of those people sitting in judgment against him had already voted to impeach him on the same charges, where he was not permitted to offer evidence or introduce witnesses. That January 6th investigation was not an investigation. It was a show trial.” Rob Natelson, Constitutional Scholar States’ Reserved War Powers on Immigration Start listening at 48:00 – Hour 1 Rob Natelson discusses his five-part Epoch Times series examining states’ constitutional powers to defend their borders from invasion. His research, conducted with a co-author, found that border states possess reserved war powers under the Constitution that allow them to defend against invasion, even capturing and deporting illegal entrants or attacking human trafficking cartels. The Constitution does not lodge exclusive war and foreign affairs powers in the federal government, Natelson explains. While only the federal government can wage offensive war, states retain the power to wage defensive war against invasion. His research determined the current flood across the southern border qualifies as an invasion under the original meaning of the Constitution, triggering these state powers. The series is available to Epoch Times subscribers immediately, and appears on the Independence Institute website one week after publication at independenceinstitute.org. “The left doesn’t want to turn the United States into Europe. It wants to turn the United States into a third world country like Guatemala or Mexico. And this is good evidence of that. We see it everywhere.” Rob Natelson, Constitutional Scholar Colorado Homeowners In...