Select Page

Trump is almost certain to win ballot access case

Trump is almost certain to win ballot access case

The Colorado Supreme Court kicked President Trump off the ballot based on his organizing an insurrection against the United States.  The court cited Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  It is now up to the United States Supreme Court to decide the matter – whether Colorado, or any state, has the constitutional authority to make such a decision. 

Most observers – on the right and on the left — are predicting that the high Court will strike down the Colorado decision and allow Trump to be on the ballot every state in the Union.  That opinion has been reinforced by the nature of the questions from the justices – especially the three liberal justices.  Former Republican National Committee Chairman – and now an MSNBC leftwing zealot – Michael Steele predicts it will be nine to nothing in favor of Trump.

The fact that it is even possible that all three liberal justices may vote with Trump offers good evidence that the Colorado case is a bunch of Democrat donkey dung.  In fact, it is almost impossible to find an intelligent argument in defense of the decisions.

Insurrectionist Argument

The Fourteenth Amendment says: 

“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.” 

As with all constitutional provisions, there are unresolved questions based on the text and the intent of those who wrote and enacted the Amendment.

The text is clear in banning insurrectionists from holding various offices – but not so clear as to what constitutes an insurrection and how a person’s involvement is determined.  It also is not clear whether enforcement is general or reserved to the federal government.

The only place that can determine if an insurrection has taken place – and who is involved – is a court.  Otherwise, a person is to be presumed innocent until CONVICTED in a court-of-law.  All the talk about Trump being an insurrectionist is political poppycock – bordering on false accusation.  No prosecutor, no court has even charged Trump with insurrection, much less found him guilty.  Not even Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is handling the federal case regarding the events of January 6, 2021.  Not even, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, who his handling the vote fraud case associated with the 2020 presidential election. 

And not even the Colorado District and Supreme courts.  They have alleged insurrection without actually adjudicating it.  They did not file charges – or indict – Trump for insurrection.  They merely based their decision on the false claim of insurrection based on political opinion — and called Trump an insurrectionist.  No due process.

Ponder that.   ALL that talk declaring Trump to be an insurrectionist – and not a single charge or indictment.  Nothing.  If for no other reason, the Colorado case must be overturned as a miscarriage of justice.

What is an insurrection?

There is no clear definition of an insurrection – largely because it is a law that is rarely called into play.  This is where the Supreme Court will explore the intent of those writing and enacting the Amendment.  If you look at their view of an insurrection at the time they wrote the Amendment, the Civil War was on their mind.  That was their definition of an insurrection.  A major violent armed effort to overthrow the federal government by force.

It is very arguable that the sponsors of the Fourteenth Amendment would never have seen the riot on Capitol Hill as an insurrection.  Historically, America has experienced hundreds of violent protests (riots) against the government, and almost no one has been prosecuted for insurrection.  In fact, of the thousands of people who demonstrated – and the hundreds who committed criminal acts – on Capitol Hill, less than a dozen have been charged and convicted of insurrection.  Most have been charged with crimes commonly associated with … a riot.

In fact, the violence on Capitol Hill was less damaging, less deadly and more short-lived than most riots that have plagued American cities for generations.  The January 6th riot did not stop the work of Congress but merely delayed it by a few hours.

Despite the political banter by Democrats and their leftwing media pals, there is very little evidence of a planned or conducted insurrection to literally overthrow the government.  The claim that the throngs were there to overturn the government is exaggerated and specious.  Calling on legislators to not certify an election is perfectly legal – and has been done in the past.  To paraphrase the old expression … if it does not look like a duck, walk like a duck or quack like a duck, it is not duck.  That duck was not an insurrection, in my judgment.

Who has jurisdiction?

Apart from the Trump issue, there is a serious question to be resolved.  Who has the authority to handle a presidential or federal insurrection case – especially involving a President of the United States.  The Constitution and federal law regulate the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates for federal offices.  They cannot be nullified or superseded by the states. 

On that basis, Trump would have to be indicted, tried and found guilty by a federal court before any attempt to invoke the fourteenth Amendment.  This is especially logical in the case of a President or presidential candidate since that is a national election – not based on jurisdictions within the states.

While local courts could be said to be operating independently – and only in the interest of the residents of the state, upholding the Colorado ruling would enable one court – or even one person, as in Maine – the power to upend a presidential election based on political biases.  You  do not need a law degree to know that is not right.

Technical issues

Some issues are deep in the weeds of Supreme Court analysis.  For example, does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment even apply to the President.  You can legitimately argue that both ways. The President is not listed among the offices articulated in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Did the founders simply mistakenly leave it off when listing all the offices it covers?  Not likely.  They must have meant to omit the President.  Why?

Some argue that the President is covered by the mention of people holding government “office.”  Is the presidency an office in the meaning of the Constitution.  It seems bizarre to say it is not, but the generic use of “office” in the Amendment seems to be referring to lessor unnamed offices.  Perhaps the drafters left off Presidents since they have certain constitutional immunities from prosecution.  That is a matter of a different Supreme Court Case (which I personally believe Trump will lose). The failure to list the President produces ambiguity, to say the least – and that is what the supreme Court must resolve. It must provide clarity to ambiguity.

Remember, the first court in Colorado did not remove Trump from the ballot because the judge believed the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to a President.  It was not two courts in agreement, but the state Supreme Court overruling the District Court on whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to a President.  History and the language leave room for debate – and that is what the Supreme Court does.

Another debatable question is: Does the Fourteenth Amendment ban a candidate convicted of insurrection from both running and serving?  That may seem to be an arcane issue, but again the language is not precise.  It seems ridiculous to think that the drafters of the Amendment did not link serving and running.  But it is a debatable point the Supreme Court can and should resolve.  It is what the justices get paid for.


This is yet another example of a situation in which the courts-of-law and the court-of-public-opinion are in conflict.  The folks in the leftwing media are affirmatively declaring Trump guilty of insurrection and ineligible to return to the Oval Office in accordance with their own politically motivated and unprofessional interpretation of constitutional law.  They are mal-practicing law without a license.

Most times, the Supreme Court gets it right, and I feel confident that it will happen again.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Dan tyree

    He should win. The attempt to remove Trump from ballots is just more voter fraud

  2. Frank stetson

    Heh heh, could be a tad early, looks like even with all the blacks going red according to Horist, dems going Repub. according to Horist, looks like dems flipped the santos seat for the first long island win since 2021.

    Early voting, mail in voting all favor democrats. Same day republicans. God has spoken and let loose the dogs of snow. Don’t mess with mother nature, global warming extreme weather matters.

    Heh, heh. And scalese ran back from cancer treatment just for the impeachment vote.

    It’s good to see a hardworking candidate, from either party, get the win. Fact is, he deserved it for all the effort. Suozzi could be sworn in tomorrow..

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … Your obsessive desire to be the anti-Horist has you unhinged — as usual. The outcome of the New York congressional election as NOTHING to do with the notable trend of blacks away from Biden. And of course, I never have said that “all blacks” are going red. That is just your habit of giving voice to the Larry Horist of your imagination. Personally, I take your general use of your straw man Larry Horist as a great complement. It see it as evidence that you do not have the intellectual ability to debate or dialogue with the real me directly. So, you create you own version for your private political shadow boxing. When you appear to be talking ABOUT me — and rarely TO me — you are really talking about imaginary Larry Horist. Most people give up imaginary playmates when there are young children. It is never too late, however.


        Well Larry, this time “You Did It.” And a one and a two and a……..

        “That blaggard who uses the science of speech
        More to blackmail and swindle than teach;
        He made it the devilish business of his
        To find out who this Frank Stetson is.
        Every time we looked around
        There he was, that hairy hound From Miami Beach.
        Never leaving us alone,
        Never have I ever known a ruder pest
        Finally I decided it was foolish
        Not to let him have his chance with Stetson
        So I stepped aside and let him converse with Frank.

        Oozing charm from every pore
        Horist oiled his way around the floor.
        Every trick that he could play,
        He used to strip Frank’s mask away.
        And when at last the dance was done,
        He glowed as if he knew he’d won!
        And with a voice too eager,
        And a smile too broad,
        He announced to the hostess
        That he was a fraud!”

        Oh my. But wait, there’s more….

        “His English is too good, he said,
        That clearly indicates that he is AI foreign.
        Whereas others are instructed in their native language
        Liberal people aren’t.
        And although he may have studied with an expert
        Dialectician and grammarian
        I can tell that he was born…Communist!
        Not only Hungarian, but of royal blood
        He is a prince!
        His liberal blood, he said, is bluer than the Danube is or ever was
        Progressive is absolutely written on his face
        He thought that Hoeiar was taken in, but actually he never was
        How could he deceive another member of his American race?
        I know each political party on the map, said he
        And he’s a communist, as the first Hungarian Rhapsody”

        • larry Horist

          Frank Stetson …

          There was a man named Frank
          Whose mind was largely blank
          He obsessively toiled to harry
          And created a fake Larry
          And now poor Frank is merely a crank

          You need to learn the benefit of brevity….LOL

          • FRANK STETSON

            And you need to start thinking for yourself and let the past be past.

            OK old man, let’s do it. You have issues with me, I seem to be an earworm inside your noggin affecting your ability to think, to feel. You seem to be blinded by your self-righteous light of your own self-perceived greatness and cannot see past your out-of-control emotions. Tinder hooks. Get over it. Face it, you were born a crusty old man, you’re very sensitive to criticism/jokes/ribbing/whatever and it’s just getting worse with age. Some of you conservatives just dream of going back to Mayberry in the 1950’s. A simple time where all was black and white, simpler times. Mayberry didn’t exist and the 50’s sucked for many.

            Myself, I suffer from the opposite, I cannot grow up. I may be old in age, but just a kid at heart. I still go sledding. During the summer of Floyd, I embraced woke, prudently of course. It’s young, it’s cool, it’s hip, it’s proper, it’s about time. Sure, they may go to far at times, but since when is too much compassion a bad thing? I may go to a trans show this summer, just because I like to experience new things. Like ballet, probably one and done. I watch Disney. I watch Hallmark. I love Star Wars, The Expanse, and Dune. I watch my hero, Kurt Russell kill millions…. When they say sit down, I stand up. I tell jokes at funerals. Just a little kid still.

            You think me obsessed with you, that I obsess over Florida, hell — anything anyone says about your articles looks like obsession to you. Anything I say looks like a personal insult to you. You live on pins n needles. I use Florida to get topical to your environment. I write the truth in that. You say it can’t be because I am obsessive about Florida and spew positive facts in rebuttal to say I am wrong. Neither of us are wrong on Florida and I have spewed those same positive facts as you did in previous posts of YOURS. Maybe that’s where you learned them?. Why so defensive though? Pins and needles for Florida? Illinois maybe, but Florida? You just got there…..

            You write the most here. You rehash your SoS from 40 years ago; your claim to fame is Nixon and Reagan. Both dead and of no relevance to the Trumplican Party, a party created by an ex-Democrat, lifelong at that. You accepted a life-long Demcrat to win. And you want to do it again, harder. I have said IMO you are the best here. So, yeah, I am responding to the right, on the issues, and therefore right at you, where, I admit, I am sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek a bit, mabye a lot. In your case, apparently a bit too much, but you can’t take it, you can only dish it out. You can’t stick to the issues, or even close to the issues. The other emotional things you pick out are mostly on you. You who, for love nor money, cannot take a joke, cannot be ribbed, you’re a pincushion of emotion thinking everyone is coming after you, attacking you, making up what you say, imagining the you that you have written so much, apparently so poorly, about. I am still hopeful for more.

          • FRANK STETSON

            I say GIVE IT A REST, old man. Lighten up. Exsqueeze m for Pete’s sake. IF you piss off and stop the name calling crap, I will try, once again, to lighten up on the ribbing. But you can’t and therefore I will not. Your choice starting NOW.

            OK, here we go. Specifics. First, you seem to slide in like Mississippi mud under the door after a hurricane. The blacks were a joke from your earlier tirade on blacks moving to the Republican party in droves. Lighten up. And as far as the rest, let me put it in your language from Mayberry’s Happy Days: up your nose with a rubber hose, Potsy.

            Horist can only shell it out. He is just one big cry baby for any incoming. The Stetsonian conclusion on this one: SPANKED (and he loves it).

            Good talking the issues, not, once again with you. Look forward to good issue-based discussions in the future.

            And I was wrong — they impeached the guy anyway. Scalise took a cancer break to do it. Whatttta guy. Whatttta patriot. Whattttta a fucking meaningless action. It will go down in history. NOT.

          • larry Horist

            Frank Stetson … Wow! Two long screed about moi. . And of course all the traits, accusations and characteristics you describe are not me. That is the Larry Horist you have inflated in your mind. You go to great length to describe — or misdescribe me to you audience — real or imagined. Among the traits family and friends most attribute to me are a fun sense of humor, a very young attitude about life and adventure.(benefited by the blessing of good physical and mental health), brutally honest (that does cause a problem now and then) and a hater of no person. Mostly thought of as a very nice guy … fun to be with. Sorry for the self description …just for the record to explain how very very wrong you are in you characterization based on ignorance and animosity. You say you would prefer civil discussion on the issues. But look at your responses to my commentaries … sarcasm, insults misrepresentations and nothing regarding the subject. Your long screeds drip of sarcasm, insults, misrepresentations and obsessive contrarianism. I pity you because i would not want my brain so addled by such negativity throughout the day. For all I know you may be Mother Theresa, Santa Clause and Mel Brooks all wrapped up in one person. But what you write does not reflect well on you — at least in my judgment. Oh well… enough.

          • FRANK STETSON

            Accusation generalization is your epitath. Specificity, examples, issues, you can not provide.

            Whine on, whine on Horist moon, under the sky.
            I ain’t had no lovin’ since April, January, June or July
            Snow time ain’t no time to stay outdoors and spoon
            So whine on, whine on Horist moon for me ‘n’ my gal

    • Tom

      I think GOPs are making way to many excuses in downplaying the NY special election to fill Santos seat.

      Now with regards to early voting, early voting almost always favors Dems. Many surveys show that GOPs prefer to vote in person at the polls. So GOP numbers do not show up till later. But this election will be decided by Independents – a significant number of them who were GOPs but hated what Trump did in the two months following the 2020 election. He may pick up a few minorities, but I doubt it will be enough to cancel out all those who left the GOP. The integrity of our country is very important to Independents – and Trump wants to throw Ukraine under the bus. Trump is showing his disdain and desire to get revenge on Ukraine. We have not forgotten how he held up their military funding. This will work against Trump. Telling the public that if countries do not pay their bill then Putin can do what he wants is especially troubling to us on two levels. 1) They do not get a bill. It is 2% of their military budget. Trump does not seem to understand this. 2) Europeans are deeply troubled by his statement and Independents do not want to fracture NATO or the UN. We view these as effective organizations. Abortion will work against Trump. Killing the border bill will work against him as I personally feel it should. If the economy stays fairly good and gas/food prices come down, Biden has a good chance because Trump cannot seem to stop defeating himself. And then there still are those pesky indictments.

      With regard to the 14th Ammendment, Section 3, I hope Trump does run. I would like one more chance to vote against him. I would like to see him go down in flames again so that the idiot GOP folks who still think the election was stolen will see their two-time loser candidate and begin to question themselves. Maybe some of them will get out of their little party of no obstructionist Trump bubbles.

      • Dan tyree

        Most other states the republicans would have won. New York is a Democrat stronghold. But either way I’m glad we got rid of the last guy. We don’t need crooks. Just Trump and Biden. lol. I knew that the Trump part would be said. Just thought I would say it.


          Oh Dan, you are in real danger of becoming a true Republican, a true conservative, something that Horist used to be. DANGER, DANGER Will Robinson —– if you continue, they will call you a RINO and hound you to the Gates of Hell.

          Yeah, I remember the days when we could laugh about it. I remember the days when folks argued the points rather than the personal attacks launched by Horist or the fake victim thin skinned one who can dish it out but can’t take even a hint of a ribbing.

          I remember the days when you didn’t look to see whether the area was red or blue before you moved.

          And I am pissed.

          I am still pissed that I can’t pull an OJ in the airport dashing for the plane as I arrrived 15 minutes before the gates closed. I remember doing that before the hijackings. Or doing Times Square or the Mall on the Fourth without being strip-searched before entering the area. Or when teens just beat each other instead of shooting a couple dozen folks over a “teen dispute.” I remember marching in the streets, now we light up a few cars and buildings or maybe storm the Capitol to take a shit. I am really pissed at all that we have become. You can say how we act towards each other is a conclusion, not a cause, but I say it IS a cause.

          So bravo Dan, you may not be woke, but you are enlightened. Keep the faith brother, we can do better, all of us. But watch out for that RINO tag, Trumplicant retraining can be brutal I hear. Like a bad acid trip, folks can bugg out and suddenly beleive they are Lyndsey Graham.

        • larry Horist

          Dan tyree … I agree that George Santos had to go. I would have preferred that have been left up to the voters in a few months. I tend to dislike the political class overruling the voters — even if an obvious mistake was make.. No doubt he is a nut case. Too bad he was shielded by the local political establishment and the news media. He lies were known during the campaign. Once you start having the political class ignore the vote of the people, you create a lowered bar. We see the same issues with Trump on ballot access and with impeachments. As you know, I am not a fan of Trump, but way not a fan of Democrat authoritarianism.

  3. Darren

    The Republicans need to change the speech when talking about the Border.
    Biden is creating an Insurrection against the United States at the Border.
    There you have it! Now Biden should be off the Ballots!

    The term Insurrection was not given by accident. That actual wording has not been used in decades.
    Pelosi did not pull that term from thin air. That word was specifically used as it is directly traced to
    the constitution. This wording was in the wings waiting to be used by Pelosi as part of her Plan on J6th.
    She may be an Evil Bitch like Hillary, but she is much much more cunning & accomplishes her task without
    a body count!

  4. Mike f

    Another long-winded tome that shows that the windbag post pays Larry by the word count rather than thoughts. While I do believe that the basic premise of this tome is correct and the Supreme Court will vote to have him remain on the ballot. I also believe that this is the correct course of action because Republicans are so corrupt that if Colorado is allowed to remove trump, a deep red state (with their very pliable court justices) would likely do the same thing to Biden, or any other democrat in the future due to trumped up charges (pardon the pun). Republicans have already shown their willingness to benefit party over constitution-virtually nobody could sensibly argue that Mayorkas is guilty of ‘high crimes’ and yet he has been impeached. While I am in agreement with the Supreme Court decision-I will also state that Colorado was totally within their bounds of knocking trump of the ballot due to insurrection. Despite what Larry states in his tome-trump has been charged (impeached) for the crime of insurrection by the federal legislature. He was also convicted by a bipartisan majority in the senate of that same insurrection-though it did not rise to the level required to remove his ass from office (or prevent him from running again due to Mitch’s delaying tactics following his impeachment). So there tis..