The right to vote. This is the sole means by which the American citizen controls his government. He does not draft, debate, amend, pass or enforce laws. He does not adjudicate cases, collect or spend taxes, impose tariffs, ratify treaties or wage war. Aside from the odd referendum, he doesn’t even have a vote on these decisions. His only vote is for his representatives.

A member of government wields the combined powers of “we the people” only because he represents the people. And he represents the people only because they freely voted for him.

Except when he doesn’t.

The state government of Colorado is testing out a strategy to ban people from even having the option to cast a ballot for the man who—aside from the 81 million digital, mail-in, cross-border, late, harvested, manipulated, mismatched, posthumous votes for Joe Biden—has won more votes than any other representative in American history. And some powerful people want to take this ban nationwide.

Republicans say that you should vote after you present some kind of proof that you have that right. According to polls, that represents the will of the people, 4 to 1. Democrats preach, unironically, that everyone should exercise the “sacred” right to vote—proof or no proof. But when it comes to one certain candidate, your right to vote is not so sacred that they won’t violate it and make it literally impossible to vote for him.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled last week that Donald J. Trump’s name must not appear on 2024 presidential ballots in that state because he “engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.” It ruled that his January 6 speech “was not protected by the First Amendment,” that the subsequent protest at the United States Capitol building constituted an “insurrection,” that he “‘engaged in’ that insurrection through his personal actions,” and that it was under the court’s power to implement the U.S. Constitution’s “disqualification clause.”

It was a controversial split decision: Three out of seven justices ruled that voters should have the option to vote for President Trump. But justices Monica M. Marquez, William W. Hood, Richard L. Gabriel and Melissa Hart all ruled that “Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” Here is the text of that section:

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.

In a judicial sleight of hand, the opinion glosses over the proof that Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection and focuses on why insurrectionists should not hold public office.

The Supreme Court of Colorado stayed the enforcement of this ruling, pending a likely hearing of this case by the Supreme Court of the United States. This means that President Trump’s name will actually be available to voters in the Colorado Republican primary.

However, this ruling is serving much of the purpose for which it is intended. The “get Trump” media has celebrated it and characterized it as “unassailable”—and a great strategy for other states to copy, maybe the whole nation.

In all seriousness, they say that the man who won 63 million votes in 2016 and 74 million—or more—in 2020 is a “threat to democracy” and must be kept out of office not by the will of the voters but by the will of certain judges.

As incredible as it is to realize this, American voters participating in “government of the people, by the people, for the people” are potentially in the process of being presented with a list of preapproved presidential candidates similar to the ones provided to Iranian voters by their ayatollah.

Even former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who is virulently anti-Trump, recognizes how dangerous this ruling is. “The idea that 50 different state courts can decide a question involving the highest elective office in the executive branch, interpreting the federal Constitution as to what constitutes an insurrection against the federal government is incoherent.”

Bolton is wrong about a lot, but he makes a good point here. It is extremely odd for a state to “protect democracy” by rule on an alleged insurrection against the federal government when the federal government has not yet made a ruling. But this is far from the only oddity in this case. George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley, himself a liberal Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, called the ruling “the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. What is particularly galling is that these four justices stripped away the right of millions of voters to choose their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.”

Even the president of El Salvador, a nation that might be considered the original banana republic, blasted the Colorado ruling, saying, “The United States has lost its ability to lecture any other country about democracy.”

Mark Bradman, the Conservative Treehouse blogger who goes by Sundance, wrote: “President Donald Trump was not charged with ‘insurrection,’ is not accused of ‘insurrection,’ does not fit the complaint under the definitions of ‘insurrection,’ and has never been found guilty of insurrection. The complaint is moot before the court. But hey, it’s lawfare … and we all know lawfare is created for public media consumption, so that takes us directly to the biggest point.”

Liberal justices do not care about concepts like innocent until proven guilty, and they don’t even seem to mind that the U.S. Supreme Court is gearing up to overrule their case. They just want the claim of “Trump is an insurrectionist; a state supreme court says so” to cycle through the media.

This is largely about convicting President Trump in the court of public opinion to reduce the number of people who do vote for him—if they get the chance—in the primary and in the general election later this year. This is a dirty trick, but it’s coming from the same side that told the world Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t Hunter Biden’s laptop.

If you don’t gloss over President Trump’s actions, what do you find? You find that, after failing to win a hearing in the Supreme Court or any other court, he wanted and needed and exhorted those protesters to walk to the Capitol to “cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women” and “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” because his last chance at stopping the treasonous usurpation of the presidency was for congressional representatives of the people to convene, introduce the evidence, and debate the evidence for the people to see on television. The suspicious actions before the violence, how the violence started, the general orderliness of most protesters, the refusal to release video evidence, and the fact that this all prevented Congress from debating election fraud with millions watching shows that the aspect of January 6 that involved violence only benefited the radical Democrats. The violence only hurt Trump.

And now we have an American government that does not derive its powers from the consent of the governed.

Many Democrats are now clamoring for California to bar Trump from office using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. California Governor Gavin Newsom is against the plan because he feels like it might rally more Republicans to Trump’s cause. Yet whether or not California follows Colorado’s example, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to step in.

This court will fulfill a Bible prophecy that my father, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry, has been talking about for years.

“I don’t know, but I would think the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on this election eventually,” my father wrote days after the 2020 election. “The fact that Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett will be there when that happens increases the odds that the law will be upheld! And that would make all the difference for the president. … I would think that is the way God is going to solve this, but He may have other ideas” (Nov. 9, 2020).

My father bases his analysis on Amos 7:13, where an evil priest tells the Prophet Amos, “But prophesy not again any more at Bethel: for it is the king’s chapel, and it is the king’s court.”

He explains in his article “Is America’s Supreme Court in Bible Prophecy?” that the phrase “king’s chapel” indicates a religious movement that is more personally loyal to the king than to the man God is using to warn the nation. Although President Trump is not especially religious, American Christian evangelicals see him as their only hope for slowing or stopping the horrendous evils afflicting America. So they strongly support him.

“King’s court” is better translated “kingdom’s court” and refers to a “nonreligious entity” that supports the king. My father uses this and other prophecies, including 2 Kings 14, to show that this leader, who is in power right at the end of the superpower descended from ancient Israel, is Donald Trump. The kingdom’s court that supports him is the Supreme Court of the United States. Its five conservative justices support the modern “Jeroboam” not so much out of personal loyalty but because he benefits the United States.

Congress closed the debate and certified the 2020 election for Joe Biden at 3:44 a.m. on Jan. 7, 2021. There is no established constitutional process for undoing a congressional election certification, even if a usurpation is uncovered. So the Supreme Court would have to rule on what to do in such a circumstance. The Trumpet still expects the theft of the 2020 election to be fully exposed, for Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s power to dwindle, and for Donald Trump to return to the presidency. So, keep watching the Supreme Court.

The court initially lacked courage in the face of the election steal, government tyranny and other issues, but its role is by no means insignificant. Many of the justices must realize that America will no longer be a democratic republic if prosecutors like Smith can ban a man from running for office because a few of his supporters trespassed on Capitol grounds they didn’t know were closed to the public. The Supreme Court could be involved in determining whether America survives as a republic—or whether it survives at all.

Amos describes this as the period when God “will not again pass by them anymore” (Amos 7:8). As my father has said, God will indeed give this nation one last chance to repent of the horrible sins that have led us to such a horrible place in our history. And He is going to do it specifically through President Donald Trump.