Then the correct response is to address the state of Colorado violating those amendments, NOT trying to give someone who has been convicted of a state crime a federal pardon.
This isn't just whacko bizarro world where you can just ignore our laws as a response of a state violating our laws.
It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it, reasoning that gasoline is a liquid type substance and some liquids are capable of putting out fires, so you can swap out gasoline with water or any other liquid capable of putting out fires, because to you, all liquids are the same. It doesn't work in the real world.
(Liquids being a euphemism for laws here, if you didn't catch that...)
Then the correct response is to address the state of Colorado violating those amendments, NOT trying to give someone who has been convicted of a state crime a federal pardon.
This isn't just whacko bizarro world where you can just ignore our laws as a response of a state violating our laws.
It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it, reasoning that gasoline is a liquid type substance and some liquids are capable of putting out fires, so you can swap out gasoline with water or any other liquid capable of putting out fires, because to you, all liquids are the same. It doesn't work in the real world.
(Liquids being a euphemism for laws here, if you didn't catch that...)
Agreed. This is why an expedited appeal should be made to SCOTUS or the applicable circuit court, not disregarding the separation of powers,