Okay, let’s talk about the most recent US Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court has basically said that an insurrectionist can in fact, become President of the United States, because their ruling decides to reverse the ruling of the Colorado court. That did in fact, remove Trump from the ballot. But in doing so, the court did not reverse the findings of the Colorado court that Donald Trump is, in fact, an insurrectionist. The Constitution clearly says that, and insurrectionist, those that engage in such conduct, they can be barred from holding positions of government trust. As a matter of fact, we’ve done it before we barred people from running for president, we have barred people from running for Congress, under the same constitutional clause, all of a sudden, it’s not good enough. Now, this is going to be an interesting realization as we move forward. Because if you take the court’s ruling the Supreme Court’s ruling on face value, it’s suggest that somehow states are not able to enforce a constitutional right, or constitutional dynamics, they cannot uphold them. But that doesn’t make sense because States routinely engage in the enforcement of dynamics associated with the federal government, i e, Constitution, and federal law. The Supreme Court, while they made this ruling unanimously, they are split on the methodology and the mechanics of the law. While some are citing that basically this is a write codified only to Congress, others are saying, if this goes forward, it would allow states to basically run them up with their own way of doing a presidential primary. The reality is, while we have a presidential election, that is, in fact, a national election, it is carried out implemented and governed by state authorities. We have removed somebody from the ballot before and it was allowable back then. That was actually Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln was removed from the ballot of multiple states. It was a slippery slope, obviously, it led to the Civil War afterwards. Now, I’m not saying that state should simply utilize this awesome power to dismiss individuals from the ballot. What I am saying is that I wish the Supreme Court would have been more thoughtful about the fact that the Constitution provides this as an equitable remedy. Just in case, it’s needed. The Supreme Court could have set aside the findings that indicate Trump is in fact in insurrectionist. Without the Supreme Court doing that. It clears the path to basically say that even if you engage in insurrection, you can still run for President of the United States.