Posted on 11/02/2023 5:19:03 PM PDT by RandFan
Efforts to keep former President Trump off the ballot under the 14th Amendment reached the Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday, with several justices during oral arguments appearing wary that they should be the ones to determine Trump’s eligibility.
The case, brought by a left-leaning nonprofit, is one of multiple across the country seeking to prevent Trump from returning to the presidency under the clause, which provides that anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” cannot hold office.
Thursday’s arguments concerned several legal issues the nonprofit must prevail on so their case can move ahead: Does the clause apply to presidents? Can the provision be enforced without legislation from Congress? Is the issue a political question outside of the court’s authority?
Five Minnesota Supreme Court justices, four of whom were appointed by Democrats, are weighing the case after two others on the court recused. Several justices Thursday expressed concerns about the various threshold issues.
Ron Fein, legal director for Free Speech For People, the nonprofit that filed the lawsuit on behalf of eight Minnesota voters, said the court’s intervention is necessary to “uphold the U.S. Constitution and defend American democracy.”
“Donald Trump engaged in rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in a desperate attempt to remain in office after losing the election,” Fein told the justices.
“Section Three of the 14th Amendment protects the republic from oath-breaking insurrectionists, because its framers understood that, if they’re allowed back into power, they will do the same or worse. Section Three’s plain text bars Trump from ever holding office,” he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Well, it is certainly the best way to save "Their Democracy". Which looks a lot like classical fascism to me.
List the many states please.
Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection in a court of law.
So let me get this straight: The individual states can add their own qualifications and disqualifications regarding listing Presidential candidates on the ballot?
SOOOOO………
HOT DAMN!!!
A state could disqualify BIDEN for his lying about bribery!
This will not be settled until it goes to SCOTUS. There we will win.
NO one has been charged with insurrection. Case closed.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/minnesota-supreme-court-chief-justice-dresses-down-leftist/
I saw a meme somewhere (paraphrased):
Invading a sovereign country is an act of war
Ignoring an active invasion is an act of treason.
Our United States now has states that apparently do not believe in the rule of law. Our Founding Fathers never anticipated this. I don’t want to be united with states like this.
How many so-called “Americans trapped in Gaza” are Hamas sympathizers from Minnesota?
Republicrats nust fight back by removing the Democrat candidate from ballots.
Minnesota Muslim population estimated 70,000-80,000 in 2022.
214,000 residents of Mexican descent.
384,548 black residents in 2021.
From 1932 onward, the state has primarily voted Democratic, last voting Republican during Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972. Outside of Washington, D.C., it is the longest Democratic streak in the country.
2020 election result: 52.4% Biden and 45.3% Trump.
The Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party is the affiliate of the Democratic Party in the U.S. state of Minnesota. As of 2023, it controls four of Minnesota’s eight U.S. House seats, both of its U.S. Senate seats, the Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate, and all other statewide offices, including the governorship, making it the dominant party in the state.
On progressive issues winning in elections:
Former President Barack Obama: “Minnesota has made progress on a whole host of issues – from protecting abortion rights and new gun safety measures to expanding access to the ballot and reducing child poverty. These laws will make a real difference in the lives of Minnesotans.”
The 14th Amendment was not, in fact, designed to keep Trump off the ballot. It was designed to keep Confederate States of America officials off the ballot.
The Confederacy was an insurrection, and was declared so by Congress.
January 6th was demagogued by some to be an “insurrection “, but because some schmucks say it was doesn’t make it so. All based on one political party’s desire to triumph over the other?
Where was the vote? Were was the arguments and speeches made both pro and con? Some TV news desk, LOL?! Nanzi Pelosi’s podium? Lizard Cheney’s microphone? Adam Kinzerger’s tear glands? GMAFB!
Verdict: not a legal toe, let alone a leg, to stand on.
This is beyond journalistic malpractice from The Hill, and at best is sloppy journalism.
One minute of research would show that the amendment is limited to:
...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...That is not "anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution" as it specifically does not include the President and Vice President in the section.
-PJ
The argument you pose is nonsensical. Who wouldn’t wish for that as an opposing challenger? Should we all kneel before Zod? Primaries exist for a reason. This isn’t a monarchy.
Sometimes I truly wonder what FReepers who tread the celebrity/ hero worship line completely forgot that we live within a constitutional republic that includes a competitive primary. No, we’d rather anoint the second coming.
Wasn’t there an attorney in Boynton Beach, Florida who tried to keep Trump off the Florida ballot?
And didn’t a judge slap down the moonbat attorney?
If so, that sounds like precedence..
Trump was ACQUITED of incitement of insurrection in the second Senate impeachment trial.
Very much so!
That isn’t a bad idea.
“because its framers understood that, if they’re allowed back into power, they will do the same or worse.”
The “framers“ had nothing to do with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which was added almost 100 years after the Constitution was written. I doubt the original framers would have ever added this section since they were rebels and insurrectionists themselves.
And lastly Section 3 does not bar people from holding any position in government. It bars people from holding any office UNDER the United States. The Presidency is the one position in our government which has never been considered an office UNDER the United States. Section 3 does not apply and that is the reason the Presidency is not mentioned at all in the section.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.