Posted on 12/27/2023 7:33:34 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Donald Trump will remain on Michigan’s state ballot after a ruling from the Michigan supreme court on Wednesday, which upheld a lower court order.
The move sets the stage for the former president to participate in the Michigan primary despite accusations that he led an insurrection against the United States.
The court’s decision not to move forward with a case against Trump sets the court in sharp contrast to the Colorado supreme court, which recently ruled to strip Trump from its state primary ballot because of his role in the January 6 riot at the US Capitol.
In Michigan, as in Colorado, the challengers have invoked section 3 of the US constitution’s 14th amendment, which broadly blocks people from holding government office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the US constitution having previously sworn an oath to uphold it. Legal experts are divided on whether this provision, written against the backdrop of the US civil war, applies to the office of the president. There are also questions as to whether Trump’s actions around January 6 legally constitute “insurrection or rebellion”.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
DITTO!!!!!!
....well, at least one supreme court and 7 or so lawyers didn’t embarrass themselves like their Colorado buddies did.
Actually, he was already impeached and tried on that charge in 2021. For those with short memories, he was acquitted.
.
I want to know the price of bribing a judge.
How low is it?
This is the Guardian which is run deluded woke children so choose a different source for anything they “report”.
In Michigan, as in Colorado, the challengers have invoked section 3 of the US constitution’s 14th amendment, which broadly blocks people from holding government office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the US constitution having previously sworn an oath to uphold it.
No matter how many times this misrepresentation is made, it remains wrong. They seem allergic to the actual words of 14A-3. It does not "broadly block people" who have previously sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. It blocks only such people who have previously sworn such an oath while 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. The President is NOT an officer of the United States, and Trump never held any of the other listed positions. An "officer of the United States" is an appointed position.
14th Amendment, Section 3:
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.
The provision only applies to persons who, having previously taken an oath,
(1) as a member of Congress, or
(2) as an officer of the United States, or
(3) as a member of any state legislature, or
(4) as an executive or judicial officer of any state,
Trump was never any of those. An officer of the United States is an individual in an appointed position. The President is not an appointed official and is not an officer of the United States. The term is a legal term with a specific definition. Members of Congress are listed separately because those elected office holders are not officials of the United States either.
The provision of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump, regardless of whether he committed insurrection or not.
Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, known as “the Appointments Clause,” states how federal officers must be appointed.
[The President] "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep561477/
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 497-98 (2010), Roberts, CJ, Opinion of the Court
The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies . . . subject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, p. 487 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Without a clear and effective chain of command, the public cannot “determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure,or series of pernicious measures ought really to fall.” Id., No. 70, at 476 (same). That is why the Framers sought to ensure that “those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest, will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.” 1 Annals of Cong., at 499 (J. Madison).
The People do not vote for Officers of the United States; they are appointed.
See the applicable Supreme Court opinions below.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep124/usrep124303/usrep124303.pdf
United States v Mouat, 124 US 303, 307 (1888)
What is necessary to constitute a person an officer of the United States, in any of the various branches of its service, has 'been very fully considered by this court in United States v. Gernaine, 99 U. S. 508. In that. case, it was distinctly pointed out that, under the Constitution of the United States, all its officers were appointed by the President, By and with the consent of the Senate, or by a court of law, or the head of a Department; and the heads of the Departments were defined in that opinion to be what are now called the members of the Cabinet. Unless a person in the service of the Government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the President, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of Departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep099/usrep099508a/usrep099508a.pdf
United States v Germaine, 99 US 508, 509-510 (1878)
The argument is that provision is here made for the appointment of all officers of the United States, and that defendant, not being appointed in either of the modes here mentioned, is not an ofcer, though he may be an agent or employ6 working for the government and paid by it, as nine-tenths of the persons rendering service to the government undoubtedly are, without thereby becoming its officers.The Constitution for purposes of appointment very clearly divides all its officers into two classes. The primary class requires a nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. But foreseeing that when offices became numerous, and sudden removals necessary, this mode might be inconvenient, it was provided that, in regard to officers inferior to those specially mentioned, Congress might by law vest their appointment in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. That all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government about to be established under the Constitution were intended to be included within one or the other of these modes of appointment there can be but little doubt. This Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no act of Congress is of any validity which does not rest on authority conferred by that instrument. It is, therefore, not to be supposed that Congress, when enacting a criminal law for the punishment of officers of the United States, intended to punish any one not appointed in one of those modes. If the punishment were designed for others than officers as defined by the Constitution, words to that effect would be used, as servant, agent, person in the service or employment of the government; and this has been done where it was so intended, as in the sixteenth section of the act of 1846, concerning embezzlement, by which any officer or agent of the United States, and all persons participating in the act, are made liable. 9 Stat. 59.
As the defendant here was not appointed by the President or by a court of law, it remains to inquire if the Commissioner of Pensions, by whom he was appointed, is the head of a department, within the meaning of the Constitution, as is argued by the counsel for plaintiffs.
Very good.
At least two.
Even the Minnesota supreme court said he stays on the ballot.
Yes.. that Minnesota
Not a bribe
Blackmail.
The challengers in the case, she added, may “renew their legal efforts as to the Michigan general election later in 2024 should Trump become the Republican nominee for President of the United States or seek such office as an independent candidate”.
You think this is over you’re dead wrong.
What CO did was a declared secession.
Not one of any of their federal officers should be allowed to run in any election. They declared that federal elections are controlled and determined by their shitty little state.
Out of the union with them.
How are we going to protect “Our Democracy”, unless we can ban people (we don’t like) off our ballots?
Nyah nyah, Brandonistas.
Hear that Colorado Clown Court?
WHY are they even ruling?? HE HASN’T BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING!!! This is pure insanity! Where do the Colorado supremes get off ruling he is disqualified? And Democrats DARE scream at us that WE are a threat to Democracy?
I don’t think that the MI Supreme Court ruled, they just let a lower state court ruling stand without interfering. Yeah, the result is that they ruled in favor of Trump, without really doing anything. Bravo, Supreme Court!!!
Definitely good! I can’t stand Trump anymore, but I want to decide on that myself and not vote for him…not have some power-crazed leftists tell me that I can’t vote for him.
Whether you like him or not, it’s the principle of the thing.
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.