Michigan Supreme Court rejects 14th ********* challenge to Trump

[travestyny]

Seems there are a bunch of states that will go through with this song and dance until the Supreme Court gives us a clear answer.

Good news for Trump since this is a battleground state.




The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal aimed at barring former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th *********.

In doing so, Michigan's high court upheld a Michigan's Court of Appeals ruling earlier this month that rejected an earlier appeal filed by the watchdog group Free Speech For People on behalf of a group of Michigan voters who sought to remove Trump from the ballot based on his activity surrounding the attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol ON Jan. 6, 2021.

[Marchegiano]

Fourteenth *********

Fourteenth ********* Explained
Section 1




All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2




Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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.

Section 4




The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5




The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.





----

I'm not trying to make any statement.

[travestyny]

Some of the issues that have come up have been....

whether the President is included under section 3.

Seems that this is a weaker argument since the framers clearly considered the President to be an officer of the United States.

Then you get into whether there was an insurrection?

I'm not sure how the government defines insurrection exactly, but this does seem to be a fair definition:

insurrection | ˌinsəˈrekSHən | noun a violent uprising against an authority or government

Jan 6th seems to qualify as a violent uprising against an authority/government.


Did Trump take part in the insurrection?

18 U.S.C. 2383 says, “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be….”

You can choose any of them but if Trump didn't "set on foot" Jan. 6th, who did?

Colorado Opinion:

“President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection,” the majority wrote in its unsigned opinion. “Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President (Mike) Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”

I can understand the argument that he should be convicted in court of something linking him to Jan. 6th, but common sense tells anyone being honest that Trump wanted to stop the normal functioning of the government during its transfer of power. However, I don't see judges in battleground states being willing to step in and declare trump an insurrectionist, and I don't see the Supreme Court (ironically with its right leaning "don't tread on my state" current configuration) standing up for any states rights in the decision. Personally, I think it would have been better if the court cases against Trump regarding the matter have played out before discussions about removing him from ballots, though I think the evidence is certainly clear enough for even a MAGA cult zombie to comprehend.

[ProblemChild_JakePaul]

If only Donald were a mature adult who follows the law and acts in good faith, there wouldn't even be an issue here.

[travestyny]

If only Donald were a mature adult who follows the law and acts in good faith, there wouldn't even be an issue here.

This is my choice for best post on the topic.

[The Big Dunn]

They kept him on the ********** ballot. Didn’t weigh in on the general. They will wait for the SCOTUS to rule on the Colorado decision.