Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

Michigan joins the party ...

A judge is hearing arguments as Michigan activists try to keep Trump off the ballot

 

Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling on Whether Trump Is Disqualified From Being on Primary Ballot

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump can be on the Republican Primary ballot in that state. However, the court did not rule on whether Trump is Constitutionally eligible under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The court essentially found that the issue is not ripe because the primary chooses only delegates sent to the party’s national convention, which then decides who the party nominee is. The court described this as an “internal party election.” Part of “a process that allows political parties to obtain voter input in advance of a nomination decision made at a national convention.” You can read the four page decision HERE.

Why should a court be compelled to rule on the hypothetical that Trump might be nominated? If he is not the nominee the court would have no cause to exercise its authority at all. The concern is, at this stage, based on the speculation that Trump will be the nominee.

The matter is dismissed, for now, without prejudice. The petitioners are free to refile, seeking a ruling on the merits, if Trump does win the Republican nomination. ​

 

Clearly this is the R strategy.

If the USSC does eliminate Trump from a single primary or a single general election ballot, I doubt that the chief justice can then swear in Trump as the next POTUS. I am 51% sure

 

Michigan judge inserts "Congress must approve" clause into Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Whatever that judge decides would be appealed and has. This will eventually land in the USSC.

[AP] Michigan judge says Trump can stay on primary ballot, rejecting challenge under insurrection clause

A Michigan judge ruled Tuesday that former President Donald Trump will remain on the state’s primary ballot, dealing a blow to the effort to stop Trump’s candidacy with a Civil War-era Constitutional clause.

It marks the second time in a week that a state court declined to remove Trump from a primary ballot under the insurrection provision of the 14th Amendment.

In Michigan, Court of Claims Judge James Redford rejected arguments that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol meant the court had to declare him ineligible for the presidency. Redford wrote that, because Trump followed state law in qualifying for the primary ballot, he cannot remove the former president.

Additionally, he said it should be up to Congress to decide whether Trump is disqualified under the section of the U.S. Constitution that bars from office a person who “engaged in insurrection.”

Redford said deciding whether an event constituted “a rebellion or insurrection and whether or not someone participated in it” are questions best left to Congress and not "one single judicial officer." A judge, he wrote, "cannot in any manner or form possibly embody the represented qualities of every citizen of the nation — as does the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

Free Speech For People, a liberal group that has brought 14th Amendment cases in a number of states, said it will immediately appeal the ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals, but also asked the state supreme court to step in and take the case on an expedited basis.

“We are disappointed by the trial court’s decision, and we’re appealing it immediately,” said Ron Fein, Legal Director of Free Speech For People.

In a statement, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung rattled off other losses in the long-shot effort to bar Trump from the ballot.

“Each and every one of these ridiculous cases have LOST because they are all un-Constitutional left-wing fantasies orchestrated by monied allies of the Biden campaign seeking to turn the election over to the courts and deny the American people the right to choose their next president,” Cheung said.

Left-learning groups have filed similar lawsuits in other states seeking to bar Trump from the ballot, portraying him as inciting the Jan. 6 attack, which was intended to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election win.

The two-sentence clause in the 14th Amendment has been used only a handful of times since the years after the Civil War. It’s likely that one of the active cases eventually will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the insurrection clause.

Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court sidestepped the issue by ruling that Trump could stay on that state’s primary ballot because the election is a party-run contest during which constitutional eligibility isn’t an issue. It left the door open to another lawsuit to keep Trump off the state’s general election ballot.

A Colorado judge is expected to rule on a similar lawsuit there by Friday. Closing arguments in that case are scheduled for Wednesday.
​

 

Judge ruled on two things.

1. Question of facts. Judge ruled that Trump "engaged in insurrection" and that Trump's speech was not protected by the first amendment, as a matter of fact.

2. Question of law. Judge ruled that President was not an "officer" of the US, since Section 3 did not specifically mention the President as being "an officer of the United States".

As this gets appealed up through the state courts and then up through the federal courts, those courts tend to rule more on the question of the law versus the question of the facts. This makes it more likely that the USSC will decide either directly or indirectly the question of the law wrt Section 3.

Is there any chance in h*ll that the writers of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment did not want to disallow someone like Robert E Lee or Jefferson Davis from becoming POTUS?