Michigan Judge Refuses to Do Dems’ Bidding, Hands Trump Win
Michigan Judge Refuses to Do Dems’ Bidding, Hands Trump Win
The Democrats persistently attempt to shut down Republicans using the 14th Amendment, but the courts keep shutting them down.
In a recent defeat for liberal plaintiffs, a Michigan judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to disqualify Trump from the ballot by using language from the 14th Amendment, which was originally intended to disqualify former Confederate officials from holding office, according to CNN.
Furthermore, the same judge ruled that Michigan’s secretary of state cannot declare Trump ineligible based on the “insurrectionist ban” language.
Here is the specific language in question from the 14th Amendment: ”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.”
The 14th Amendment also states that “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
However, given the difficulty of getting two-thirds of Congress to agree on anything, it is highly unlikely that this provision will be invoked. Therefore, liberal groups have been attempting, unsuccessfully, to remove Republicans who opposed certifying the 2020 election, particularly Trump, from the ballot.
Their efforts have consistently failed.
For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently rejected a challenge to remove Trump from the ballot. Similar attempts have been made to remove individual representatives from the ballot, such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and former Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina (although Cawthorn faced consequences from his own party).
While the 14th Amendment has been the subject of much legal interpretation, it has primarily been associated with the due process clause. Disqualifying Democrats from office for expressing doubts about the outcomes of previous elections, such as in 2000, 2004, and 2016, was never considered an option.
However, after the Capitol incursion on January 6, 2021, some on the left began treating that event as worse than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, and the “insurrection” clause suddenly gained significance.
Despite this, liberal groups have yet to achieve a major court victory and are unlikely to do so in the near future.
In the Michigan case, Judge James Redford of the Michigan Court of Claims ruled that Congress should address this as a “political question” that is beyond the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
Redford argued that removing Trump from the ballot would unconstitutionally transfer the decision to exclude him from “a body made up of elected representatives of the people of every state in the nation” to a single judicial officer. He emphasized that no matter how well-intentioned and fair the judge may be, they cannot represent the qualities of every citizen of the nation.
In other words, Congress should be responsible for making such decisions.
A similar case is pending in Colorado, and the results are expected by the end of the week. However, it would be surprising if the outcome differed from previous rulings.
Considering that the 14th Amendment has only been applied twice since 1919 and never to a major candidate like Trump, this use of the law is unprecedented and unrelated to its original intent.
According to Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung, “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.”
The group that lost the Michigan lawsuit plans to file an immediate appeal and hopes to involve the state Supreme Court, arguing that the judge adopted a discredited theory regarding Congress’ role in the insurrection clause.
Michigan is a crucial state in the 2024 election, and Trump may have a slim chance in Colorado and Minnesota. Therefore, conservatives should remain concerned about these legal actions. Both the Michigan and Minnesota rulings leave room for an appeal.
However, until a liberal group achieves a victory in one of these cases, their attempts to remove Trump and other Trump-allied Republicans through any means necessary, including the judiciary, remain nothing more than a pipe dream. This judge deserves credit for recognizing the flawed nature of this Democratic strategy.
A Note from Our Founder:
Every morning, we at The Western Journal wake up with a mission to provide you with the important information you need about what’s happening in America.
We can’t do that without your help.
America has been bombarded with false narratives designed to make you feel powerless. The Western Journal empowers you by debunking these false narratives.
However, I must be honest with you today. The future of The Western Journal is in jeopardy without your help.
Silicon Valley and Big Tech tyrants have done everything in their power to shut down The Western Journal. It is thanks to our loyal donors and subscribers that we have been able to continue our work.
If you have never donated before, I urge you to help us today. Our situation in America is dire. Alternatively, you can become a WJ member. Our country is hanging by a thread, and The Western Journal stands for truth in these challenging times.
Please stand with us by donating today.
Floyd G. Brown
Founder of The Western Journal
The post Michigan Judge Refuses to Do Dems’ Bidding, Hands Trump Win appeared first on The Western Journal.
Why do the courts consistently reject attempts to disqualify Republicans based on the insurrectionist ban language?
Will continue to face legal roadblocks. The judges, like Judge Redford in Michigan, understand the significance of allowing Congress to make political decisions and not leaving them in the hands of individual judicial officers.
It is important to note that the use of the 14th Amendment in this context is unprecedented and unrelated to its original intent. The amendment was primarily associated with the due process clause and not meant to disqualify individuals from office based on their beliefs or doubts about previous elections.
Despite the efforts of liberal groups, they have yet to achieve a major victory in these cases, and it is unlikely that they will do so in the near future. The rulings in Michigan and Minnesota, as well as the expected outcome in Colorado, suggest that the courts are not willing to remove candidates like Trump from the ballot based on the “insurrectionist ban” language.
The Trump campaign has condemned these lawsuits as ”unconstitutional left-wing fantasies” orchestrated by allies of the Biden campaign. They argue that these cases are attempts to overturn the election results and deny the American people the right to choose their next president.
The group that lost the Michigan lawsuit plans to file an immediate appeal and hopes to involve the state Supreme Court. They argue that Judge Redford adopted a discredited theory regarding Congress’ role in the insurrection clause.
As Michigan is a crucial state in the 2024 election, and there is a slim chance for Trump in Colorado and Minnesota, conservatives should remain concerned about these legal actions. Both the Michigan and Minnesota rulings leave room for an appeal, and until a liberal group achieves a victory in one of these cases, their attempts to remove Trump and other Trump-allied Republicans will face significant obstacles.
In conclusion, the recent ruling by a Michigan judge dismissing the lawsuit to disqualify Trump from the ballot using the 14th Amendment is another defeat for liberal plaintiffs. The courts consistently shut down attempts to remove Republicans based on the insurrectionist ban language, citing that it is a political question best left to Congress. Until a liberal group achieves a victory in one of these cases, their attempts to remove Trump and other Trump-allied Republicans through any means necessary will continue to face legal roadblocks.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
