Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses ‘insurrection clause’ challenge...

The state’s high court declined to become the first in history to use Section Three of the 14th Amendment to prevent someone from running for the presidency. However, it said in its ruling the decision applied only to the state’s primary and left open the possibility that plaintiffs could try again to knock Trump off the general election ballot in November.

Trump’s attorneys argued that Section Three has no power without Congress laying out the criteria and procedures for applying it, that the Jan. 6 attack doesn’t meet the definition of insurrection and that the former president was simply using his free speech rights. They also argued that the clause doesn’t apply to the office of the presidency, which is not mentioned in the text.

Source

One down, but several cases have been filed, some of them in the same states. Colorado is next. I don't see any state supreme court wanting to touch this, even on a second round as noted in the Minnesota case. If any of these cases succeed, it sets a nasty precedent, and would change elections forever for both sides. In fact, why bother having an election at all. It certainly would not be a fair election, except in a banana republic.

a reply to: Klassified

After reading the filing, this is a punt.

They didnt want to rule (althought they made the question valid).

After the primaries, look for it to come back up......

And there is no state
statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination
primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who
is ineligible to hold office.

Because there is no error to correct here as to the presidential nomination primary,
and petitioners’ other claims regarding the general election are not ripe, the petition must
be dismissed, but without prejudice as to petitioners bringing a petition raising their claims
as to the general election.

Filing (PDF)

a reply to: JinMI

Agreed that it's a punt, and that it will come back up after the primaries, but any court that would rule in favor of removing a political opponent from the ballot in a national election, especially the current front runner...

Well, you get the idea.

a reply to: Klassified

Well, they could punt again even after the primaries under the same logic.


The reality is that NO court wants to be the one to set election precedent. Even SCOTUS denying Texas' standing in Texas v Pennsylvania stands to this logic.


But bet your last penny that when one does, they'll be falling over themselves in attempts to acquiesce.

a reply to: JinMI

Precedent was set when they allowed Bathhouse Barry Soetoro on the ballot and then serve as President for eight years despite being ineligible… Pelosi knew he wasn’t Constitutionally eligible and even removed the wording from his nomination paperwork…

a reply to: JinMI

Yeah, they haven't ruled yet. Kind of a punt, but more of a delay, it will come back to them again.

Basically, they're saying it's not guaranteed Trump will be the party nominee and until the GOP chooses him officially as the nominee, there is nothing to rule on.

a reply to: Mahogani

there is also the slight issue of not having an insurrection, thus really hard to charge someone for something that didn't happen.

It's almost as if our political class wants us to be in constant turmoil... I wonder why?

a reply to: Klassified

Minnesota is merely supporting what the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in early October.

A punt. Not a ruling. FFS some of you are too much.

It was denied. It is stated there is no state law. This is how it should work.

Case Closed.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Mahogani

there is also the slight issue of not having an insurrection, thus really hard to charge someone for something that didn't happen.

And yet that didn't play into this at all. They decided not to take it up because he is not officially the party nominee yet.

Read the ruling.

a reply to: Mahogani

And there is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office

This is over. It will be the same in each state unless they currently have a law in place. I am sure they are scrambling in many places and it will wind up like the early voting/absentee in many states during COVID. No vote but something simply put in place.

What are the so afraid of? Him winning....