Activist files legal challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 presidential race in Michigan

He argues that Trump's actions during his previous term should disqualify him from future races.

The case seeks to prevent Trump from appearing on the ballot in Michigan in the next presidential election.

Well, it's about time someone filed this suit, and I concur, but I feel he should be disqualified nationally. There has been growing support for this.

Do you agree?

Of course, the argument hinges on whether or not 1/6 was an 'insurrection', and if so, did Trump participate, or give aid and comfort to the insurrectionists (as the Constitution requires) ?

I say, emphatically, yes.

https://michiganadvance.com/2023/08...trump-from-2024-presidential-race-in-michigan

A Highland Park resident filing a legal challenge Monday aimed at disqualifying Donald Trump from the 2024 primary and general election ballots in Michigan, claiming the former president is ineligible to serve another term because he had engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S.

[...]

The 14th Amendment is a Civil War-era addition to the Constitution. Section 3 of the amendment prevents those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. from holding office.

 

These attempts to remove Trump from the ballot are the wrong way to go about this. He needs to be defeated at the ballot box, not barred from it.

His supporters have made idiotic claims that charging him for crimes he's committed is somehow election interference, but attempting to bar him from the ballot box(before he's even been convicted of anything mind you) could actually be a valid case of interference.

It's the wrong way to handle him and you will only make support for his idiocy and those who mirror it even stronger.

 

And lefties wonder why people believe that Trump is being politically persecuted.

And yeah, I don't want to hear a single lefty ever claim to be For the Constitution again. This completely and utterly ignores multiple parts of the Constitution, even the first part of the 14th Amendment.

 

Key word, activist lol. Everything that’s been done to Trump by the left is simply activism.

No rational perspective otherwise.

 

No, following the constitution is always the best path.

If he is guilty of aiding and giving comfort to insurrectionists or participating in the insurrection, the constitution disqualifies him.

Nothing more need to be said. It's the Constitution and that is that.

Of course, whether or not he did, and whether or not it was an insurrection, this has to be litigated.

But, if it is litigated and found to be true, then he MUST be disqualified, because that is what the constitution says.

Either you believe in the constitution or you don't.

So far we have more than one court case that defines what happened on 1/6 as an insurrection.


.

 

Quit being vague.

Now, what, precisely, are you talking about?

 

I believe this insurrection matter will eventually go before the SCOTUS. Because while New Mexico pursued its case for example, the Federal Government has not charged anyone with insurrection. Notably of course, it has secured convictions of seditious conspiracy, but that is notably absent of the 14th Amendment.

I argue that the govenrment doesn't need to publicize the riot anymore than it already has. Public image is a real thing, and 1/6 definitely tarnished the image. But it tarnishes it even further if the government acknowledges an 'open rebellion' against it. Acknowledging it as merely a criminal riot, allows the government to stand above the fray and paints the criminals as merely criminals.

Rebellions make people ask questions like 'why was there a rebellion in the first place'.

 

No one has been charged or convicted of insurrection so the whole thing is nothing but a mental pipe dream

 

This has been discussed before. Due process is a requirement that the Government must go through before punishing someone for a crime. And that due process, since it is about a supposed crime happening, requires trials in a court room. Why are you pretending it hasn't been discussed already?

 

This has become complicated and challenging. IF he rus and wins....( we do NOT wantthat for obvious reasons) he will continue to destroy the system without creating or replacing it with something better)
If he loses , we willl have to contend with more years of Trump theater as he suffers his victim role for the world to se

Now, by DISQUALIFYING him from running...... would be an option, but again his delusions of persecution will continue to rule the air waves.
It is like the Trump toxins have been unleashed and are out of control now.

Of all of the above: disqualifying him would make the most sense and hopefully he will be convicted and punished accordingly. No one can mess around with(threaten) this fine democracy the way he did and get away with it.

 

The problem is, the entire argument relies upon defining the Jan 6th riots as an insurrection, which it wasn't. It was an idiot's parade led by a larger idiot who I'm quite certain had not put an ounce of forethought into what could happen when he whipped up a bunch of people into a frenzy with his nonsense lies. If you wanted to charge him for a riot, or if there's some clause in the Constitution that bars you from being president if you incite a riot, fine.

Just don't stoop to the MAGA level and start making up false narratives. That is literally a page from their playbook and it's one of the main reasons WHY Trump and MAGA is bad for this country. You can't be better than him when you're copying him.

 

Except IF he is excluded from even one red State because of the 14th, he can’t win the election. He MUST run the table of red States AND flip 3 blue States to win. Ain’t gonna happen.

 

Which is a question that should be asked and answered IF U.S. is going to heal and move beyond the 1-6 insurrection.

 

Then beat him at the ballot box instead of trying to disqualify him and giving weight to his claims of election interference. His being charge for crimes he committed is not interference, but if you remove him from the ballot for things he hasn't been convicted of, that's much much closer.

 

That’s nonsense. We have laws to be followed, and consequences, that go with them, that apply to ALL Americans. TRAITOR tRump IS an American.

The 14th doesn’t require a conviction of a crime. But, it says, IF you take an oath of office of The United States AND, then participate in an insurrection while holding that office … you can NEVER hold an office of The United States again.

It’s obvious to MOST Americans that TRAITOR tRump did just that; participate in an insurrection. Are you saying that a ratified amendment to OUR Constitution is invalid or toothless. Or is it your position that the laws of These United States don’t apply to TRAITOR tRump, an American citizen?

Because as written and adopted into OUR Constitution by ratification and made law, the 14th Amendment excludes TRAITOR tRump from holding office, at the National level, EVER again.

According to the 14th Amendment, TRAITOR tRump can’t run for National Dog Catcher, much less President of the United States.

 

Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection or rebellion, so he can't be barred from the ballot under the 14th Amendment.

 

Convict him of that crime, then. If he's barred and not convicted, then you are aren't "following the Constitution".

 

So...you want to violate Trump's civil rights and violate the Constitution to bar Trump from running in a democratic election, because you're afraid he might win; all in the name of democracy?... LMAO

 

Not true, the 14th doesn’t require conviction.

 

You can be cited for an act of rebellion, even if a federal court or any authoritative body did not declare that it was a rebellion or insurrection! That's a freaking hoot.

No, either the judicial bodies have jurisdiction or they don't.

 

Section 1 does. It clearly stated "due process of the law". The 5th and 6th Amendments say the same thing. No where does the Constitution allow for someone's rights to be taken away with due process of the law. There's nothing "automatic".

 

Biggs was convicted of Seditious Conspiracy which, if you look it up, equates to insurrection.

Actually the application of The 14th can be enforced by State Secretaries of State.

Here’s another “hoot”.
Section 3 of The 14th Amendment does not expressly require criminal conviction and historically, one was not necessary.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569

 

But it’s section 3 that applies. See my previous post.

 

So, by logical extension, the crimes of Joe Biden should also beg these activists to attempt to disqualify Biden from running again, right?

 

Why was did they attack on 1/6 in the first place?

The answer to that is plain as day.

Trump told his base, over and over and over again, that Democrats stole the election, and they have to fight like hell to take their country back.

The anger of their belief that Democrats stole the election is what was driving the rage, it gave rise to stop the steal rallies throughout the country.

I mean, if that isn't obvious to you, I don't know what else to say.

Anyway......

The state government has denied someone the right to hold public office for their participation in the 1/6 'insurrection'.

The federal government has charged a few with 'seditious conspiracy'.

Now, the question becomes: Can being charged with seditious conspiracy be seen as being charged with insurrection to satisfy section 3 of the 14th amendment?

The answer to that, as far as my research tells me, is maybe, it depends on the specific circumstance. My thinking is probably, given that the state has and the federal government has charged some with seditious conspiracy, and these might be enough to sway the SCOTUS to say that Trump is disqualified.

But, we won't know until they do, finally, rule on the matter.