Trump 14th Amendment disqualification efforts reach Minnesota Supreme Court

[mystery-ak]

 Trump 14th Amendment disqualification efforts reach Minnesota Supreme Court
by Zach Schonfeld - 11/02/23 1:31 PM ET

Efforts to keep former President Trump off the ballot under the 14th Amendment reached the Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday, with several justices during oral arguments appearing wary that they should be the ones to determine Trump’s eligibility.

The case, brought by a left-leaning nonprofit, is one of multiple across the country seeking to prevent Trump from returning to the presidency under the clause, which provides that anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” cannot hold office.

Thursday’s arguments concerned several legal issues the nonprofit must prevail on so their case can move ahead: Does the clause apply to presidents? Can the provision be enforced without legislation from Congress? Is the issue a political question outside of the court’s authority?

Five Minnesota Supreme Court justices, four of whom were appointed by Democrats, are weighing the case after two others on the court recused. Several justices Thursday expressed concerns about the various threshold issues.

“I think your argument about the political question doctrine is — I think that’s a very serious problem for the other side on this case,” Justice Barry Anderson told Trump’s attorney.

Chief Justice Natalie Hudson suggested “this is a national matter for Congress to decide” and that, even if her court did have authority, she would still hesitate.

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4290148-trump-14th-amendment-disqualification-minnesota-supreme-court/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's much better to have these kind of cases decided now than in 10 months.

[Fishrrman]

4-to-1 dem-communist appointees?
Done decision.

Mr. Trump wasn't going to win in Minnesota, anyway.

[mystery-ak]

Enormous Development: Colorado Prosecutors Caught in Major Lie in Court Case to Remove President Trump from Ballot – With Video Evidence
by Jim Hoft Nov. 2, 2023 3:00 pm

Democrats were up to their old tricks again on Monday.

The Democrat Party’s radical far-left attorneys in Colorado delivered their opening statement to toss President Trump from the ballot in the state.

During their opening remarks, the Trump-hating attorneys shared two clips of President Trump’s speech at the Ellipse to a million supporters on January 6, 2021.

They insist President Trump started a violent riot. But they refused to play video of his statement calling on his supporters to peacefully march to the US Capitol.

But that’s not all.

more
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/enormous-development-colorado-prosecutors-caught-major-lie-court/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Enormous Development: Colorado Prosecutors Caught in Major Lie in Court Case to Remove President Trump from Ballot – With Video Evidence
by Jim Hoft Nov. 2, 2023 3:00 pm

Democrats were up to their old tricks again on Monday.

The Democrat Party’s radical far-left attorneys in Colorado delivered their opening statement to toss President Trump from the ballot in the state.

During their opening remarks, the Trump-hating attorneys shared two clips of President Trump’s speech at the Ellipse to a million supporters on January 6, 2021.

They insist President Trump started a violent riot. But they refused to play video of his statement calling on his supporters to peacefully march to the US Capitol.

But that’s not all.

more
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/enormous-development-colorado-prosecutors-caught-major-lie-court/

They're the prosecution -- of course they're not going to play that.  But both sides get an opening statement, and the defense will play that clip during theirs.

I read that whole speech a month or two back, and the "peaceably" stuff is kind of buried in there early on.  The rest of the speech is typically Trumpian fire and brimstone that to me drowned out the "peaceably" comment.  But while I do blame Trump for being irresponsible, I still don't believe it was criminal.

[Smokin Joe]

They're the prosecution -- of course they're not going to play that.  But both sides get an opening statement, and the defense will play that clip during theirs.

I read that whole speech a month or two back, and the "peaceably" stuff is kind of buried in there early on.  The rest of the speech is typically Trumpian fire and brimstone that to me drowned out the "peaceably" comment.  But while I do blame Trump for being irresponsible, I still don't believe it was criminal.

A major semantic difference: Trump called on followers to march to The Capitol, on video.

Ray Epps was calling for protesters to go into The Capitol, repeatedly, also on video.

Who's on trial?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

A major semantic difference: Trump called on followers to march to The Capitol, on video.

He also said he'd lead them in that march.  Once again, promising but not delivering.

Ray Epps was calling for protesters to go into The Capitol, repeatedly, also on video.

Who's on trial?

Again, in terms of legalities, I don't believe Trump broke the law so I think the charges are B.S..  But I do think his speech was despicable.  He knew exactly what to say to enrage that crowd, while stopping just short of anything that was actionable legally.

[Smokin Joe]

He also said he'd lead them in that march.  Once again, promising but not delivering.

Again, in terms of legalities, I don't believe Trump broke the law so I think the charges are B.S..  But I do think his speech was despicable.  He knew exactly what to say to enrage that crowd, while stopping just short of anything that was actionable legally.

Given the events surrounding the fraud in the so-called "battlefield states", all of America should have been outraged.
Given that security at the Capitol was a skeleton crew compared to what was proposed, America should be outraged.
Given the treatment of the 1/6 prisoners, America should be outraged.

Given that the first ring of barriers (feeble as they were) were removed, some by a guy who talked with Epps, and then started taking them down, America should be outraged.
Given the sham investigation, the sequestering of what would be miles of videotape showing that the protesters were, on balance, not violent, and the very real that those who were were at least partly agents provocateur, on the federal payroll, America should be outraged.
Given that the only reason the protest was "deadly" was the wielding of weapons by the police, and not the protesters, America should be outraged.

Need I go on?

Trump didn't have to say a word to "enrage" the crowd.
The people who showed up were already mad.
But that did not stop them from acting civilly, on balance, at least until the police started firing 'less than lethal' munitions at point-blank range, which can be lethal. If you want one thing that pushed that crowd over the edge, that's it.

Then, in the wake of Lake Street in Minneapolis and other burning and looting episodes around the country, to declare this event an "insurrection" is just more bullshit.

If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention.

As far as being 'despicable' there has been plenty of inciting to riot (the real deal), causing billions of dollars in destruction and loss of life through the actions of rioters or those defending against them. There is a whole lot of far more despicable speech to go around, and apparently only the most peaceful of that is not protected by the First Amendment.

On January sixth, I lost all respect for members of Congress who were wetting their pants facing nothing worse than I experienced during race riots in school in the late 60s/early 70s, only we were on our own.

[libertybele]

Given the events surrounding the fraud in the so-called "battlefield states", all of America should have been outraged.
Given that security at the Capitol was a skeleton crew compared to what was proposed, America should be outraged.
Given the treatment of the 1/6 prisoners, America should be outraged.

Given that the first ring of barriers (feeble as they were) were removed, some by a guy who talked with Epps, and then started taking them down, America should be outraged.
Given the sham investigation, the sequestering of what would be miles of videotape showing that the protesters were, on balance, not violent, and the very real that those who were were at least partly agents provocateur, on the federal payroll, America should be outraged.
Given that the only reason the protest was "deadly" was the wielding of weapons by the police, and not the protesters, America should be outraged.

Need I go on?

Trump didn't have to say a word to "enrage" the crowd.
The people who showed up were already mad.
But that did not stop them from acting civilly, on balance, at least until the police started firing 'less than lethal' munitions at point-blank range, which can be lethal. If you want one thing that pushed that crowd over the edge, that's it.

Then, in the wake of Lake Street in Minneapolis and other burning and looting episodes around the country, to declare this event an "insurrection" is just more bullshit.

If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention.

As far as being 'despicable' there has been plenty of inciting to riot (the real deal), causing billions of dollars in destruction and loss of life through the actions of rioters or those defending against them. There is a whole lot of far more despicable speech to go around, and apparently only the most peaceful of that is not protected by the First Amendment.

On January sixth, I lost all respect for members of Congress who were wetting their pants facing nothing worse than I experienced during race riots in school in the late 60s/early 70s, only we were on our own.

Absolutely agree!  I will add that I also lost all respect for our SCOTUS justices who looked the other way when cases were presented.

[mystery-ak]

Minnesota Lawsuit to Keep Trump Off Ballot Hits Rocks

Bradley Jaye 3 Nov 2023

A lawsuit to kick Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot in Minnesota may be in trouble after the state Supreme Court justices hearing the case appeared skeptical that states have the authority to take the unprecedented action.

The case centers around the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically Section 3’s “Insurrection Clause.” Plaintiffs argue President Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, disqualify him from appearing on the ballot.

The clause reads:

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.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states, including Colorado, where a state trial judge heard arguments all week.

The Colorado case, heard by Judge Sarah Wallace, who was appointed by Democrat Governor Jared Polis, may eventually be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, leading to the novel approach to use it to keep Trump off the ballot.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/11/03/minnesota-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-ballot-hits-rocks/