XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

" The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former
President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the US Constitution�s �insurrectionist ban.�

The outcome, which was generally expected, is a victory for the former president, though an effort to remove him could be renewed for the
general election. Wednesday�s decision contrasts with the recent
ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which kicked Trump off its
primary ballot because of his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. That
decision has been paused pending an appeal.

With these dueling decisions, the expected appeals to the US Supreme
Court become even more critical, especially as the nation races toward
the start of the 2024 primaries. Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan
lawsuit never reached a trial and was dismissed early on in the
process. An intermediate appeals court upheld the decision to toss the
case on procedural grounds.

The Michigan Court of Claims judge who first got the case said state
law doesn�t give election officials any leeway to police the
eligibility of presidential primary candidates. He also said the case
raised a political question that shouldn�t be decided in the courts. "

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/politics/michigan-supreme-court-rejects-insurrectionist-ban-case-and-keeps-trump-on-2024-primary-ballot/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

On 12/27/2023 9:17 AM, NoBody wrote:

" The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The outcome, which was generally expected, is a victory for the former president, though an effort to remove him could be renewed for the
general election. Wednesday’s decision contrasts with the recent
ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which kicked Trump off its
primary ballot because of his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. That decision has been paused pending an appeal.

With these dueling decisions, the expected appeals to the US Supreme
Court become even more critical, especially as the nation races toward
the start of the 2024 primaries. Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan
lawsuit never reached a trial and was dismissed early on in the
process. An intermediate appeals court upheld the decision to toss the
case on procedural grounds.

The Michigan Court of Claims judge who first got the case said state
law doesn’t give election officials any leeway to police the
eligibility of presidential primary candidates. He also said the case
raised a political question that shouldn’t be decided in the courts. "

So, this was a procedural ruling, not a substantive one, and so we see that the Michigan courts never even considered the applicability of 14.3.

The Colorado judges did, and they got it right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

On 2023-12-27 09:17, NoBody wrote:

" The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The outcome, which was generally expected, is a victory for the former president, though an effort to remove him could be renewed for the
general election. Wednesday’s decision contrasts with the recent
ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which kicked Trump off its
primary ballot because of his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. That decision has been paused pending an appeal.

With these dueling decisions, the expected appeals to the US Supreme
Court become even more critical, especially as the nation races toward
the start of the 2024 primaries. Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan
lawsuit never reached a trial and was dismissed early on in the
process. An intermediate appeals court upheld the decision to toss the
case on procedural grounds.

The Michigan Court of Claims judge who first got the case said state
law doesn’t give election officials any leeway to police the
eligibility of presidential primary candidates. He also said the case
raised a political question that shouldn’t be decided in the courts. "

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/politics/michigan-supreme-court-rejects-insurrectionist-ban-case-and-keeps-trump-on-2024-primary-ballot/index.html

And your expertise to judge who has the better understanding is...

...what?

Where did you get your law degree?

'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.'

What part of that text is unclear to you?

Is "President" an "office" "under the United States"? That's what your constitution calls it:

'Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States
of America.

He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years'.

So explain how the 14th's disqualification doesn't apply.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

On 12/27/2023 9:17 AM, NoBody wrote:

" The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The outcome, which was generally expected, is a victory for the former president, though an effort to remove him could be renewed for the
general election. Wednesday’s decision contrasts with the recent
ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which kicked Trump off its
primary ballot because of his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. That decision has been paused pending an appeal.

With these dueling decisions, the expected appeals to the US Supreme
Court become even more critical, especially as the nation races toward
the start of the 2024 primaries. Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan
lawsuit never reached a trial and was dismissed early on in the
process. An intermediate appeals court upheld the decision to toss the
case on procedural grounds.

The Michigan Court of Claims judge who first got the case said state
law doesn’t give election officials any leeway to police the
eligibility of presidential primary candidates. He also said the case
raised a political question that shouldn’t be decided in the courts. "

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/politics/michigan-supreme-court-rejects-insurrectionist-ban-case-and-keeps-trump-on-2024-primary-ballot/index.html

This was not a ruling (one way or the other) on the merits of whether
Trump engaged in an insurrection or even the federal questions raised by
the case (e.g., was their due process, is Trump subject to 14.3).

Instead, this was a ruling based on Michigan law that Trump must be
placed on the primary ballot even if he is disqualified by 14.3. They
held the proper time to bring the case would be later on for the general election.

Colorado's laws are different and allowed the merits to be reached for
the primary ballot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)