Merry Christmas: A Special Bonus Gift of Christmas Funnies Just for You
Simply ‘Wonderful’: Classic Holiday Film Reminds Generations It’s Okay to Cry at Christmas
A Lump of Coal in Her Stocking! Crypto Influencer Gets BURIED for Not...
Political Pivot? Many Question ‘Young Turk’ Cenk Uygur’s Sudden Willingness to Talk with...
'The View' Panelist Says Problem for Dems Is That Gov't Won't Regulate Social...
Man Vs. History: Bear Grylls Gets DROPPED by Community Notes for Awful Take...
Scott Jennings: Dem Party Must Flush the Fringe and Embrace Common Sense to...
HO HO OH LOL-NO! Leftist Mocked for Whining About the Midwest DAD We...
Bah Humbug! Dems Put Fetterman On The Naughty List
NewsGuard Rates the Headlines Covering Woman Set on Fire by Illegal
CNBC: Biden Administration Withdraws Student Loan Forgiveness Plans
'Mary Was An Earthworm:' J.K. Rowling Absolutely Roasts India Willoughby's Take on Christi...
University Employee Who Told Trump Supporters to Kill Themselves Sent Packing
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Still Pushing to Publish the Equal Rights Amendment With 'One...
Global Engagement Center for Countering 'Disinformation' Closing Down

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules on Effort to Keep Trump Off the Primary Ballot

AP Photo/Charles Krupa

We’ve talked before about how this is a bit of a ticking time bomb for Trump: There are numerous efforts to declare that Trump is disqualified from being President under Section 3, of the Fourteenth Amendment. This section was designed to keep Confederates out of power after the Civil War, but it was written more broadly than that. Here’s what that part of the amendment says:

Advertisement

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.

Thus, the argument would go that Trump somehow committed insurrection or rebellion—even though not even Jack Smith decided to indict him for that. Of course, the argument is specious, requiring the courts to ignore that Trump didn’t say or do anything that wasn’t protected by the Constitution, but the danger is that activist judges will try to keep him from being president by the abuse of this process, and then claim that they are saving democracy. You know, by preventing people from voting for the candidate of their choice. It’s dirty, it’s underhanded and, unfortunately, it might just succeed in preventing him from becoming president.

But we have learned that there has been a setback in that effort. 

Advertisement

Conservative Brief frankly can be an irritating website to dig information out of. So, you might prefer a Politico link:

One thing that is nice about Politico is that they usually link to the actual opinion or order, and this is no exception. We have read it over—all four pages—and the gist of it is this. This was an attempt to keep Trump off the primary ballot, not the ballot for the general election. While the government is plainly involved, primary elections are ultimately a function of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is allowed to have delegates to its convention that support a candidate who can’t be president and the party is even allowed to decide it wants to nominate someone like that and that is no business of any official in Minnesota.

We get why this would be desirable for the courts: Trump might still lose the nomination fight and, therefore, they might never have to worry about it. Still, this leaves a ticking time bomb for next year’s election: What if Trump gets the nomination and crucial states decide he is not even allowed to be on the ballot for the general election? And the concern that this might happen is serious enough that it really should be settled sooner rather than later. As it stands right now, some might say ‘even if Trump is the nominee, they will rig the election with this Fourteenth Amendment nonsense, so we better nominate someone they can’t do that to.’ Others might say, ‘we have to support Trump 100% to show people this kind of lawfare doesn’t work.’ We won’t try to guess which argument will win out, but this really shouldn’t be part of the debate over who gets the nomination. So, while Trump shouldn’t be kept off the primary ballot, we are not sure that kicking the can down the road is a good thing. We tend to think that the fairest process is one where these issues are settled early.

Advertisement

Some reactions:

Respectfully, this gives us no hope on the subject. We hope that the courts will not try to rig this election by via an abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment, recognizing that this would be potentially fatal to national cohesion, but this decision doesn’t increase or decrease that hope. Seriously, if they were upset about January 6, 2021, they should pause and imagine how people might react if the election is openly rigged and stolen in 2024. To be clear, we aren’t advocating any kind of violence, but we are predicting it.

Pretty much.

Advertisement

We think we detect sarcasm.

Technically true, since he didn’t have one in the first place, so, therefore, one more would prevent him from running again.

The rest of the post says:

Anyone that thought this had a chance doesn’t know civics and I return to the suggestion that social media accounts need advance civics/social studies classroom time

Advertisement

Except we think the people celebrating are getting ahead of themselves.

The rest of the post says:

They'll wait until after a Democrat Denver judge kicks Trump off the Colorado ballot on or before November 17th.

Well, the Minnesota Supreme Court really has boxed themselves in that they have to wait until someone tries to put him on the general election ballot.

And, of course, Trump himself was happy about it.

We’re not sure where the ‘Without Merit, Unconstitutional’ quote comes from—it doesn’t appear in the decision, and, in fact, the decision doesn’t rule on the constitutional issue at all (except, arguably, the constitutional relationship between presidential qualifications and the primary process). There’s no question in our mind that he should be on the primary ballot, but we worry about the effect it will have to leave the general election question up in the air.

Advertisement

***

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement