LISTEN HERE:
The High Court of Minnesota has rendered a verdict, which might potentially hinder the intentions of Democratic party members and certain Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) to exclude ex-President Donald Trump from electoral consideration.
The judgement, refusing to bar the ex-president from the Republican primary ballot, might influence corresponding lawsuits in states including Colorado and Michigan, as featured on Fox News.
The plaintiffs in these legal battles are leveraging Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment. This amendment was instituted post the Civil War to deter erstwhile Confederates from achieving specific elected posts.
The goal here is to use this constitutional clause to prevent the ex-president from appearing on the ballot. This provision essentially restricts anyone who has shown themselves to be engaged in insurrection or rebellion after pledging to uphold the Constitution from holding any form of state or federal office, be it civil, military, legislative or executive.
Minnesota Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Natalie Hudson noted in the ruling that there is no specific state law that prevents a major political party from endorsing a presidential nomination primary ballot candidate who is deemed unfit for office. It’s also worth mentioning that the decision does not invalidate the chances of keeping the ex-president off the general election ballot.
The previous month witnessed a federal judge in New Hampshire dismissing a lawsuit that sought to prohibit Trump from being on the ballot by deploying Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment.
An undisclosed source privy to these decisions and legal proceedings relayed to Fox News Digital that these declined challenges cumulatively establish a trend or ‘precedent’, which makes the future task of eliminating Trump from the ballot increasingly difficult in other states.
At present, a decision in response to a lawsuit filed in Colorado is awaited. An oversight group called Citizens for Responsibility and six Coloradan voters launched their lawsuit in the month of September. Their goal was to prevent Trump’s name from appearing on the primary ballot by invoking the 14th Amendment.
Multiple attempts have been made by the Trump team to dismiss the case. However, Judge Sarah B. Wallace has turned them down. Closing arguments have been scheduled for the coming weeks by Judge Wallace.
That brings us to the topic of ‘persuasive authority’ in law. Distinction is often made between binding authority in a jurisdiction and persuasive authority, where the latter implies a required compelling reason or a persuasive argument if one wishes to oppose it, explained Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy, a prior assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
With an increasing volume of current law backing the idea that constitutional standing is no grounds for disqualification, it becomes increasingly difficult for judges to venture into unexplored terrain and lean toward the contrary decision. However, it’s imperative to remember that the principle isn’t infallible, and persuasive authority doesn’t mandatorily need to be heeded, added McCarthy.
The former prosecutor stated, ‘As more precedents are set, confirming that this approach is not sufficient and that the public should be allowed to vote on Election Day to determine the election outcome— the more people vocalizing this —the better’. However, in the perceived scenario where Trump might win the election in September 2024, McCarthy doesn’t doubt that extremities might be considered.
He clarified, ‘Though I think they might resist this because it’s a quite extremist approach, desperate times might invoke desperate measures if he appears to have a fair winning chance’.
In McCarthy’s perspective, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment isn’t even applicable to presidential eligibility. It includes a detailed list of ineligible office-types but doesn’t make reference to the president of the United States or the vice-president.
It does, however, mention electors of the president and goes through the mention of senators and members of the house. While a prevailing theory suggests that there is a general clause that implies any federal official, McCarthy believes it cannot logically apply to the president after taking the effort to list all these other offices.
Expressing his take on the amendment’s interpretation, he stated, ‘Had the drafters of the amendment intended to include the presidency, they would have explicitly mentioned it’.
