(5MinNewsBreak.com) – Tuesday, November 14, a date that will be remembered by good American citizens as one of the most significant victories for Republicans was secured ahead of the 2024 presidential election. In a resounding victory for constitutional principles, former President Donald Trump will remain on Michigan’s ballot for the presidential primary, as Michigan Court of Claims Judge James Redford rejected attempts to challenge Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment.
Opponents of Trump have been arguing in multiple states that his actions surrounding the January 6th U.S. Capitol storming constituted insurrection, making him ineligible for public office. However, Judge Redford firmly dismissed these claims, emphasizing the importance of maintaining Congress’s authority.
“The judicial action of removing a candidate from the presidential ballot and prohibiting them from running essentially strips Congress of its ability,” Judge Redford stated in his ruling. “The question of whether Donald Trump is qualified or disqualified from appearing on the 2024 general election ballot in Michigan is not ripe for adjudication at this time.”
The judge’s decision aligns with the core constitutional principle that political questions of this nature should be left to the elected representatives of the people in Congress, not decided by individual judges.
Trump is also facing a similar challenge in Colorado, where a watchdog group and six voters filed a lawsuit citing the 14th Amendment. Despite the Trump team’s attempts to dismiss the case, the judge in Colorado, Sarah B. Wallace, has rejected those motions.
The lawsuit in Michigan is just one of several left-leaning attempts across the country to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from holding office. This provision, adopted after the Civil War, states that anyone engaging in “insurrection” or “rebellion” cannot hold office unless Congress votes by a two-thirds majority to allow them.
Judge Redford, however, made it clear that in Michigan, this language does not prevent a candidate from appearing on the primary ballot for the purposes of selecting a nominee. He emphasized that the core questions involved are inherently political and should be decided by Congress.
Ron Fein, legal director for Free Speech for People, who represented the challengers, expressed disagreement with the decision, claiming that only Congress should decide whether a presidential candidate fails to meet constitutional qualifications for office. He announced plans to appeal the case to the Michigan Supreme Court.
In response to the ruling, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, praised the decision, calling the challenges “ridiculous cases” and “un-constitutional leftwing fantasies” orchestrated by allies of the Biden campaign.
The Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, also a Democrat, expressed satisfaction with the court ruling. She emphasized that any consideration of a candidate’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment should occur after nomination or election, echoing the court’s decision.
As legal battles continue in other states, legal experts anticipate that the ultimate resolution may rest with the U.S. Supreme Court, where Trump has appointed three of the six conservative justices, forming a supermajority. The case’s national significance makes it one to watch closely as the 2024 presidential election approaches.
