In a recent development witnessed in Michigan, the state court of appeals has given its ruling on one of many ongoing cases relating to the potential candidacy of a past president in the upcoming 2024 ballot. The issue under scrutiny was an attempt to exclude this former president from the 2024 ballot—reasoning being his supposed involvement in the unsettling incident at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.

Critics argued this potentially made him unfit for candidacy as per the 'insurrection' clause of the 14th Amendment. Going against this, the Michigan court dismissed the challenge, affirming two prior lower court decisions.

The court's ruling, a unanimous 3-0, came with the assertion that, under the Michigan state law, selections for primary ballot lie with the political parties and individual candidates themselves. Candidates' eligibility for inclusion in the state’s presidential ballots is a matter beyond the court's jurisdiction, the panel of three judges clarified.

It's important to underline that no official charges of 'insurrection' have been filed against the ex-president nor has any conviction been made.

Historically, the 14th Amendment's specific clause has only been evoked several times—most of which occured in the period following the Civil War. It is anticipated that one from the group of lawsuits challenging his inclusion will eventually be elevated to U.S. Supreme Court for judgment. Curiously, the Supreme Court has yet to pass any ruling on cases regarding the insurrection clause.

In a recent development witnessed in Michigan, the state court of appeals has given its ruling on one of many ongoing cases relating to the potential candidacy of a past president in the upcoming 2024 ballot. The issue under scrutiny was an attempt to exclude this former president from the 2024 ballot—reasoning being his supposed involvement in the unsettling incident at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.
Critics argued this potentially made him unfit for candidacy as per the 'insurrection' clause of the 14th Amendment. Going against this, the Michigan court dismissed the challenge, affirming two prior lower court decisions.
The court's ruling, a unanimous 3-0, came with the assertion that, under the Michigan state law, selections for primary ballot lie with the political parties and individual candidates themselves. Candidates' eligibility for inclusion in the state’s presidential ballots is a matter beyond the court's jurisdiction, the panel of three judges clarified.
It's important to underline that no official charges of 'insurrection' have been filed against the ex-president nor has any conviction been made.
Historically, the 14th Amendment's specific clause has only been evoked several times—most of which occured in the period following the Civil War. It is anticipated that one from the group of lawsuits challenging his inclusion will eventually be elevated to U.S. Supreme Court for judgment. Curiously, the Supreme Court has yet to pass any ruling on cases regarding the insurrection clause.

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Real News Now Podcast

Real News Now Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

<a href="https://realnewsnow.com/">Real News Now</a> Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

Advertisement