(Republican Party News) – Democrats in the state of Arizona are going to be bawling their eyes out today, as a judge has tossed out their efforts to try and remove three Republican candidates from the upcoming election ballot after they claimed they were “insurrectionists” because of the riots that took place at the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.
The left has been desperately attempting to attack members of the GOP ever since the riot took place, doing their best to lump all conservatives together as “insurrectionists” and terrorists who want to overthrow the government in an attempt to brainwash low information voters into supporting their candidates and their agenda.
According to WND, liberals in states across the country have launched court cases to try and banish GOP candidates from ballots, citing alleged support for this extremely weak and pathetic “insurrection,” despite the fact that most of the charges that have come from the riot are nothing more than trespassing and vandalism.
“Now, according to a report in the Epoch Times, Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury has decided in Democrats’ attempt to remove two Republican congressmen and a state representative from the November ballot that he doesn’t have the authority for such a ruling,” WND said.
The report published by the Epoch Times stated that the decision “likely foreshadows the outcome of similar efforts in other states.” If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of liberals throwing themselves to the floor and stomping their feet.
“Coury ruled against demands by leftists who wanted U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs and state Rep. Mark Finchem removed. He said the 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Clause requires congressional action, not a lawsuit from private individuals,” the report stated.
“The express language of the United States Constitution controls this issue. The Disqualification Clause creates a condition where someone can be disqualified from serving in public office. However, the Constitution provides that legislation enacted by Congress is required to enforce the disqualification pursuant to the Disqualification Clause,” Coury went on to say, according to the Times piece.
“Aside from criminal statutes dealing with insurrection and rebellion which Congress has enacted (lawsuits which require the government, not private citizens, to initiate), Congress has not passed legislation that is presently in effect which enforces the Disqualification Clause against the candidates,” Coury stated.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is often referred to as the “disqualification clause.” This amendment was officially adopted after the Civil War came to an end in order to prevent officials who were part of the Confederacy from coming back to Congress. The amendment says that those who have taken part in an insurrection against the United States cannot continue to be officers.
The judge went on to say, “Given the current state of the law and in accordance with the United States Constitution, plaintiffs have no private right of action to assert claims under the Disqualification Clause.”
This particular ruling is similar to results that have been reached in other complaints already.
“In fact, the Arizona group that was integral in bringing the complaint also has had its fingers in similar cases brought against Reps. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., and Marjorie Taylor Green, R-Ga,” WND reported. “Other critics of the Democrat movement have said there would need to be an adjudication of someone being involved specifically as an ‘insurrectionist’ before such claims would be legitimate.”
Basically, liberal Democrats have taken the riots that occurred on Jan. 6 and slapped the label “insurrection” on it and have then added claims that anyone who was in support of the concerns protesters had that day concerning the validity of the election results should be considered an “insurrectionist.”
An attorney who represents Gosar spoke with the Epoch Times and stated that the 14th Amendment says, “Congress shall decide how this will be enforced” which means that a state is not allowed to do that.
“WND reported recently when a judge said a similar claim against Greene, a Republican from Georgia, could proceed for now. That claim was described by BizPacReview as ‘as despicable and dastardly as it gets,'” the report continued.
Greene responded by saying she might be persuaded to suggest other members of the GOP respond similarly.
During an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Greene said, “These people hate the people in my district so much, they look down on them because they voted for me and sent me to Washington to fight for the things that most Americans care about like secure borders, stopping abortion, protecting our Second Amendment, stopping the out of control spending in Washington and stop funding never ending foreign wars and the insanity that takes place in Washington.”
“Well, I went there and I have been fighting it, and now the progressives, the people who donate money to dark money groups, you know the 501(c)(3)s and the foundations, they’ve hired up some attorneys from New York who hate the people in my district and don’t believe they should have the right to elect who they want to send to Washington which is me,” the congresswoman continued.
“I have overwhelming support in my district and I’m so thankful for all of them,” she stated. “Well, now they’ve filed a lawsuit because they’re trying to rip my name off of the ballot and steal my district’s ability to reelect me and send me back to Congress.”
Greene then said, “You know, there’s something that I have learned and I think that this is really important, you know if you can challenge any representative’s candidacy or elected office holder, then I bet you we could round up some Republican voters who didn’t like Kamala Harris funding rioters, criminal rioters out of jail or Ilhan Omar or Cori Bush or Maxine Waters inciting riots.”
“You know, I think there’s another way to play this game,” she added.
“Courthouse News reported that it was U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg, who owes her appointment to Barack Obama, who said the case filed against Greene’s candidacy can continue – for now,” WND stated.
The report then stated that Clark Cunningham, who is a professor of law at Georgia State, described the case that’s been brought against Greene as mostly “frivolous.”
“Though there’s more of a technical issue about whether the provision in the 14th Amendment, which was originally enacted in the context of the Civil War, whether Congress had sort of limited its effectiveness only to the Civil War, and Judge Totenberg does address that issue on the merits that that provision is still effective,” he went on to say.
Dave Oedel, a law professor from Mercer University, also stated in the report that Totenberg barely managed to keep this case afloat.
Copyright 2022. RepublicanPartyNews.org