by Corinne Murdock | May 11, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
On Monday, the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed claims of insurrection against State Representative Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley) and Congressmen Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), ruling them valid candidates for the upcoming election.
A progressive nonprofit, Free Speech for People, alleged that the three legislators weren’t qualified because they committed insurrection through their actions and speech on January 6, a purported violation of the U.S. Constitution’s “Disqualification Clause”: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In response to the ruling, Gosar asserted that free speech prevailed against the Democrats.
Finchem declared that the GOP continued its winning streak with this latest ruling.
The court agreed with the Maricopa County Superior Court’s ruling from last month. Judge Christopher Coury didn’t entertain whether or not the three lawmakers engaged in insurrection. Rather, the courts agreed that the plaintiffs lacked the ability to enforce it. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the superior court’s assessment that the U.S. House of Representatives has the sole authority to determine a candidate’s fitness to serve in Congress.
“1) Congress has not created a civil practice right of action to enforce the Disqualification Clause, and the criminal statute prohibiting rebellion or insurrection, 18 U.S.C. § 2382, does not authorize the challenge by a private citizen; 2) A.R.S. § 16-351 does not provide a private right of action to argue a candidate is proscribed by law from holding office; 3) it is unnecessary to decide if the Amnesty Act of 1872 is applicable because no private right of action exists under the United States Constitution or Arizona law; 4) the Constitution reserves the determination of the qualifications of members of Congress exclusively to the U.S. House of Representatives; 5) the doctrine of laches is not applicable at this time; 6) Plaintiffs do not satisfy the legal standards for injunctive relief; and 7) there is no need for an advisory trial. Plaintiffs timely appealed.”
The nonprofit that challenged the qualifications of Biggs, Gosar, and Finchem failed in two similar lawsuits against Congressman Madison Cawthorne (R-NC-11) and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14).
In addition to disqualification of the three legislators’ candidacy, Democrats have called for an investigation into their January 6 involvement.
The leader of the activist movement challenging the results of the 2020 election, Ali Alexander of “Stop the Steal,” named Gosar, Biggs, and Finchem as three individuals who helped him organize the January 6 protest.
One of the latest actions taken on these claims came last week when the U.S. House’s January 6 Committee requested that Biggs speak with them.
Biggs refused to cooperate. He compared the committee’s intentions and tactics to those behind the Salem Witch Trials, with former President Donald Trump supporters being the target.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Apr 23, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Congressmen Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) and State Representative Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley) will not be disqualified from the upcoming midterm elections for organizing the January 6 protest, a judge ruled on Friday.
The question before the court was whether the three candidates violated Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as the “Disqualification Clause.” Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs had no right of action to determine such a violation under the Constitution or supporting law.
Coury explained that the lawsuit’s argument for exercising the 14th Amendment contradicted legal precedent: the 1869 ruling for In Re Griffin, for example. Coury wrote that precedent, coupled with context of the amendment within the article, empowered Congress to exercise the 14th Amendment — not individual states or the people.
“[T]he Constitution provides legislation enacted by Congress is required to enforce the disqualification pursuant to the Disqualification Clause. 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,” wrote Coury. “The text of the Constitution is mandatory. It sets forth the single arbiter of the qualifications of members of Congress; that single arbiter is Congress. It would contradict the plain language of the United States Constitution for this Court to conduct any trial over the qualifications of a member of Congress.”
The judge also rejected the argument that Arizona law enabled a private right of action to enforce the Disqualification Clause where the Constitution and federal law didn’t. Coury distinguished the term “prescribed” from “proscribed,” ruling that the Arizona law in question encompassed requirements for holding office, not disqualifications. Coury added that his interpretation was consistent with state and federal precedent.
Coury also noted that none of the three men were charged with or convicted of insurrection or rebellion. He refused to rule on the merits of the allegations of insurrection made against Gosar, Biggs, and Finchem.
The lawsuit was filed by Free Speech For People, a Democrat-backed, progressive nonprofit. The organization was ruled against last month as well in a similar lawsuit against Congressman Madison Cawthorn (R-NC-11). Another one of their similar lawsuits against Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14) had a hearing on Friday.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Apr 21, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
A Democrat-backed nonprofit wants State Representative Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley), Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), and Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) disqualified from the upcoming midterm election for organizing the January 6 protest.
Arizona State University (ASU) law professor and legal expert Ilan Wurman told “The Conservative Circus” that the lawsuit not only misinterprets constitutional law but represents the bad habit of both parties to weaponize the Constitution.
“Just after the Civil War, this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to prevent individuals who had been office holders, federal and state office holders, who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, who then seceded from the Union, unconstitutionally seceded from the Union, and then took up arms against the government of the United States. By the way, that is an insurrection,” explained Wurman.
The nonprofit, Free Speech for People, invoked the Fourteenth Amendment to argue that Finchem, Biggs, and Gosar were responsible for the U.S. Capitol intrusion because they helped organize the preceding protest.
The lawsuit against Finchem, Biggs, and Gosar is part of a national campaign to “ban insurrectionists from the ballot” under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: the “14Point3 Campaign.” Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14) and Congressman Madison Cawthorn (R-NC-11) also face lawsuits under the campaign. Last month, a federal judge in North Carolina ruled in favor of Cawthorn.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads as follows:
“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.”
The nonprofit behind the lawsuit, Free Speech for People, also filed another lawsuit last month against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) concerning the debunked Russiagate collusion.
Finchem called the lawsuits “desperate.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Dec 20, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The flood of illegal immigrants hasn’t slowed down in President Joe Biden’s border crisis, and it looks like it won’t anytime soon. According to Customs and Border Patrol’s (CBP) latest report, over 173,600 illegal immigrants were apprehended at the border in November — up nearly 5.5 percent from the previous month. The Office of Field Operations (OFO) accounted for much of that jump, reporting a 40 percent surge.
The majority of the fiscal year 2021 surge comes from single adults: nearly 64 percent. Less than 28 percent are family unit apprehensions (FMUA), and less than 8.5 percent are unaccompanied children (UC).
On Thursday, Border Patrol (BP) Tucson Sector Chief Patrol Agent John Modlin showcased one of their latest catches: three illegal immigrants stuffed in the trunk of a sedan.
As AZ Free News reported, Modlin has consistently documented the reality of border apprehensions.
Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) criticized the Biden Administration for their continued lack of resolve over the border crisis. Gosar pointed out that more illegal immigrants crossed the border in the last three months than in all of former President Donald Trump’s final year in office.
“Mr. Biden’s open border policies are an open invitation to criminals and drug cartels to cross into our country unchecked,” said Gosar. “The crisis has reached a new level and Yuma, Arizona in my district is ground zero, as hundreds of illegal aliens cross into Yuma daily and even more are staging along the border waiting to simply walk across. Yuma is under siege because Mr. Biden and Border Czar Kamala Harris are nowhere to be found. The first priority of the President of the United States is to protect the people of America. Sadly, Joe Biden puts Americans last and he has lost the trust of its citizens.”
Amid the ongoing crisis, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected efforts to grant amnesty to up to 7 million illegal immigrants through the $2 trillion budget reconciliation bill. Based on Senate rules and nearly two centuries of precedent, MacDonough determined that the amnesty effort wouldn’t be permissible; reconciliation concerns spending and revenue, though Democrats have attempted to argue that immigration relates to those two subjects. That was the third proposal on illegal immigrant amnesty brought before MacDonough, which would have allowed those here illegally since at least 2010 to apply for up to two five-year work permits.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the ruling “deeply disappointing.” Psaki stated that their administration would continue working to secure amnesty.
“The decision by the parliamentarian is deeply disappointing and relegates millions to an uncertain and frightening future,” said Psaki. “Ultimately, it’s time for Congress to stop kicking the can down the road and finally provide certainty and stability to these groups, and make other badly needed reforms to our outdated immigration system.”
Conversely, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) applauded MacDonough’s opinion. FAIR President Dan Stein criticized Democrats’ attempts to abuse the reconciliation process.
“For the third time, Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected attempts by Senate Democrats to use the budget reconciliation process to enact a sweeping amnesty for as many as 7 million illegal aliens. FAIR applauds Ms. MacDonough for her integrity and ensuring that longstanding rules of the Senate were not subverted to achieve partisan political ends,” stated Stein. “Sadly, Senate Democrats, who hold the majority in that body solely because Vice President Kamala Harris can cast the tie-breaking vote, have made repeated attempts to use budget reconciliation to make an end run around normal legislative procedures. We hope that this, her third rejection of these tactics, will finally put an end to their efforts to abuse the process in order to reward illegal aliens.”
Governor Doug Ducey has been working with Border Patrol to strengthen enforcement. Earlier this month, he announced the Arizona National Guard would provide 24 personnel, six vehicles, four ATVs, and one helicopter to support the Department of Public Safety, as well as additional tactical assistance in hotspots.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Nov 17, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizonans have one less voice in two congressional committees – the National Resources Committee and the Oversight and Reform Committee – after the House voted Wednesday to punish Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) for posting an anime meme. The offending post photoshopped Gosar’s face on that of the protagonist featured in the intro of a popular anime series, Attack on Titan, attacking villains with the photoshopped faces of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14) and President Joe Biden. The anime meme also incorporated clips of the border crisis and Border Patrol.
The House also censured Gosar with their vote (House Resolution 789), breaking an 11-year dry spell since the last censure. The House decision, 223-207, was largely partisan with the exception of several congressmen generally considered “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs) for their tendency to oppose Republican policies and stances. Those members were Congressman Adam Kizinger (R-IL-16) and Liz Cheney (R-WY); Congressman David Joyce (R-OH-14) opted to vote “present” only.
The 4 hours of debate over Gosar’s censure and committee removals consisted of the same arguments. Democrats and Republicans alike largely rehashed the same talking points other members of their party were making.
Democrats’ general argument was that Gosar’s meme fantasized and incited violence. They claimed Gosar’s post was the same kind of hate speech that led to incidents like the January 6 storming of the Capitol. Many reasoned that Gosar should be punished because employers fire employees, and schools suspend or expel students, over similar or lesser offenses. Democrats claimed that they were getting death threats because of the meme.
Aside from insisting that the entire debate was a waste of time better spent on putting out bigger fires – such as the border crisis or the mounting tensions with both Russia and China – Republicans warned that the resolution would set a bad precedent, in which the majority party could pick and remove at their leisure who may sit on committees. Nearly every Republican that took to the podium asserted that Democrats were acting hypocritically with a “rules for thee, but not for me” attitude, citing Democrats’ speech encouraging the protests as cities were destroyed during last year’s George Floyd riots.
Prior to Gosar, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14) faced similar threats of censure and committee removal for her past social media posts. Though Democrats dropped the censure threats, the latter punishment stuck. Greene was stripped for remarks she made prior to her election and even prior to her campaign, effectively limiting her influence from the start of her term. Greene also continues to accrue fines for refusing to mask up; according to Greene’s latest estimates, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has fined her over $60,500 and counting.
Gosar defended himself a little over midway through the House vote. He explained that the anime was intended to convey a policy battle regarding amnesty for illegal aliens, catering toward young voters “who are too often overlooked.” Gosar asserted that the meme wasn’t intended as a threat.
“[I] reject the mischaracterization and accusations from many in this body that the cartoon from my office is dangerous or threatening. It was not, and I reject the false narrative categorically,” explained Gosar. “I do not espouse violence towards anyone, I never have. It was not my purpose to make anyone upset. I voluntarily took the cartoon down, not because it was itself a threat but because some thought it was. Out of compassion for those who generally felt offense, I self-censored.”
It appeared that the only member who could offer cultural context to the meaning and intent behind the anime meme was Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05).
“I’ve lived in Japan for several years! I speak Japanese. I read and write Japanese. This is an anime. Highly popular. Stylized. Intended to demonstrate the alienation people feel – particularly young people – in their cultures. Now, does anime have violence? Yes. It’s highly stylized violence,” explained Biggs. “It was not Mr. Gosar’s intention, I believe, to induce anyone to violence, and like he, I also condemn violence. I would ask you to reconsider further usurping and taking control of this body for political purposes because that’s what’s happening here today.”
Ocasio-Cortez said that the Republicans’ downplaying of the meme’s severity was “nihilism.” She also inferred that average Americans look up to congressional members for influence and direction. Ocasio-Cortez then called the meme an incitement to violence that would directly connect to violent acts. The congresswoman insisted that the meme shouldn’t be simplified as a mere trend, but examined critically for all its problematic parts and their significance. Conversely, Ocasio-Cortez insisted that the vote on such a matter should be simple.
“So when we talk about […] that these depictions are part of a larger trend of misogyny, and racist misogyny, this has results in dampening the participation,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “This vote is not as complex as perhaps the Republican leader would like to make folks believe. It’s pretty cut and dry. Does anyone in this chamber find this behavior acceptable? Would you allow depictions of violence against women and colleagues in your home? In your school board? In your city council? In a church? If it’s not acceptable there, why is it acceptable here?”
Though Ocasio-Cortez and the Democrats wanted an apology for the meme with their vote, they didn’t get one – and it doesn’t appear that they will.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
