Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

New Move May Keep Marjorie Taylor Greene Off The Ballot; Here’s What We Know So Far…


Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is fighting for her right to run for reelection.

A group of Georgia voters in her district is using a Georgia law to challenge her eligibility to run.

The challenge asserts she is ineligible based on the allegation she supported an insurrection on January 6.

A similar challenge was brought against US Rep. Madison Cawthorn in North Carolina and that effort was halted by a federal judge.

As was done in the Cawthorn case, Greene filed her own federal suit to stop the proceedings against her under the state law.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is central to the case.  It states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress … 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 AP reports,

Greene “vigorously denies that she ‘aided and engaged in insurrection to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential power,’” the lawsuit says. The law only requires the people challenging a candidate’s eligibility to file a written statement of why they believe the candidate is not qualified, and that automatically triggers the secretary of state’s request for a hearing before an administrative law judge, the lawsuit says. The fact that a government investigation can be triggered based only on the challenger’s belief violates Greene’s First Amendment right to run for political office, the lawsuit says.The challenge statute also puts the burden on Greene to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she didn’t engage in the alleged behavior, and that “burden shifting” violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit also alleges that the challenge statute “directly usurps” Congress’ constitutional ability to judge whether a member is qualified. Finally, a law passed in 1872 removed the disqualifications put in place by the part of the 14th Amendment that the challengers are trying to use against Greene, the lawsuit says.

We’ll wait to see what the federal judge decides, but according to reports from the American Bar Association, the judge in Greene’s case is not convinced the judge in Cawthorn’s case got it right.  The judge in Green’s case is reported to have said she “thought that the amnesty law protected prior (meaning the confederacy insurrection), but not future insurrections.”

Was January 6 an insurrection?

If it was, then why aren’t we seeing criminal convictions for insurrection?  Instead, we’re only seeing plea deals for trespass.

January 6 is being used to silence free speech in the name of free speech.  The political opposition and media are using that day to silence and prosecute the voices of Americans.

Marina Medvin, one of the attorneys representing Americans that were at the protests on January 6, visited with Sebastian Gorka yesterday.  You should watch the interview for a sobering view of the cases that have been brought against conservatives.




Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Hey, Noah here!

Wondering where we went?

Read this and bookmark our new site!

See you over there!

Thanks for sharing!