The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office.
A Florida lawyer is suing Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify his current run for president. Lawrence A. Caplan’s Thursday lawsuit claims that the ex-president’s involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would make him ineligible to run again, thanks to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment—a Civil War-era addition aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office. “Now given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case,” the lawsuit says, also citing Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Legal experts say it’s an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history. “Realistically, it’s not a Hail Mary, but it’s just tossing the ball up and hoping it lands in the right place,” Charles Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies at Nova Southeastern University, told the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
archive link to South Florida Sun Sentinel article: https://archive.ph/1BntD
Thank you for bringing rigour and structure to the discussion as opposed to sheer speculation. Take my upvote pretty please.
Well, isn’t this a spicy legal showdown? Lawyer Lawrence Caplan is suin’ Trump to keep him from the 2024 race? Someone grab the popcorn, we’ve got a ringside seat to the political drama of the century! I can almost hear the courtroom gasps as they argue about whether Trump’s hair should be considered a separate entity running for office. Stay tuned, folks – this legal tango might just give reality TV a run for its money!
It’s crazy that anyone would think he can and should be allowed to run for President again. The 14th Amendment is quite clear. And the man incited a violent insurrection to install himself as a dictator during what was a purely symbolic procedure. Trump lost, Biden won. Counting the electoral votes on 1/6 was a formality. There was no actual way for him to remain in office so he betrayed the nation by attempting to destroy democracy as we know it in this country. The only place he belongs in 2024 is ADX Florence.
Sounds like someone similar to Trump does not want to run against him.
I think a lot of people would just be happy to see Trump cut out of the race for good. There will be no majority for DeSantis, because the Trump disciples will shun him, cutting down any possible Non-Trump REP candidate.
In that scenario I imagine there would be a large number of maga goons who would still write in Trumps name. I can also see people angrily crossing out Bidens name or otherwise defacing their ballot, spoiling their vote.
This next election is going to be an absolute shit show.
Well, let them. It just invalidates their vote. I am more afraid of MAGA brains trying to vote with their guns instead.
I mean, felons can’t even vote.
This is what I’ve been saying. He’s a felon! Over 70 felonies! He’s can’t run for election.
I’m glad we have some educated people left in this world like you. Conservatives love worshiping law breaking facist pedophiles like Trump and backing Corporate conservative corporations that enable behavior like his. The Home Depot actively encouraged child molestation in the stores in Montana between their child trafficking high managers. I saw a store manager crack a bullwhip at one of his victims in Helena, while the HR and District manager laughed.
Caplan to receive death threats in 3….2….1……
Wouldn’t he need to be convicted first before this suit has a chance of winning?
The 14th Amendment is consider to be “self-executing” and public election officials can disqualify candidates when presented with a plausible argument.
Almost certainly, or else the suit could be dismissed on Double Jeopardy grounds. Even then, he would probably just appeal to the Supreme Court and get them to make up some reason to rule in his favor.
he would probably just appeal to the Supreme Court and get them to make up some reason to rule in his favor.
This would undoubtedly become the pinnacle of the Roberts Court being on the wrong side of history, though maybe they’d find a way to top that…
deleted by creator
I would think anyone who is an American citizen has standing to do this. The overturning of a fair election and the destruction of the peaceful transfer of power has horrible consequences for us all.
deleted by creator
I’m not a lawyer (yet) as I haven’t taken the bar exam, but I remember learning this in law school.
I can’t find the original court filing that all these news articles are reporting, but presumably, this is a special kind of suit seeking a “declaratory judgment” - a suit asking the court to prevent a harm before it happens.
Cornell Law School discusses it in a somewhat lengthy read but put “simply”, for standing in this kind of case, the court would want to see:
a concrete controversy (as opposed to a hypothetical one, e.g. you can’t seek a declaratory judgment “in case my neighbor decides to hit me”),
between adverse parties (some random citizen can’t sue you for breaking a promise you made to your grandma),
that is ripe (where enough has already happened that a decision right now wouldn’t require much speculation),
not moot (has to be able to affect the current case, for example, declaratory judgment isn’t appropriate to determine “should he have done that?”), and
the court’s decision is needed to prevent imminent harm (has to be relatively certain that a party would be adversely affected if the court doesn’t prevent it from happening).
Here there could be issues of ripeness: the court might not want to act on the mere possibility that Trump will be found guilty of insurrection etc. Courts don’t like to tell people what they can and can’t do unless a real situation makes it necessary, otherwise the court would risk encroaching on powers that belong to the other branches of government.
deleted by creator
Standing could be as simple as “it harms the American people to allow him to run.” The lawyer doesn’t have to be directly injured, since class action lawsuits are brought on behalf of entire groups all the time.
Not that it’s a slam dunk reason, but I would hope and think the lawyer in question knows that they have to prove some amount of standing.
deleted by creator
No comment on this lawyer’s standing, but class action suit’s standing, claim that the class members have been injured in the same or similar ways as the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff is suing for a direct injury.
I don’t think it will even get as far as standing.
The difference between Trump and the other guy removed from office because of 1/6:
Is that that guy had actually been convicted. Hasn’t happened for Trump… yet.
My expectation would be that because Trump’s case has not yet been adjudicated, he still has the premise of innocent until proven guilty, and until such time, he’s still qualified.
deleted by creator
Who do you think would have standing?
Fuck if I know. I think the courts will avoid this like the plague and say congress has to do something. Most of their recent rulings have been that. Roe Vs Wade was basically released stating the courts should have never created law and this is an act of congress. That is paraphrasing it. Same with student loan debt. Basically it was not the right of the president but congress. While those may be technically true, congress just sits with their thumbs up their ass. I would like to see a bill to make abortion legal at a federal level and yet, nothing.
The reason that there isn’t a national law that codified Row v Wade is REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION.
The system is set up to make it extremely difficult to pass anything, and the Republican party has enforced mandatory party unity on abortion and gun rights for the last four decades.
I never saw this amount of energy to disqualify someone of a presidential election. (What is in this case good) It shows issues in the state itself and how the laws are made. It’s already systemic.
Well, Trump only stands accused of 91 felonies, it’s not like he attempted a coup d’état or som…
I’ve never seen this amount of energy to run in the presidential election from an unqualified con-man. And I don’t disagree with you on this showing issues in the state itself, but I suspect we may have different ideas on what those issues are.
Unfortunately our system was not designed in the anticipation of someone like Trump together with the complete siloing of information ecosystems made possible by modern technology.
What we’re seeing is new in kind because both Trump and our information ecosystems are new in kind.
The founders also lived in a much more honor-based society wherein dueling was still very much a thing. Someone like Trump, a notorious liar and loud-mouthed braggart would have almost certainly been run through with a small-sword or shot while dueling. If he declined to accept a challenge to a duel, he would have been ostracized from polite society and effectively cut off from public office.
In other words, they expected that things like honor and decorum and the risk of being killed in a duel would provide for consequences not enumerated in the Constitution.
And they were right for over 200 years, then along came Trump and it turned out that such “customs and norms” were not enough.
We now see our old and very decrepit system --that was deliberately designed to be almost impossible to update – struggling with that fact.
yea that should do it
Let the people decide his fate through a free and fair election
Is it your opinion that nobody should ever be disqualified from running for any elected office, for any reason?
