Florida lawyer files legal challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 presidential race
Source: USA Today
Story by Antonio Fins, USA TODAY • 3h
A lawyer from Palm Beach County has filed one of the first legal challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race under a clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Florida citing the amendment's "disqualification clause" for those who engage in insurrections and rebellion against the United States. The amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, and also addressed the citizenship status of freed slaves and the re-integration of the defeated Confederate states back into the Union.
Applying the 14th Amendment's disqualification rule to Trump has been a rising talking point this month. Legal scholars, including from conservative corners, have advocated for it. And state elections officials have conceded they are having discussions about how they would respond if a challenge is lodged.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/florida-lawyer-files-legal-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-presidential-race/ar-AA1fMDZR?cvid=2bdf18ba50c44c489cefef72328deaf5&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8#image=AA1ffboZ|2
I have read this approach is longshot--but sure worth the effort.
Link to tweet
?s=20
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sinkingfeeling
(57,835 posts)convicted.
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)who studied the issue for two years have said that it does not matter if he has been convicted or not. 14A section 3...
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)officials in each state can address it to decide if a person is qualified or disqualified. Or refuse to.
Included with those with legal standing to take the issue to court are state residents. Any of us could in our state.
California, NH, FL, we're seeing just the beginning of the first ever application of Section 3 of the 14th, against an ex-president.
Polybius
(21,902 posts)After all, what would set the standard? Who decides what is insurrection or not? Imagine if one of our guys just made a fiery speech about revolution, they could simply disqualify him. There must be a conviction, or we must alter the 14th.
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)Neither you nor I wrote the Constitution. The two men who submitted this opinion are Constitutional scholars, along with the first two guys. A total of four very educated guys came to the same conclusion.
Are you saying that you don't think an insurrection happened? That you don't think their Plan B of certifying fake electors was a crime? That Donald summoning rioters to the Capital was okay? That interrupting and attempting to stop the transfer of power was normal political speech? That threatening to lynch the VP and Speaker was just political posturing?
No, of course you don't. It's not hard. The Constitution, a document that Congress Critters and the President have sworn to uphold and protect, is what it is. Wanting to improve it, in your opinion, doesn't change what it says today. "In the end, they'll be wrong" means little in the face of the black letter law that is interpreted by experts. The corrupt SC may have a different take on it, but nowadays they are not noted for their brilliance or impartiality. It will be interesting to read what their piercing intellects have to say about getting Donald on the ballot.
I'm going back to reread the opinions by those that know. I think the actions to actually cause the insurrection and to support the coup are enough. There are ways around the "disability" that are offered, and it will be interesting to see it play out.
Polybius
(21,902 posts)I'd like to see it decided by the courts, but it's not as clear-cut as many think. Did he actually say go storm the Capital? No, he said to go there and raise hell with a little wink. The question is whether that wink is intent to overthrow.
The fake electors case looks like insurrection to me, but a good lawyer could argue that he, in his warped mind, thought it was stolen and did it with law in mind.
I'd wait for a conviction, and only if that conviction specifically says insurrection.
nvme
(872 posts)"fight like hell."
3Hotdogs
(15,369 posts)The Kraken gets a'hold of it.
bucolic_frolic
(55,143 posts)The amendment states all insurrectionists and rebellionists are automatically disqualified and may ONLY be reinstated by 2/3 vote of Congress. That means SCOTUS would not need to get involved. The Civil War Congress really booted these types from the entire power structure, no sympathizer's opinions needed.
I doubt this attorney will be ruled to have standing. This is a matter for State governments. SoS could keep him off the ballot. He could sure lose some critical states like Pennsylvania with its (D) State Supreme Court.
Cheezoholic
(3,719 posts)The courts wouldn't need to get involved in how exactly insurrection is defined? I'm just asking I mostly got no clue. If it's automatic he's done now I would guess.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)That step's just not actually required by the Constitution.
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)Cheezoholic
(3,719 posts)Im no lawyer but I would be fearful that the line may be blurred enough in this case that a SCOTUS ruling in favor/against could really weaponize the 14th in the future. If the challenge is going to come I'd prefer it like this instead of a state refusing to put him on the ballot citing the 14th. Either way its an ugly situation. Just MHO.
FakeNoose
(41,637 posts)Not likely to happen in our lifetimes. I don't know how the Repukes would be able to weaponize the 14th Amendment against us.
However I do agree that it would be better to see the states come together as a group and all refuse to accept Chump's candidacy. Just take his name off ALL the ballots and be done with him.
It should happen before the first primary, so hopefully by December at the latest.
Novara
(6,115 posts)They're not likely to if they see that they will lose their jobs and/or be prevented from running. THIS is why we need to strike him from the ballot. Not for revenge or for punishment - the court trials he's already engaged in can do that - but to prevent further insurrections. If this is not dealt with to the fullest extent of the Constitution NOW, plan for more insurrections whenever someone doesn't like losing an election. Because if we don't do this now, precedent will be set. The Constitution will mean nothing.
I don't know about you guys, but I've had it with his shredding the Constitution.
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)is stepping up to the plate. He must be asking the Secretary of State to not put tRump on the ballot. I don't see how it can go any other way. What I read is that both the House of Rep AND the Senate have to vote 2/3rds to ignore the "affliction." Trump would have to have all those people vote to let him on the ballot. I think that after that, if he isn't put on the ballot, maybe he can petition the SC. But, this is real and an excellent shot at keeping a wannabe fascist dictator off the ballot.
The rest of them better look out. It was a big mistake to try for an overthrow of the Government. There are quit a few rat weasels that could be prevented from ever serving again.
MOMFUDSKI
(7,080 posts)There will be a steady drip drip drip until it adds up to being taken seriously and then off to the Supremes. Would they dare to go against our sacred Constitution? Make your popcorn and watch the shitshow.
ShazzieB
(22,593 posts)Palm Beach County is where he lives! 
I agree about the drip drip. When I saw this o.p., my first thought was, "And so it begins..."
I can't wait to see what happens.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)I'm thinking FL cities' newspapers will keep covering this to spread public awareness, if not agreement, and so FL magats will only be temporarily upset when he wins.
Novara
(6,115 posts)But I don't think the rest of the justices would shred the Constitution, if it got before the SCCOTUS*. As soon as any SOS decides to leave him off the ballot, he will sue, and it will go all the way to the SCCOTUS. We should prepare ourselves for this.
*SCCOTUS: Supremely Corrupt Court of the United States
Chainfire
(17,757 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and the early stirrings in CA, FL, NH and no doubt elsewhere are just the beginning.
Novara
(6,115 posts)I have read (sorry, I can't find it now) that SOSs from several states talk together frequently and they have been considering leaving him off the ballot.
You're right. It's ON.
Wednesdays
(22,605 posts)and tRump is already toast even before the starting gun.
ArkansasDemocrat1
(3,213 posts)P01135809 losing even the possibility of getting votes Georgia would be glorious!
Jarqui
(10,909 posts)How does this lawyer have standing?
Didn't see the term in the article.
Secretary of State or a candidate like Chris Christie would clearly have standing.
It would be interesting if Trump responded. Might show their hand.
It will make some folks nervous of donating to Trump
Haggis 4 Breakfast
(1,505 posts)The same way you and I do. We're VOTERS.
Jarqui
(10,909 posts)Every time you think you've got it, there's a twist
For example:
https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Wood-v-Raffensperger-11th-Cir-Doc40.pdf
But donors, like voters, “have no judicially enforceable interest in
the outcome of an election.” Jacobson, 974 F.3d at 1246
That statement blew my mind. Whaaaattt?
A voter has to show how they're going to be personally injured by the outcome and that can get tricky.
A candidate has a "judicially enforceable interest in the outcome of an election.” The candidate could lose to someone that should not be on the ballot - so it that is a potential personal injury.
A Secretary of State has a "judicially enforceable interest in (the lawful process of) an election.” An unlawful candidate can be construed as a potential personal injury to the Secretary of State who could be held responsible for allowing an unlawful candidate.
If the lawyer can show a personal injury if Trump runs in his claim, he'll have standing. But it is dicey. If he doesn't nail it, it is dismissed for lack of standing.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Jarqui
(10,909 posts)A very reasonable expectation. Makes all the sense in the world to me.
But so many times, they seem to find a way to brush them aside - picking apart their potential injury claim or some technicality.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)It's easy to imagine that being an elector wouldn't give a person standing in a government case that was not about his specific electoral rights, but this absolutely is.
onenote
(46,143 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)You have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice regardless of who else is on the ballot.
More important is: he's filing in Federal Court. Decisions on ballot access are a State matter.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)No doubt your points, along with many, many others, will be argued in many forms and ways in the litigation and social media melees to come.
The conservative power blocs are investing vast sums to depower the electorate as an existential battle for their future, so their interest in the issue of voter standing alone can't be overstated.
Jarqui
(10,909 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The challenge they say voters have standing to bring will be to their state's decision to disqualify or declare a person eligible to run, or to refuse to address. Florida has not reached that stage yet.
Whatever thread these people are testing, which apparently includes the legal right of citizens to directly decide a candidate's lack of eligibility, no doubt we'll be seeing a lot more of these.
Jarqui
(10,909 posts)Makes my head spin.
I agree with everything you posted above.
In fairness, I haven't had time to dig into the details of this particular case.
Never look at the court docs.
I'm not sure I agree with this:
"Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Defendant’s qualifications for seeking the Presidency," Rosenberg wrote, adding that "the injuries alleged" from the insurrection on Capitol Hill more than two years ago "are not cognizable and not particular to them."
Is that a statute of limitations on "more than two years ago" such that the 14th Amendment only applies to insurrections in the past 2 years? (that doesn't make sense to me)
Side note:
As I thought about this, I wonder if there are practical limits. If 150 million voted for President and had standing, they could get 70 million lawsuits from the losing candidate (yea, a bunch would get bundled together and costs would discourage - but it could get crazy)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)heavily practical, as well as based on legal principles. If a law's unworkable, remedy under it is unachievable.
I'll tell you, if we could add our names to a suit with 100 million and more plaintiffs against tRump, I'd jump to it. A citizen-action suit.
Seems to me all citizens of all ages have been injured and would have standing. And a lot of non-citizens as well. At very least he should be required to reimburse the people the costs of fighting his attempted coup d'etat and putting our nation back in order.
Jarqui
(10,909 posts) Novara
(6,115 posts)But can you see any one of those frauds filing a lawsuit to keep him off the ballot? They said they'd support him even if/when convicted!
Spineless cowards.
Sometimes I just say to myself, "What the FUCK happened to this country?"
Jarqui
(10,909 posts)He seems to have accepted he can't win but he wants to stop Trump
Chris Christie explains why he won't commit to supporting Donald Trump in 2024
https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/politics/2023/08/24/chris-christie-explains-why-he-wont-commit-supporting-trump-2024/8371177001/
(not the clip I was looking for ...)
He's a lawyer, former US Attorney for 6 years.
LetMyPeopleVote
(179,870 posts)I read the law review article from the two members of the Federalist Society. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 This is an amazing law review article and is dense reading. The authors conclude that TFG is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
I downloaded the article in pdf and so some of the formatting will be strange.
The case for disqualification is strong. There is abundant evidence that Trump deliberately set out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election result, calling it “stolen” and “rigged”;421 that Trump (with the assistance of others) pursued numerous schemes to effectuate this objective; that among these were efforts to alter the vote counts of several states by force, by fraud, or by intended intimidation of state election officials,422 to pressure or persuade state legislatures and/or courts unlawfully to overturn state election results,423 to assemble and induce others to submit bogus slates of competing state electors,424 to persuade or pressure Congress to refuse to count electors’ votes submitted by several states,425 and finally, to pressure the Vice President unconstitutionally to overturn state election results in his role of presiding over the counting of electors’ votes.426....
The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.
The issue to me was how to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The authors make the point that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self executing but it still must be enforced. Among the mechanisms discussed is the concept of a secretary of state disqualifying TFG from the 2024 election.
Finally, what about the top of the ticket? What if the President or a presidential candidate (or likewise for Vice President) is constitutionally disqualified?104 Who has the power and duty to enforce Section Three’s legal prohibition? Again, the answer depends on whether the supposedly disqualified individual is seeking election to office or already holds it. In the case of a candidate, state election officials and state election law will frequently judge that candidate’s ballot eligibility, applying Section Three as described above, and subject to the usual avenues of judicial review. That eligibility question can be a part of a state’s Article II election for electors just as much as any other state election.105 Put simply: a state secretary of state (for example) might well possess state-law authority to determine candidate eligibility for federal elective offices—President and Vice President, U.S. Representatives, U.S. Senators—selected directly or indirectly via state elections; and among those relevant eligibility criteria is whether a candidate is disqualified from the office he or she seeks by Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bottom line, is that the only way that I see to enforce Secton 3 of the 14th Amendment is for one or more Secretaries of State to rule that TFG is not eligible to be on the ballot. There will be litigation and the case will be decided by the SCOTUS
California has started this process
Link to tweet
Polybius
(21,902 posts)I like it!
republianmushroom
(22,326 posts)republianmushroom
(22,326 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(179,870 posts)I read the law review article from the two members of the Federalist Society. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 This is an amazing law review article and is dense reading. The authors conclude that TFG is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
I downloaded the article in pdf and so some of the formatting will be strange.
The case for disqualification is strong. There is abundant evidence that Trump deliberately set out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election result, calling it “stolen” and “rigged”;421 that Trump (with the assistance of others) pursued numerous schemes to effectuate this objective; that among these were efforts to alter the vote counts of several states by force, by fraud, or by intended intimidation of state election officials,422 to pressure or persuade state legislatures and/or courts unlawfully to overturn state election results,423 to assemble and induce others to submit bogus slates of competing state electors,424 to persuade or pressure Congress to refuse to count electors’ votes submitted by several states,425 and finally, to pressure the Vice President unconstitutionally to overturn state election results in his role of presiding over the counting of electors’ votes.426....
The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.
The issue to me was how to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The authors make the point that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self executing but it still must be enforced. Among the mechanisms discussed is the concept of a secretary of state disqualifying TFG from the 2024 election.
Finally, what about the top of the ticket? What if the President or a presidential candidate (or likewise for Vice President) is constitutionally disqualified?104 Who has the power and duty to enforce Section Three’s legal prohibition? Again, the answer depends on whether the supposedly disqualified individual is seeking election to office or already holds it. In the case of a candidate, state election officials and state election law will frequently judge that candidate’s ballot eligibility, applying Section Three as described above, and subject to the usual avenues of judicial review. That eligibility question can be a part of a state’s Article II election for electors just as much as any other state election.105 Put simply: a state secretary of state (for example) might well possess state-law authority to determine candidate eligibility for federal elective offices—President and Vice President, U.S. Representatives, U.S. Senators—selected directly or indirectly via state elections; and among those relevant eligibility criteria is whether a candidate is disqualified from the office he or she seeks by Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bottom line, is that the only way that I see to enforce Secton 3 of the 14th Amendment is for one or more Secretaries of State to rule that TFG is not eligible to be on the ballot. There will be litigation and the case will be decided by the SCOTUS
California has started this process
Link to tweet
MichMan
(17,151 posts)No, Fox News didn't report Newsom wants to remove Trump's name from future ballots Fact check
The claim: Fox News reported California Gov. Newsom asked for bill to remove Trump’s name from future ballots
An Aug. 21 Facebook post (direct link, archive link) claims the leader of one of the country's most populous states is taking action in an attempt to prevent former President Donald Trump from being elected again.
Our rating: False
A spokesperson for Fox News said the network did not publish any such report, and Newsom’s office also said the claim is false. Newsom has said he had a strong relationship with Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been criticized by other Democrats for praising the former president. A search of Fox News’ website and social media platforms did not show any such articles, and the outlet told USA TODAY the claim is false.
“This is fake – there is no validity to this claim,” said spokesperson Irena Briganti.
https://news.yahoo.com/no-fox-news-didnt-report-205459011.html?src=rss
Martin68
(27,749 posts)Brings more attention to Dump's crimes against the USA.
TrumanTheTiger
(55 posts)...under the 14th Amendment.
Couy Griffin, leader of Cowboys For PO1335809, got removed from office last year because he was in DC in the Capitol on 1/6/2021. He was a Otero County commissioner, but is no more, and the judge in his case specifically said he was involved in an insurrection which disqualified him from elected office.
So, there's already recent legal precedent that states 1/6/2021 was an insurrection and those who participated are ineligible for political office.
And Griffin didn't appeal it.
onenote
(46,143 posts)I wouldn't put too much stock in that decision, which involved someone who was convicted of participating in the January 6 storming of the Capitol as a precedent for keeping Trump off the ballot in the absence of any conviction of Trump.
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)get the nomination, then keep him off the general election ballot? I would think that would create more chaos for the republican party. If we keep him off the primary ballots, they will just nominate another asshole possibly worse than Trump, and harder to beat.
tavernier
(14,443 posts)Practically a stones throw from Rump’s home base. When we lived in that area quite a few years back, there weren’t very many Trump fans. He always wanted his way, whenever anything came up having to do with Mar-a-Lago, including rerouting air traffic.
LaMouffette
(2,640 posts)banned from the election so that the Repubes can get rid of Trump, but blame it on the Democrats, and then install a candidate that has broader appeal among Republican voters, including so-called moderates?
Once Trump is "out," his cult members will have no choice but to vote for the GOP's preferred not-so-Trumpy candidate, who would be someone who could win the general election against Biden just by playing the ageism card?
I know it is horrifying to think of Trump winning in 2024. But I think he is the very best candidate for Joe to run against and win. As long as the Repubes don't succeed in stealing the election in 2024, of course.
onetexan
(13,913 posts)tonekat
(2,529 posts)such an overwhelming effect on our lives, the 14th certainly looks much more definitive and clear.