- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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
You must log in or register to comment.
Why are Americans so obsessed with disqualifying Trump? If you don’t like him then don’t vote him, simple
It’s not that simple, thanks to the Electoral College. If electing a president was based on popular vote, the last several Republican presidents wouldn’t have been elected.
But thanks to how the Electoral College works, getting elected is based more on strategically winning specific states. Texas, for example, has several deep blue cities with some of the largest populations in the country. Yet, all 50-something electoral votes go to Republicans, because Republicans win the popular vote in the state. The will of those millions of people is discarded and flipped due to the other areas voting differently.
Because we didn’t vote for him and he’s still made his way into office. If you want inaction you should teach that lesson to yourself and stop posting
Felons aren’t allowed to vote. Bootlicker.
The groups that are calling for Trump to be disqualified are acting like a lynch mob. Think about the end result and how it could be used by nefarious future leaders who want to snuff out their competitors.
The very premise of “blocking Trump from running” is saying let’s give a judge - perhaps only a single judge (!) - authority to tell voters who they can and cannot vote for.
I’ll be the first to say that Trump should be in jail if he’s convicted for his crimes. But I don’t want any court to take away my right to put any name I want on that bllot, for any reason.
removed by mod
You can put whatever you want on your ballot. However, states have rules about which names they will print on the ballots as suggested potential votes. Having the legal process keep an enemy of the state off of a bunch of states’ ballots is a precedent I am totally cool with. Though I get what you’re saying because of course republicans will try to get the Democrat nominee disqualified if they think it’s at all possible.
It will be interesting to see how many write-ins he gets if he’s not on the ballot in various states. Or hell, even if he’s not the nominee in the first place.
There are rules about who can and can’t run. It’s not an open ballot.
These are black and white rules, not easily subject to debate. If you qualify, you qualify.
And if you don’t, you don’t. That’s precisely the point.
14th amendment, section 3. That’s not black and white.
Yes that’s what most of the discussion revolves around, and the idea of who defines what an insurrection is and who’s guilty, because the amendments don’t define this. Some dictionary definitions seem to include minor behavior as mundane as running a protest or making a public statement of disagreement with the current government, which would likely vacuum up any person you’d ever want to vote for.
In the comment you replied to, I was thinking about these constitutional requirements:
-Be a natural-born citizen of the United States -Be at least 35 years old -Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
Which I think we can agree are either true or false for Amy given candidate and difficult to argue factually. That isn’t true, however, of the 14th amendment concept, which is, in my argument, better left to the voters to decide rather than a small number of judges and lawyers.
I don’t think it’s good to resort to the election to determine a complex legal ruling. It wouldn’t simply be ruling him eligible it not as the case would be in court. It would just make him president if enough people want him. There are many reasons that people pick who they vote for. I would prefer a ruling on the 14th amendment issue to be based only in that and made by people who understand constitutional law.
I understand your reservations about leaving that jn the hands of the judiciary, but for that type of thing I don’t think just letting the election decide is the appropriate course of action.
He led an insurrection. It’s in the constitution that you can’t run for office if you lead an insurrection.
Yes, he probably did, and that alone disqualies him from getting my vote and hopefully the majority too.
But consider that the founding fathers were insurrectionists. Consider that many figures in world history object to the ruling party’s ideas and are labeled insurrectionists because of it. It’s a tool of oppressors.
In fact, some might label any protestor who does a sit in or some other rebellious or obnoxious activity as insurrection. One of the dictionary definitions of insurrection is “The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.” The constitution of the US doesn’t offer a definition.
In many countries, politicians are suppressed by accusations of insurrection solely because they oppose whoever is in power at the time.
My argument is not that Trump is worthy of the job (he’s not), rather that I want this kind of decision in the hands of the voters, not a handful of lawyers and judges.
This is wonderful rhetoric and I’m glad you said it.
yea that should do it
Florida men doing their thingIs this the Florida Man redemption arc?
Seems more like a preemptive strike in an attempt to discredit the claim early in a friendly district.
Seems more like a preemptive strike in an attempt to discredit the claim early in a friendly district.
That actually makes sense. It’s plausible that it is strategic preemptive judge shopping. Success would create a protective precedent from the findings of a biased court. My reasoning is simple, if lots of the participants of the riot were charged with insurrection, then it logically follows that the person benefiting the most from the insurrection is likely guilty of it as well. The burden of proof should not be enormous to reach the top tier of that insurrection, because of public statements and suspicious neglect of duty to quietly support the effort. Things like wanting to remove magnetic weapon detectors to invite in armed insurrectionists should be a big clue.
Let’s say this works and Trump is bad from holding office.
Would Trump consider paying the baton to Don Jr or Eric Trump? Is he capable of giving them that boost?
Then the bigger question is would the Kool aid drinkers accept the different Messiah?
Don Jr, although lauded by the right, also doesn’t have what Trump has: an unerring ability to devote himself to the most simplistic and repetitive dogma in the face of all evidence and disagreement.
Part of Trumps success is to unwavering believe something, regardless of how misinformed, even when informed. Examples: “I use spray deodorant it didn’t affect the climate that day”, “I can change the weather report with a sharpie”, “windmills cause cancer”, “inject bleach to cure covid”, “health insurance only costs $20 a month.”
It’s part of DeSantis’ problem too that he couldn’t say something like “blueberry jam makes you a better lover in bed and strawberry jam makes democrats have more abortions” and mean it.
Hah. No. He’d never let someone else shine.
Legal experts say it’s an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history.
i find this very strange. it’s like they’re saying no one really knows what the amendment means because it hasn’t been used in a while. i’m not a lawyer, so my opinion doesn’t really mean much on this. i but i don’t see how it’s that vague (although it is a little vague). i also don’t see why the legal strength of an amendment should depend so much on how often it’s been used.
i’m not saying they’re wrong, i just don’t understand why it’s like that.
Part of it us the lack of caselawwhich is used fairly heavily for arguments in court
And then there are other amendments like the 2nd Amendment with the puzzling and vague “well-regulated militia” language that never seems to be a problem…
Don’t ignore the fact that it was fought in the courts for decades to get where we are now.
Now we have an amendment that hasn’t been tested in the courts because no president has been enough of a corrupt, fascist, scumbag to require its use. So, it’s going to have to go through the courts.
I only hope someone in every state brings a case.
I only hope someone in every state brings a case.
That’s my hope as well. All it takes is for Trump to be removed from the ballot in one or two swing states to have him lose the election.
(Just to be clear to the studio audience, I’m not in favor of “rigging” the system on a technicality so Republicans lose / Democrats win. This is a matter of keeping a criminal defendant insurrectionist and mis-handler of highly classified information out of perhaps the most powerful position in the world.)
For my part, I’m done trying to be civil with the opposition. They don’t want to play fair, they don’t want democracy to survive, and they want to see the people I care about die.
The Republican party exists today to burn the world down. They have to be destroyed or we’re all lost.
Because half the people actively ignore that bit- including many judges.
It’s not obvious what it means to “engage in insurrection” without case law defining what that means. What exactly does “insurrection” mean? What types of actions are required for this law to apply?
It’s much more of a gamble.
It doesn’t say convicted, it says “engaged in” and I believe it prevented former Confederates from taking office. So it seems like there’s a pretty big precedent backing it up.
7 people were convicted already of seditious conspiracy, so either of the conspiracy charges connecting the former president with directing their actions would be pretty strong evidence.
Maybe. That’s what the courts will need to decide. And without prior precedent supporting your argument it’s not as strong as perhaps you think.
agreed - I think it needs a conviction to occur before anyone can argue this.
Except the conviction won’t be for insurrection, but for some other related offense so he’ll get away with it on this technicality.
The thing is, it’s pretty clear to basically everyone else. We’re supposee to have confidence in the people who interpret these things for us, but that’s pretty clearly gone too. I’m pretty frightened about where we’re headed because at some point people will get fed up that no one is getting real consequences and start handing them out themselves.
Well, it’s clear to everyone who isn’t a Trumper, but you need to remember that the law doesn’t always follow “it’s clear to everyone.” Due to various reasons, that law can hinge on technicalities and tests. So while we might agree that Trump engaged in insurrection, proving that he engaged in insurrection in court would be more difficult. Not impossible, mind you, but more difficult. And depending on the judge and evidence, Trump could be found, via a technicality, to have not engaged in insurrection as far as the law goes.
I don’t disagree. I think the real problem us that we’re supposed to trust the impartiality of the people making those technical legal determinations. It’s become obvious that’s a total fiction.
This is just the way of the law and the justice system. You’ve got to prove it.
it’s pretty clear to basically everyone else
Is it? Are you sure?
The thing that isn’t clear to everyone all at once is which people are getting away with heinous things with zero consequences. What is clear is that a certain level of society has no consequences. Eventually one side or the other will get fed up and things will get really bad. Whether they’re going after the actual problems is another thing entirely, and the odds are probably better that they’ll be going after the wrong people.
Either way, I see the lack of consequences as the ultimate fuse in this powder keg. One of the main functions of government is to systematize and standardize consequences for unacceptable behavior, and we all agree to abide by rules we don’t necessarily agree to so that at least it’s somewhat consistently applied. In theory. But if government refuses to even give the appearance of doing that, people will take it into their own hands. Human nature has been the way it is way longer than our oldest institutions.
It’s explained in great detail in the federalist papers.
“Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped”
that’s a good point and it helps me understand the problem a bit better. as someone outside the legal system though, it still seems like any sufficiently robust definition of insurrection should cover what he did on january 6th. but i guess having precise definitions is important in a legal setting and that problem still remains.
From what I’ve heard, the 14th amendment was written in a vague manner because the people passing it didn’t know what form a future insurrection would take. Would it be a full fledged Civil War Part 2? Would it be an uprising? Would it be a state government refusing to follow federal law and threatening to arrest anyone trying to enforce it?
Say they defined insurrection as “citizens taking up arms against America,” then many of the January 6th folks would be guilty, but would Trump? After all, he didn’t technically go down there with a weapon.
The vagueness keeps it open to any form of insurrection, but it also makes it hard to tell what counts as insurrection.
It’s hard to see how this guy, or any other individual, has standing to sue over this. To sue someone you have to be able to prove that you personally were harmed in some way. And broad “this harms the electorate, and I’m part of the electorate” claims usually do not work.
If that is the case, that is absolutely broken.
Except when it comes time to strike down debt relief.
Yeah 😑
Wouldn’t he need to be convicted first before this suit has a chance of winning?
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…
The 14th Amendment is consider to be “self-executing” and public election officials can disqualify candidates when presented with a plausible argument.
So now we’ll have a supreme court ruling that what Trump did was not an insurrection. Great.
If it gets to the SCOTUS, and that’s a very big if, they can easily make a ruling favorable to Trump without ever touching the question of whether or not he engaged in insurrection. I’m not any kind of expert, but as a long time amateur SCOTUS-watcher I think that’s almost certainly what the conservative majority would do. You’d only see the question of insurrection mentioned in the dissenting opinion.
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.
The question is how to enforce the 14th amendment. This suit looks like a decent attempt at it, that doesn’t require Congress to act. (Congress has way too many Republicans right now, who will not enforce the 14th amendment against one of their own.)
The problem is that he did everything he could to use language to make it arguable that he was saying things that incite
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!
A Florida Man with a functioning brain.
I don’t get it, why try to keep him from running? Especially if you’re a Democrat, letting Trump run would split the Republican vote and almost guarantee a Democratic victory.
Keeping him from running accomplishes about the same thing. The cultists will refuse to accept any other Republican nominee, and will refuse to vote, calling it “rigged.”
deleted by creator
Traitors to your country shouldn’t get the opportunity to run
Dude is a lawyer from Florida, so he’s likely conservative and doesn’t want Trump to lose the election for the Republicans.
Because I don’t think of politics as winning. My politics wins when the state feels comfortable applying rules to the elite.
A lot of people that a similar thing in 2016.
How would it split the vote? It’s a two party system.
There are still 3rd parties in the US, a prime example in US politics that would equate to this would be the Election of 1912, where President Wilson won against the incumbent Republican, President Taft. The only reason Wilson won was because Roosevelt ran as a Republican adjacent candidate under the “Bull Moose” party, which effectively split the Republican vote and prevented Taft from getting all of the Republican vote.
If Trump runs again, it is likely he will be running as an independent candidate, which will split the Republican vote and allow the Democrats a sure win.
Why would he run as an independent when he’s the front runner for the GOP
The powers that be (the old republicans) do not like him, they wouldn’t allow him to be the GOP candidate even if he succeeded.
They failed to stop him in 2016 and 2020, so I see no reason to think they’ll succeed in stopping him this time.
Out of curiosity, where are you getting this idea? Are there any reputable experts you can point to? I sure haven’t seen anyone arguing anything like this apart from you.
Not trying to be a dick, just asking.
This might be a good place to start.
In many other countries, insurrection gets you a nice brick wall and a blindfold. In America, you get to run for President (again).
For real. I’m really jealous that the courts in Brazil have already banned Bolsanaro from running for office for the next 10 years and Pakistan’s parliament ousted Khan for being ungenerous to the Ukraine conflict and then later the police arrested him for bribery. Those are supposedly developing countries but they are doing a better job of controlling their tyrannical despots than we are. Fortunately, like I keep saying, Trump has too much work cut out for him to effectively campaign with so many charges. He’s been in the lead, but I don’t know if he can stay that way.
Those are supposedly developing countries but they are doing a better job of controlling their tyrannical despots than we are.
That’s… Really interesting tbh.
You’re equating being a developed nation with the best thing ever, and expecting that if you’re the most developed nation you are also the best at treating social issues, and are therefore a bit confused when you see how other less developed countries can treat these issues better.
But when we get right down to it, development has no real reason to also mean “just” or “lawful”, right? I mean - “developed” means having a good economy, right? And when googling about it, the Human Development Index(HDI) comes up as well. But if we break it down, having money doesn’t mean you’re a better person. We can all think of countries with money but with a bad track record in human rights, like Saudi Arabia. And regarding the HDI, the US is 20th in that, right between South Korea (who are constantly faced with a nuclear threat along the border) and Israel (who are currently involved in stealing another countries’ land and constantly persecuting that country’s people). So what does developed mean in this context? Because it sure doesn’t mean these countries should be able to sleep at night because they have no problems.
But skipping all that, what’s weird to me is that this mentality of “we’ve got a lot of money therefore we have a great country and society and we only make good decisions” is so ingrained in you, that it actually surprises you when your country is surpassed by other countries in some aspects.
And it’s nothing to do with you, sorry if I made it seem like I’m attacking you or something, because I’m really not. For lack of a better way to describe this, to someone from the outside it looks like you’re a victim of a cult who is slowly starting to recognize that not everything the cult leader has been saying is actually true. I guess what I’m saying is - the American/capitalist propaganda machine does such a good job of pushing the “best country in the world” narrative, that it’s really interesting to see the ramifications it has on people’s way of thinking about the US.
Except the trial for the insurrection is just barely starting, not to mention all the other indictments. Yes, he wasn’t immediately locked up and should have been. Yes, he’s being treated differently because he’s rich, but it’s not like nothing is happening.
or a one-way trip from a window on the 10th storey of a building all the way down to the ground.
Not all countries are barbaric. Some just offer a long term stay in federal hospitality.
deleted by creator
Only if you can’t buy your way out.
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.
If it’s true then it should be fine for non fascists.
defacing their ballot, spoiling their vote.
That probably will not be counted in favour of any candidate.
Yes, it is referred to as vote spoiling.
It is equal to not going to election station in first place.*
*unless there is quorum requirement
Well, let them. It just invalidates their vote. I am more afraid of MAGA brains trying to vote with their guns instead.
