How cognitively deficient is the argument that Donald Trump cannot run for president because of the 14th Amendment?
In fact, a judge appointed by Barack Obama quickly dismissed a lawsuit from a group arguing that the former president shouldn’t be allowed to appear on the Florida primary ballot because of the events of January 6, 2021.
The Palm Beach Post reports that Judge Robin Rosenberg did not rule on whether the 14th Amendment could apply to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.
“Instead, Rosenberg ruled that the plaintiffs, Boynton Beach attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others, lacked ‘standing’ to bring the challenge,” the outlet reported.
“Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Defendant’s qualifications for seeking the Presidency,” the ruling read.
Instead, she stated that “the injuries alleged” as a result of the events of January 6, 2021 “are not cognizable and not particular to them” and that “an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual is qualified to hold public office.”
In his decision, the judge also cited prior cases in which plaintiffs were unable to remove candidates from the ballot due to their association with January 6.
Lawrence Caplan, a Palm Beach-based attorney who submitted the complaint along with two other individuals, did not comment after the ruling, despite having previously stated that standing could be the greatest obstacle his lawsuit would face. However, he had previously argued that the Constitution prevented Trump from standing again.
“The 14th Amendment is very clear that you do not need a conviction. You need to be accused and obviously there has to be a rationale for the accusation,” Caplan said. “I read the amendment and I read the facts of the indictment, and they match very closely.”
The idea that the 14th Amendment provides a legal remedy to prevent certain candidates from challenging the results of the 2020 election from appearing on the ballot is not novel. This case has also not advanced very far in court.
The amendment, which was ratified in the aftermath of the American Civil War, states: “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
More on this story via The Western Journal:
The intent was, quite obviously, to bar previously elected officials who supported the Confederacy from running for high office unless Congress, by a two-thirds vote, reinstated their ability to do so. CONTINUE READING…