Well knock me down with feather
The dentist lady Orly Taitz, DDS
On permanent lack of standing
Posted on 09/01/2023 9:26:45 PM PDT by bitt
A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Florida lawyer who claimed Trump should be banned from the 2024 ballot for inciting an insurrection.
The legal theory is based on Section 3 of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment which states public officials who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the US may be disqualified from public office.
Trump has not been charged with engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
Judge Robin Rosenberg a US District Judge for the Southern District of Florida ruled the attorney, Lawrence Caplan, lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.
“Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Defendant’s qualifications for seeking the Presidency,” Rosenberg, an Obama appointee 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.”
The judge also said that “an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual is qualified to hold public office.”
The Palm Beach Post reported:
A federal court judge in Fort Lauderdale on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy under the 14th Amendment.
The lawsuit, filed a week ago, questioned Trump’s ability to appear on the Florida presidential primary ballot next year, owing to his alleged role in the Jan. 6 violence at the U.S. Capitol.
In her swift dismissal of the case, Judge Robin Rosenberg, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, did not determine the 14th Amendment’s applicability in Trump’s case. Instead, Rosenberg ruled that the plaintiffs, Boynton Beach attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others, lacked “standing” to bring the challenge.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
ah..., “lacked “standing” to bring the challenge” trick...
This ruling should establish precedent.
Good. KEEP PRAYING!
These cases seem premade for dismissal.
To soften the determination of one’s enemy, give him hope.
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 the Constitution of the United States, 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.
Trump Isn’t Disqualified From Holding Office Under the 14th Amendment
"Second, as I have previously written in a Heritage Foundation report, it is highly doubtful that the disqualification clause is still valid. The second sentence in that section, which Trump critics conveniently ignore, provides: “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” (The Daily Signal is The Heritage Foundation’s news outlet.)"
"In other words, Congress was given the power in the amendment itself to remove the disability imposed by the 14th Amendment, a unique power that doesn’t exist in any other amendments. Importantly, Congress did exactly that in 1872 and 1898."
"Congress passed an amnesty act in 1872 with the required two-thirds vote removing all “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses, as well as “heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States” and “officers in the judicial, military and naval services.” "
"In 1898, even these exceptions were removed by Congress in a second amnesty act stating that the “disability imposed by section 3 … heretofore incurred is hereby removed.” There was no language preserving any of the disqualifications for any future cases."
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:
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 the Constitution of the United States, 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 right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals.1 In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons "except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States."2 Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that "the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed."3
1: E.g., and notably, the Private Act of December 14, 1869, ch.1, 16 Stat. 607.
2: Ch. 193, 17 Stat. 142.
3: Act of June 6, 1898, ch. 389, 30 Stat. 432. Legislation by Congress providing for removal was necessary to give effect to the prohibition of Section 3, and until removed in pursuance of such legislation persons in office before promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment continued to exercise their functions lawfully. Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7 (C.C.D.Va. 1869) (No. 5815). Nor were persons who had taken part in the Civil War and had been pardoned by the President before the adoption of this Amendment precluded by this Section from again holding office under the United States. 18 Op. Att’y Gen. 149 (1885). On the construction of "engaged in rebellion," see United States v. Powell, 27 F. Cas. 605 (No. 16079) (C.C.D.N.C. 1871).
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S3-1-1/ALDE_00000848/
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
It seems obvious that President Trump took no oath as a member of Congress, or of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State. That only leaves "as an officer of the United States." The President is NOT an officer of the United States.
Article II:
... he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law....
An officer of the United States is an appointed position. The President is elected.
So even disregarding the fact that PDJT never has been indicted for “hav[ing] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” let alone being convicted of the same, this paragraph is moot since it does not apply to the president, and furthermore it can be argued that the Congress of 1898 removed the last parts of this clause.
Without arguing the law, the judge got to the heart of the matter. If Caplin has standing, everyone has standing.
Imagine 81 million individual lawsuits against mean tweets or 75 million against bribery.
EC
I think rigging a Presidential election qualifies.
Well knock me down with feather
The dentist lady Orly Taitz, DDS
On permanent lack of standing
It was written and passed because of the Civil War. It addressed that issue only
They’ll just shop around and find a “judge” who will grant them standing.
It looks like the dems are running out of options, will they resort to the ultimate option? I have no doubt that they consider it viable and haven’t ruled it out.
There must be consequences for trying this trick to subvert the election process.
Well it hasn’t been ruled an insurrection at any trial. They just call it that and it sticks. Ergo Portland and Seattle were “mostly peaceful protests”. The left and everyone associated with it can kiss my lily white backside.
Caplan is not standing, he is a limpster dead dick lefty dem hater.
Nice torpedo by Judge Rosenberg.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.