Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendmend?

[ahhell]

Trump pretty much proves the 66 votes is too much. I don't think he should have been impeached or convicted the first time but the second time, pretty clear reasons to impeach. That they couldn't do it pretty much proves the bar is too high.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Trump pretty much proves the 66 votes is too much. I don't think he should have been impeached or convicted the first time but the second time, pretty clear reasons to impeach. That they couldn't do it pretty much proves the bar is too high.

Or our assumptions about a given Senator's integrity is too high.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Or our assumptions about a given Senator's integrity is too high.

If our assumptions about that is too high, then the bar is too high.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

And there is also gerrymandering, which effectively negates the votes of vast categories of people yet is somehow still strangely permitted.

The Framers wrestled with the power of the vote in no small way. They did not believe that the will of the voters should be paramount. They did not trust the average voter, even in 1789. They unironically feared that mob-elected demagogues would ruin the country irrevocably. The reason you have to be 30 years old to be a Senator but only 25 to be a Representative was in the hope that the Senate would be a wiser, more deliberative body by design. Some of the straightforwardly determined criteria for President have similar stories. In the end, the Framers clearly intended some elements of their architecture to be outside the meddling of the plebiscite—for their own good, apparently.

As mentioned, the Electoral College (as originally formulated) was just such a feature. Afraid that a demagogue President would wield far too much power to the detriment of both the institutions of the nation and the people they serve, the Framers mandated an indirection that would hopefully allow more sober electors—in their patrician judgment—to fend off a populist takeover and a rascal President. Whether that was wise is a matter of heated ongoing debate, and the insulative operation of the College has been largely eliminated by subsequent statute. But this is the mind of those who designed our government and conceived of what might be an appropriate patrician limit to a plebeian mob. While all power in the Constitute derives from We the People, it doesn't flow directly from there into some notion of a supremacy of the plebiscite.

But the insurrection etc. clauses of the 14th Amendment really are a problematic animal, aren't they?

To be a Senator, you need to be 30 years old, 9 years a U.S. citizen, and an "inhabitant" of the state that elects you. These days it is trivial to prove one's age and citizenship to a legally cognizable extent. The inhabitancy requirement is also fairly trivial: if, on Election Day, you can point to a domicile within the state boundaries that you are legally permitted to occupy, you're an inhabitant. (Orrin Hatch, the distinguished Senator "from" Utah, infamously lived most of his time in his actual home state of Pennsylvania and maintained only the briefest tenancy at the house he owned in our state.) Still, these are easy questions to answer for some person as they are matters of objectively determinable fact.

Determining whether someone has engaged in "insurrection" or any of the other prohibited acts is not a matter simply of documenting a relatively straightforward fact. Yes, even age and citizenship are technically subject to challenge, but at best those would be questions about the validity of the evidence presented. There's no question about what facts that evidence would need to establish. "Insurrection" is not so clear a target.

Thanks to the discussion in this thread, it's clear how such a determination of "insurrection" might proceed and how it might defensibly balance the will of the people with the intent of the law. And that intent is not trivial—at least it wasn't in 1866. The Constitution singles out only a few activities for special mention and treatment: treason, bribery, insurrection, etc. The rest are left to Congress and the courts, their statutes and judgments. The Constitution as a whole is not adverse to such individual mentions, nor to the broader issue of placing certain possibilities beyond the voters' reach, no matter how adamantly they may desire them. In the wake of a civil war, a loyalty requirement made sense. On the possible cusp of another, it might still.

But you can't deny that the "squishy" qualification that a candidate remain unsullied by participating in an insurrection stands apart from the solid and straightforward qualifications, not only by the mode and effort of its enforcement but also its encroachment upon the general desire for representation unfettered by restrictions the voters cannot remove.

I wouldn't say that the framers were so much afraid of demogogues, given how easy it was for demogogery to rise in US politics and how rapidly it happened, but that they were afraid the wrong kind of one would rise, i.e. one that told the poor of the country that they were as good as the rich and whose interests would be served by tearing down the aristocracy.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Trump pretty much proves the 66 votes is too much. I don't think he should have been impeached or convicted the first time but the second time, pretty clear reasons to impeach. That they couldn't do it pretty much proves the bar is too high.

The first time was an impeachable offence, it was such an offence that it should have seen T**** swinging gently in the breeze. Remember he was blackmailing Ukraine to falsely arrest and imprison Hunter Biden and to falsely investigate Joe Biden for crimes neither of them committed, using aid money Congrssionalky allocated to Ukraine; all as part of a scheme to steal the 2020 election.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

The first time was an impeachable offence, it was such an offence that it should have seen T**** swinging gently in the breeze. Remember he was blackmailing Ukraine to falsely arrest and imprison Hunter Biden and to falsely investigate Joe Biden for crimes neither of them committed, using aid money Congrssionalky allocated to Ukraine; all as part of a scheme to steal the 2020 election.

That isn't what he was doing. He was pressuring Ukraine to investigate Barisma. Barisma was probably corrupt and its pretty clear the only reason Biden had that job was because Joe had been the VP and was given a remit to deal with Ukraine. Sure, we don't know or currently have clear evidence that it did Barisma any good but it was clearly why Hunter was given that job.

Would your country think the PMs son being given a lucrative position on the board of some Foriegn corporation looking to invest in its infrastructure was nothing to be concerned about?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Given that the wealthy aristocracy chooses children of its class whenever possible, why would anyone even be slightly surprised?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

I wouldn't say that the framers were so much afraid of demogogues, given how easy it was for demogogery to rise in US politics and how rapidly it happened, but that they were afraid the wrong kind of one would rise, i.e. one that told the poor of the country that they were as good as the rich and whose interests would be served by tearing down the aristocracy.

So, yes, skipping ahead to 1824...

[ahhell]

I didn't say it was surprising.

A couple of additions. The call was of course impeachable as literally anything is, it just wasn't really something that justified an impeachment.

There is also the practical argument against it. They shouldn't have because they weren't going to get a conviction. It just made it less likely they'd get a conviction on the second impeachment and served to rally trumps base.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Given that the wealthy aristocracy chooses children of its class whenever possible, why would anyone even be slightly surprised?

What really surprises me is that partisans are so unwilling to acknowledge how gross it is and its at least suspicious. If its Biden V Trump, I'll vote for Biden. But I can acknowledge that he's a senile old liar who has probably who's family is clearly corrupt and probably traded on his position as VP to create a slush fund for his retirement. At least he's not a threat to democracy though. The partisan blindness to our own sides ********** is a some what lesser threat than trump at the moment. In the long term, it is what will cause the end of the republic though.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Gross? Maybe. Suspicious? How could it be? That's what the aristocracy *do* with their children, pick children of their class for cushy jobs they're at least nominally qualified for (owing to their parents' wealth and connections). Is everyone else on that board suspect? Should every board who hired H Biden be suspect? That's more starting from an endpoint (Biden is VP) and working back to find connections from there, of *course* they're going to look suspicious! Tons of wealthy children get cushy positions on boards all around the world, but you're not looking at them, you're looking at anyone connected to Biden.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Gross? Maybe. Suspicious? How could it be? That's what the aristocracy *do* with their children, pick children of their class for cushy jobs they're at least nominally qualified for (owing to their parents' wealth and connections). Is everyone else on that board suspect? Should every board who hired H Biden be suspect? That's more starting from an endpoint (Biden is VP) and working back to find connections from there, of *course* they're going to look suspicious! Tons of wealthy children get cushy positions on boards all around the world, but you're not looking at them, you're looking at anyone connected to Biden.

A. Yes, anyone hiring H. Biden is suspect, he was a crack addict at the time.
B. Not every aristocrat in the world is the Vice President of my country.
C. Not every company is in a country that that VP add some nominal authority in dealing with.
D. In theory my country is a republic that doesn't have an aristocracy, they should hide the ball better at least.
E. Everybody else is bad therefor its ok for H. Biden?
F. Were you so blase about the Trump kids profiting off their connection to the white house?
G. Its a former soviet republic, so yes, probably everyone on that board is suspect, on the other hand, as far as I know, none of them are close relatives of American politicians.

I have to assume you're just playing the devils advocate because that post is absurd. The equivalent of saying, "Lots of people all over the world beat their wives, why do care so much about your brother-in-law?"

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by Hans

VP - so trump should select the most horrific worm he can find - so that people won't convict him (in his mind) - who would be the worst possible VP choice other than Eric?

Lauren Boebert would be perfect. She's both a sleazebag and an incompetent.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by ahhell

A. Yes, anyone hiring H. Biden is suspect, he was a crack addict at the time.
B. Not every aristocrat in the world is the Vice President of my country.
C. Not every company is in a country that that VP had some nominal authority in dealing with.
D. In theory my country is a republic that doesn't have an aristocracy, they should hide the ball better at least.
E. Everybody else is bad therefor its ok for H. Biden?
F. Were you so blase about the Trump kids profiting off their connection to the white house?
G. Its a former soviet republic, so yes, probably everyone on that board is suspect, on the other hand, as far as I know, none of them are close relatives of American politicians.

I have to assume you're just playing the devils advocate because that post is absurd. The equivalent of saying, "Lots of people all over the world beat their wives, why do care so much about your brother-in-law?"

A. Strange assumption you're making there, that drug use isn't widespread among the wealthy.

B. Starting with the person again and reaching out from there, that's having your conclusion first and finding connections to support it.

C. A VP has the same amount of 'nominal authority' for every single country.

D. So? Wealthy are aristocracy in all but name, with inherited wealth and their careful maintenance of social connections to ensure their children stay in their class. I'm not sure why it needs hiding.

E. H Biden is only in your sights because of his father. Look at any other kid in his class and you'll find the same patterns, right down to the drugs. They'll have differing degrees of use, but there's a reason Pryor said "Cocaine is God's way of saying you have too much money." They've got the resources to get frequent temptations.

F. Trump's kids didn't just 'profit off their connection", he blatantly hired them and forced through security clearances and put them in diplomatic situations they should never have been in. Biden's son being on a board somewhere doesn't even begin to compare.

G. Again, Biden's son is the only one you know of on the board, so the connections you're looking for are only going to be counted against him. I don't know how much clearer I can say it, H Biden is nothing special compared to his peers, in terms of behavior, educational background, social connections, and resume. That's how the rich stay rich. Whether it's right or not doesn't matter, but singling out one rich kid is like saying lots of people beat their wives, but my brother-in-law has to be punished especially harder because I know him.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

A. Strange assumption you're making there, that drug use isn't widespread among the wealthy.

B. Starting with the person again and reaching out from there, that's having your conclusion first and finding connections to support it.

C. A VP has the same amount of 'nominal authority' for every single country.

D. So? Wealthy are aristocracy in all but name, with inherited wealth and their careful maintenance of social connections to ensure their children stay in their class. I'm not sure why it needs hiding.

E. H Biden is only in your sights because of his father. Look at any other kid in his class and you'll find the same patterns, right down to the drugs. They'll have differing degrees of use, but there's a reason Pryor said "Cocaine is God's way of saying you have too much money." They've got the resources to get frequent temptations.

F. Trump's kids didn't just 'profit off their connection", he blatantly hired them and forced through security clearances and put them in diplomatic situations they should never have been in. Biden's son being on a board somewhere doesn't even begin to compare.

G. Again, Biden's son is the only one you know of on the board, so the connections you're looking for are only going to be counted against him. I don't know how much clearer I can say it, H Biden is nothing special compared to his peers, in terms of behavior, educational background, social connections, and resume. That's how the rich stay rich. Whether it's right or not doesn't matter, but singling out one rich kid is like saying lots of people beat their wives, but my brother-in-law has to be punished especially harder because I know him.

Totally true, if his father were just some rich guy, I probably wouldn't care nearly as much, his father is the president, former VP, and Former Senator. Again, you're argument is basically why do you only care about the rapist that happens to be raping your wife. I totally care about other wealthy people getting unfair advantage, I just care more when its the sone of a politician who may be unduly influenced by the fact that his kid is payed millions for no apparent reason other than being the son of an influential politician in my country.

Your argument really seems to be, why do care about this one guy who has a bunch of unique qualities that any reasonable person would care about.

Please find me another child of a VP who was paid millions of dollars by a foreign company while his father was VP with nominal authority of that VP. Is that person running for president?

Once again, I surprised not by corruption but the willingness of the average person to accept it as just ok and look for just about any reason to do so because its their side. Partisan operative, sure, its more or less their job but the average voter?

Again, Biden V Trump, I'm voting Biden, I'm not going to pretend hes a good guy and there's nothing wrong with his shady family that likely implicates him. I just prefer most anyone else.


ETA, I'm genuinely confused by your argument. Really, sounds like, sure Biden is bad but its normal bad so why are you complaining.

[Silly Green Monkey]

It's more sharpshooter's fallacy. There's not been many VPs, to have children to indulge in the common rich-people pastimes of drugs and getting paid for doing practically nothing. You're still starting at Biden (starting at your wife) and looking suspiciously at his connections individually rather than in the context of how rich people currently operate. You may in principle care about all rapists rather than the one currently attacking your wife, but the mere fact that he's attacking your wife rather than a woman you don't know doesn't make him more of a monster because it's someone you know.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Even that's a bad example, because the entire H Biden thing is trying to find wrongdoing based on Biden having been VP. It's not tracing crimes, it's fine-tooth combing through their lives trying to find something to pin on him, assuming every wisp of cloud is smoke that must mean fire. Find a crime first, then go tracing connections.

[ahhell]

Still sounds like special pleading to ignore H. Biden's oddly lucrative job but whatever. You suggested other kids in his class would have similar behavior patterns then say he doesn't really have any kids in his class.

This isn't fine tooth combing or grasping at straws, literally made millions in a job he was clearly not qualified for in a company in a country his Dad was given remit to deal with. IMHO, you're grasping at straws to find reason to say it doesn't matter. He couldn't have been doing anything wrong if he didn't have power. So, yes, the only reason this is of concern his because he had power.

[The Great Zaganza]

Wrong standard.

either all forms of nepotism need to be banned or constantly audited, or they need to be ignored to the same degree.

If you go into politics, it should not be the rule that your family has to live the lives of hermits to avoid any suggestion of undue influence.

the only question that matters is: what the Politician do, not their kids.

We did not vote for Hunter, a Hunter never had any government function.

Unlike Ivanka or Jared, both of whom unquestionably benefitted from their position corruptly and were shieled from investgations.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

So, yes, skipping ahead to 1824...

Jackson turned out to be far less of a foe to the oligarchy than he was made out to be. So much so that when he won the presidency he was almost like their kept man.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Wrong standard.

either all forms of nepotism need to be banned or constantly audited, or they need to be ignored to the same degree.

That's more or less where I stand.

Hunter's obviously engaging in the kind of common corruption that is available to the fail-sons of prominent politicians, but I can't really get excited about this trumped up "investigation" because we all know it doesn't signal any kind of systematic change that will challenge this routine practice.

Now if Hunter were simply the first of many fail-sons getting FARA acted for cashing in on their family name or whatever, I'd be all about it. But it's not, and everyone knows it. Selective enforcement is not really an improvement over no enforcement, it may even be more corrupt.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Wrong standard.

either all forms of nepotism need to be banned or constantly audited, or they need to be ignored to the same degree.

If you go into politics, it should not be the rule that your family has to live the lives of hermits to avoid any suggestion of undue influence.

the only question that matters is: what the Politician do, not their kids.

We did not vote for Hunter, a Hunter never had any government function.

Unlike Ivanka or Jared, both of whom unquestionably benefitted from their position corruptly and were shieled from investgations.

If you go into politics you should be held to a higher standard. Seems obvious to me. We don't do it in the US mind you. We hold federal elected officials to a lower standard. Lots of insider trading that would be illegal for anyone else for instance. I hate that too. I'm not going to pretend there's nothiing sus about the Joe Biden though. To be fair, there wasn't much prior to his VPency. Seems to have assumed that was the end of his career and decided to create a retirement fund. His son was literally on the phone with foriegn business parteners saying my dad won't like this, here he his. Doesn't prove anything but its highly suggestive. I'm not going to pretend it isn't.

Reminds me of H. Clinton, clearly broke the law, Comey said so but I still hear Dems saying he said the opposite. Now, its a legit thing to say she broke the law in a way that nobody is ever prosecuted for or in a way that shouldn't be illegal but she totally broke the law regarding handling of classified material. Thats the reality, I still voted for her. I can accept that. I can't accept regular folks not accepting that their chosen candidates are flawed and mostly bad. My old man tells a story. His uncle Tommy was a local politican in NY. One day my Grandmother says, "you can't trust politicians!" Dad asks, "what about uncle Tommy?" Grandma*Kitty, Kate, or Catherine, nobody actually knows her real name.) says, "You can trust him when he's your uncle, not when he's a politician."

[Mike!]

Well somebody's decided to put it to the test...

Originally Posted by Palm Beach Post

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.

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/...p/70672653007/

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Mike!

Well somebody's decided to put it to the test...

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/...p/70672653007/

Good!!! Let the courts rule on this sooner.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Mike!

Well somebody's decided to put it to the test...

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/...p/70672653007/

I wonder if he has standing to sue.

[ahhell]

Its not good, it will probably fail which wil cause more harm than good.

[JayUtah]

The complaint reads like a cross between a rant and a ninth-grade term paper. I predict it will go effectively nowhere.

Every valid complaint before the court must cite to authority for standing and jurisdiction. Plaintiff Caplan's theory of standing is that he is a voter. No authority was cited for a theory of jurisdiction. I expect Trump to move for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient pleading, and I expect the motion would have a fair chance of being granted.

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

The complaint reads like a cross between a rant and a ninth-grade term paper. I predict it will go effectively nowhere.

Every valid complaint before the court must cite to authority for standing and jurisdiction. Plaintiff Caplan's theory of standing is that he is a voter. No authority was cited for a theory of jurisdiction. I expect Trump to move for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient pleading, and I expect the motion would have a fair chance of being granted.

What if were taken up as a class action?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Mike!

What if were taken up as a class action?

That makes it worse. A class composed of "voters" would never be certified since it's too broad and there is is hardly anything to distinguish it from "everyone else."

The problem is that Article III requires a plaintiff in federal court to articulate a particular claim for actual or imminent injury, not just hypothetical injury, discomfort, or dislike. It also requires him to show how a court's decision could cure that injury. I'm struggling to see how the mere existence of a questionably qualified candidate for President results in actual injury to Mr. Caplan.

[ahhell]

The standing thing is problematic. Basically says that if no one is directly harmed then the government can totally get away with clearly unconstitutional and illegal actions. I don't like it as a requirement, on the other hand without, a large enough and motivated enough group of people could effectively keep the government from doing anything with frivolous lawsuits.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by ZiprHead

You sound like Mitch McConnel. No on the 2nd impeachment. The legal system should take care of it. Now that the legal system is acting MM says it should be up to the voter.

McConnell isn't a turtle. Turtles have spines. He's a snake.

Snakes have spines as well. He's more of a worm.
(Probably ninja'd)

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by ahhell

The standing thing is problematic. Basically says that if no one is directly harmed then the government can totally get away with clearly unconstitutional and illegal actions.

That's certainly not what I understand the Article III standing concept to be. I don't agree that our present protection of individual rights is adequate and fair. But Article III has little or nothing to do with the government getting away with skirting protected rights or unlawful activity. It governs mostly civil suits between private parties in federal court.

The bedrock principle seems to be that the judiciary is not intended as a means to redress all human suffering and misery. A declaratory action generally requires a party with standing in a likely or pending action in which there is a genuine case or controversy that is affected by the declaration.

As previously stated, a candidate denied access to the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds can state a particularized injury and would have standing to contest it in that direction. But first an official would need to propose ineligibility. Either that official or the aggrieved candidate would have Article III standing and could petition for a separate declaratory judgment on 14th Amendment eligibility that would be binding on future relevant cases between those parties. Joe Random Voter has a much less claim to standing.

Quote:

I don't like it as a requirement, on the other hand without, a large enough and motivated enough group of people could effectively keep the government from doing anything with frivolous lawsuits.

Article III standing doesn't just protect the government from suits against it (from which it is surprisingly immune anyway). It protects you from frivolous suit. No one can vex you by suing you just because you do or say things they don't like. They have to show that you have injured them in a way the court can fix.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

That's certainly not what I understand the Article III standing concept to be. I don't agree that our present protection of individual rights is adequate and fair. But Article III has little or nothing to do with the government getting away with skirting protected rights or unlawful activity. It governs mostly civil suits between private parties in federal court.

The bedrock principle seems to be that the judiciary is not intended as a means to redress all human suffering and misery. A declaratory action generally requires a party with standing in a likely or pending action in which there is a genuine case or controversy that is affected by the declaration.

As previously stated, a candidate denied access to the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds can state a particularized injury and would have standing to contest it in that direction. But first an official would need to propose ineligibility. Either that official or the aggrieved candidate would have Article III standing and could petition for a separate declaratory judgment on 14th Amendment eligibility that would be binding on future relevant cases between those parties. Joe Random Voter has a much less claim to standing.



Article III standing doesn't just protect the government from suits against it (from which it is surprisingly immune anyway). It protects you from frivolous suit. No one can vex you by suing you just because you do or say things they don't like. They have to show that you have injured them in a way the court can fix.

I'm ambivalent about it honestly. I see the use but I also see the harm. I'm less concerned about it regarding regular folk though, the average citizen can't cause that much harm by violating the law. The government on the other hand. Hyopothetical but current case law really does seem to imply that a feds can do something clearly illegal but if nobody is directly harmed, nothing can be done. Then you have history of the last 3 or 4 presidents clearly saying I can't do this legally but congress won't so hey, who's gonna stop me? Which bush signed a law while saying it was unconstitional but that's up to the courts? Totally should have been impeached for that by the way. Literally saying, "I'm not going to obey the oath I swore when getting this job."

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

The complaint reads like a cross between a rant and a ninth-grade term paper. I predict it will go effectively nowhere.

Every valid complaint before the court must cite to authority for standing and jurisdiction. Plaintiff Caplan's theory of standing is that he is a voter. No authority was cited for a theory of jurisdiction. I expect Trump to move for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient pleading, and I expect the motion would have a fair chance of being granted.

I think I see a problem in your reasoning. To move for dismissal it would take either a person capable of understanding basic legal positions or a person capable of heeding those who do.

Granted the judge would likely toss the case independent of motions to dismiss because the lack of standing is so obvious.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by jt512

I wonder if he has standing to sue.

It seems to me that this should be done in state courts as the Secretaries of State/Commonwealth put the candidates on the state ballots. Or, a Secretary of State could decline to put an candidate on the ballot based on the Disqualification Clause and the candidate would be forced to sue. Another option is sue after Trump is the nominee to seek an injunction against Trump being added to the ballot.

I suspect the federal court will rule they don't have jurisdiction at this time over the matter. Being as no one is on any state ballot or applying to be on a state ballot for a general election, there's nothing to decide on. I doubt any court would rule that someone is disqualified from doing anything they haven't yet tried to do.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by ahhell

I'm ambivalent about it honestly. I see the use but I also see the harm.

I'm not sure we're yet on the same page regarding what standing is under Article III. But I agree that the application of standing has been problematic. Historically the courts have manipulated standing suspiciously in order to selectively grant relief. The plaintiffs in Biden v. Nebraska had an extremely flimsy argument for standing that lower courts rejected. The U.S. Supreme Court—desperate to undercut the President's campaign promise—granted standing almost as a routine matter. I know a few lawyers and law professors that are still drinking about this.

Famously, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a statutory cause of action for people to sue government actors when their rights under the law or the Constitution are violated. The Supreme Court has steadily eroded who can be considered injured by government action in a way that invokes this cause of action. The reasoning generally follows the pattern: "Yes, Bill had section 1983 standing for his claim, but you don't because your case differs from Bill's because of this tiny inconsequential detail, so we're denying you."

In my mind this isn't a problem so much with standing per se as it is with how courts manipulate it for political purposes. Maybe that's what you meant to say, and if so, I agree.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Craig4

It seems to me that this should be done in state courts as the Secretaries of State/Commonwealth put the candidates on the state ballots. Or, a Secretary of State could decline to put a candidate on the ballot based on the Disqualification Clause and the candidate would be forced to sue.

This is actually a good case study in the federalism issues surrounding jurisdiction.

The hypothetical you sketch out is what I think we all expected to happen. It should be brought in state court because the states run elections and compose the ballot according to their own laws and rules. My state, for example, has additional eligibility rules regarding state-recognized political parties. Whichever state official hypothetically invokes the 14th Amendment to deny some candidate a place on the ballot would be the defendant. The candidate would be the plaintiff and can demonstrate injury. Article III's standing doctrine does not apply to state actions, but most states have similar standing requirements.

However, this action raises a "federal question." When the grounds for any action or defense in a state court are rooted in the Constitution, federal law, or U.S. rules (e.g., the CFR), then U.S. courts have ultimate jurisdiction. To expedite justice, state courts are delegated authority to sit on federal questions. But decisions in a state court system—including the state supreme courts—are reviewable in the federal court system, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court. This path doesn't apply to purely state questions. This delegation is super important. It's the basis for why state courts can review state laws for constitutionality under the parts of the U.S. Constitution that are incorporated against the states. You want the relatively numerous state courts to bear the brunt of that work.

Lawrence Caplan's claim does not arise out of the decision by any state actor. He seeks declaratory relief only. That means he wants a court to weigh the arguments for and against Trump's eligibility under the 14th Amendment and issue a decision that other courts would be more or less bound to accept. Since this is a matter of weighing Trump's actions against some particular construction of section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it is properly before a U.S. court, not a state court. The Constitution is federal law for this purpose.

Even though that's the case, Caplan's complaint is defective because it does not explicitly state a theory for jurisdiction. In most complaints this is boilerplate. Near the top of the complaint you find a paragraph of the form, "This court has jurisdiction because..." and then cites to various U.S. statutes by which Congress has established the federal court system as authorized in Article III. Experienced readers of legal documents skip over this part to get to the meat of the allegations. But Caplan's complaint is novel and might raise interesting questions for jurisdiction. That interest should begin with Caplan's statement for why he believes the Southern District of Florida has jurisdiction (and not, say, the D.C. Circuit) to issue declarative relief on this subject. The statement is required even when it's straightforward and not likely to be contested.

In the state-court hypothetical, the state court will necessarily issue a declaratory judgment on Trump's constitutional eligibility. But that part of the judgment is reviewable in U.S. courts because it raises a federal question. The U.S. court system may re-asseret its constitutional jurisdiction over that part of the claim.

What's most likely is an interlocutory appeal. The state case is paused while the isolated matter of 14th Amendment eligibility makes its way through the federal court appeals process, possibly all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. When the federal courts reach a final decision on that point, the matter is remanded to the state court to rule on the state-specific portions of the case in a manner consistent with the federal court's interlocutory judgment on eligibility. But a state court doesn't have original jurisdiction on the eligibility question taken by itself as Caplan is attempting.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I think this is an extremely divisive and possibly dangerous road to go down.

We have two impeachments. We now have 4 indictments. We will likely have at least one felony conviction before Election Day. I think thats enough.

Let the American people decide if they want this felonious psychotic imbecile running the country again.

The American people did decide. In 2020. And Trump has yet to concede or abide by their decision, sparing no effort in the years since to reverse what the American people wanted.

What, because he stamps his feet and holds his breath, we should say, hey, that’s okay. Best two out of three? When he flips the poker table over after losing every hand, scattering chips, money, chips (the other kind), and beer, we should invite him back to the game?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

The American people did decide. In 2020. And Trump has yet to concede or abide by their decision, sparing no effort in the years since to reverse what the American people wanted.

What, because he stamps his feet and holds his breath, we should say, hey, that’s okay. Best two out of three? When he flips the poker table over after losing every hand, scattering chips, money, chips (the other kind), and beer, we should invite him back to the game?

This and this again. Trump has made it abundantly clear, at multiple times in multiple ways, that he cannot and will not accept the process. He won't even accept the will of his own party. In one sense he's been an insurrectionist against the Constitutional procedure since 2016 when he made it clear in the debates that he would not accept an election he did not win.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

I think I see a problem in your reasoning. To move for dismissal it would take either a person capable of understanding basic legal positions or a person capable of heeding those who do.

No, it merely takes a defendant.

Caplan names Trump as the defendant in his action. Trump's lawyer can move for dismissal on any number of procedural problems without even touching the merits of the eligibility argument.

Quote:

Granted the judge would likely toss the case independent of motions to dismiss because the lack of standing is so obvious.

Maybe. Judges use sua sponte dismissals only in extremely straightforward circumstances. To serve the larger interest of justice, you want reasons and arguments for dismissal to be part of a record that everyone can inspect, even if they see obvious. Also, Trump may decide to waive standing and agree to litigate the case in hopes of getting a favorable outcome that he can argue is legally binding. I don't think so, but it's an option. Normally the judge will want to hear what the defendant intends to do. The adversarial process should be preserved as much as possible.

Article III requires a "genuine case or controversy" which doesn't yet exist here. So a motion to dismiss (MTD) can argue that the matter is not yet ripe for adjudication. A federal court is prohibited from issuing judgments just because someone thinks it's an interesting legal question. Declaratory actions exist, but they have to be attached to some other pending action. Say there are several actions pending in state court on Trump's eligibility. Any of those parties can bring an in rem declaratory action in federal court, In re: the eligibility of Donald J. Trump for the office of President of the United States. Then the outcome of that case can be applied to the several state actions. But some guy's interest in that question, absent a genuine case, is legally irrelevant.

And yes, individual standing remains a problem. A voter has standing only to the extent of determining his eligibility to vote and his right to actually cast a vote that is counted toward the candidate he has chosen. Under present law, the eligibility of the candidate is not implicated in a voter's "choice of candidate" right. The voter's right to have his vote counted is limited to those candidates that are eligible. It would be novel for a voter to argue that he is injured if the candidate he wishes to vote for is not eligible. But Caplan is here arguing the opposite.

The presence of other competitors on the ballot does not injure an individual voter. The voter's interest begins and ends at whether he is able to cast his vote for the candidate he wants, and that his vote is properly counted toward that candidate. If you want to vote for Tom and Tom is on the ballot and your vote for him is counted toward him, there is no justiciable cause of action for a voter in the fact that Dick and Harry are also on the ballot for the same office.

In any case, the common procedure is for the judge to allow the defendant to raise some or all of these points in a motion to dismiss, and to allow Caplan to answer them. Then the judge will rule on who he thinks has the best argument. The record then stands a better chance of illustrating fairness if these points are made explicit.

Who else might have standing to seek declaratory relief? Perhaps another declared Republican candidate: say, Mike Pence. Pence can argue that he is injured by having an unqualified candidate on states' ballots who represents the same political party. But even that's pretty iffy. Someone who is prevented from voting for Trump may not automatically vote for Pence. Or he could argue that an ineligible candidate in a Republican primary election injures his right to campaign for office in the affected states. Still also iffy.