Trump 14th Amendment Eligibility Cases

Post Reply
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Trump 14th Amendment Eligibility Cases

#1

Post by Reality Check »

I think we are going to need a separate thread for these cases. They are coming.

Here is the first one:

Caplan v. TRUMP (0:23-cv-61628) District Court, S.D. Florida

Here is the dismissal order:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... n-v-trump/

Lack of standing. I am shocked I tell yah!
Inquiry into standing “is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy
requirement of Article III.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Standing “is a
threshold jurisdictional question which must be addressed prior to and independent of the merits of a
party’s claims.” Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 974 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Steel Co.
v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102 (1998)). Thus, this Court has jurisdiction over a case
only if the plaintiff has standing to sue. See Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204, 207 (3d Cir. 2010).
“In the absence of standing, a court is not free to opine in an advisory capacity about the merits of a
plaintiff’s claims, and the court is powerless to continue.” CAMP Legal Def. Fund., Inc. v. City of
Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
Berg got an entire paragraph:
However, an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual
is qualified to hold public office. See, e.g., Kerchner, 612 F.3d at 207; Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234,
239 (3d Cir. 2009).
In Berg, the plaintiff, an attorney representing himself, filed a complaint seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief in district court before the 2008 Presidential election, alleging that then-candidate
Barack Obama was ineligible to run for President because he was not a “natural born citizen” within However, an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual
is qualified to hold public office. See, e.g., Kerchner, 612 F.3d at 207; Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234,
239 (3d Cir. 2009).
In Berg, the plaintiff, an attorney representing himself, filed a complaint seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief in district court before the 2008 Presidential election, alleging that then-candidate
Barack Obama was ineligible to run for President because he was not a “natural born citizen” within
the meaning of Article II. Berg, 586 F.3d at 237. The district court observed that “standing has been
a consistent barrier to lower courts hearing generalized, undifferentiated claims by voters and
citizens,” and noted various cases in which citizens attempted to challenge a Presidential candidate’s
eligibility for office or other governmental actions but lacked standing. Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp.
2d 509, 517 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (citing, e.g. Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937) (per curiam) (citizen
and member of Supreme Court bar “merely a general interest common to all members of the public”
and lacked standing to challenge appointment and confirmation of Supreme Court Justice)); Jones v.
Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713, 716-18 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (voters did not have standing to assert a Twelfth
Amendment violation that allegedly infringed on their right to cast meaningful votes, and court
explained that “plaintiffs conspicuously fail to demonstrate how they, as opposed to the general voting
population, will feel its effects.”); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 69 (D.N.H. 2008) (voters
lacked standing to challenge Senator John McCain’s eligibility for President and to exclude him from
the Presidential primaries, and court stated that “voters have no standing to complain about the
participation of an ineligible candidate in an election.”)). The court concluded that an alleged injury
“stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural
Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury in fact sufficient
to satisfy Article III standing.” Berg, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 518.
Hollander and Drake got cites too.
Mr brolin
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:59 pm
Occupation: Chief Blame Officer
Verified: ✅ as vaguely humanoid

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] ELigibility Cases

#2

Post by Mr brolin »

In this specific case, Donny Baby Paws being barred as seditious piece of scum, I'm not really sure who would have standing other than potential real runners for the Republican nomination and Biden, assuming he gets the nomination or the RNC itself.

State level SoS's wouldn't have standing in a federal election so it's not as if they can try and kick Donny off the ballot, judiciary can't get to play, separation of powers etc.

It's a pickle in that the 14ths plain wording is hamstrung......

Unless I am missing something, an entirely possible set of events.
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] ELigibility Cases

#3

Post by Reality Check »

I think a SoS could use the 14th Amendment wording to omit Trump from either the primary or the general election ballot. And it might happen.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-e ... =102833123
In an interview with ABC News, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said that she and other secretaries of state from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire and Maine started having conversations over a year ago about preparing for the legal challenges to Trump's candidacy.
I believe Christie and possibly others will file lawsuits too.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5083
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] ELigibility Cases

#4

Post by p0rtia »

Interesting. Just the sort of fight a viper like Christie might well enjoy. Hope he goes for it.
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] ELigibility Cases

#5

Post by Reality Check »

p0rtia wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 10:14 am Interesting. Just the sort of fight a viper like Christie might well enjoy. Hope he goes for it.
:thumbsup: Timing might be critical. He would have to file after Trump files with the SoS or maybe even after the ballots are issued. I think this will eventually be resolved in the courts unlike the Birther nonsense cases.
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#6

Post by Reality Check »

I read Caplan's Amended Complaint. For a lawyer it is pretty bad, He doesn't address how he has standing based on the usual cases like Twombly, Iqbal and Lujan. He should have known how a judge was going to evaluate standing. It was no better than most and not as good as some Birther cases.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... n-v-trump/
Mr brolin
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:59 pm
Occupation: Chief Blame Officer
Verified: ✅ as vaguely humanoid

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] ELigibility Cases

#7

Post by Mr brolin »

Reality Check wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 10:09 am I think a SoS could use the 14th Amendment wording to omit Trump from either the primary or the general election ballot. And it might happen.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-e ... =102833123
In an interview with ABC News, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said that she and other secretaries of state from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire and Maine started having conversations over a year ago about preparing for the legal challenges to Trump's candidacy.
I believe Christie and possibly others will file lawsuits too.
I think that there would be little to zero chance of a sucessful primary challenge by pretty much anyone as it is a private organisations, internal "beauty contest" and vote via private membership of a political party for (very very very low level of) their standard bearer). SoS's at the state (or federal level) deeming who is or is not fit for a political parties internal determination is a VERY slippery slope.

Again at a state level, what "standing" does the SoS of a state have on a federal election matter..?

Vce-versa yes, the federal government have mandated certain requirements on states on elements of voting rights due to egregious failures by mostly southern states to follow legal minima. terse are (in general) been due to violations of Axcts of Cingress with reference in some cases to 14th Amendment issues.

That however doesn't give the individual states themselves rights to mandate, manage, alter, amend, fold, bend or spindle federal level voting matters.

I could potentially see a SoS objecting to the inclusion of Tiny Hands on a bllot but again ..... slippery slope as he has not as yet been found guity of seditious acts..... Would a case be ripe..?

Remember we have all seen the exact tortuos machinations with Obama and the Birfoons.

The problem is standing inherently limits activity to a very narrow set of entities, there has to be actual facts backing up a challenge, the issue has to be imminent and actual and the entity bringing the case has to show that they will be injured, specifically and not in a subjective or amorphous way etc etc....
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] ELigibility Cases

#8

Post by Reality Check »

Mr brolin wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 12:55 pm
I think that there would be little to zero chance of a sucessful primary challenge by pretty much anyone as it is a private organisations, internal "beauty contest" and vote via private membership of a political party for (very very very low level of) their standard bearer). SoS's at the state (or federal level) deeming who is or is not fit for a political parties internal determination is a VERY slippery slope.

Again at a state level, what "standing" does the SoS of a state have on a federal election matter..?

Vce-versa yes, the federal government have mandated certain requirements on states on elements of voting rights due to egregious failures by mostly southern states to follow legal minima. terse are (in general) been due to violations of Axcts of Cingress with reference in some cases to 14th Amendment issues.

That however doesn't give the individual states themselves rights to mandate, manage, alter, amend, fold, bend or spindle federal level voting matters.

I could potentially see a SoS objecting to the inclusion of Tiny Hands on a bllot but again ..... slippery slope as he has not as yet been found guity of seditious acts..... Would a case be ripe..?

Remember we have all seen the exact tortuos machinations with Obama and the Birfoons.

The problem is standing inherently limits activity to a very narrow set of entities, there has to be actual facts backing up a challenge, the issue has to be imminent and actual and the entity bringing the case has to show that they will be injured, specifically and not in a subjective or amorphous way etc etc....
The presidential election however consists of 51 (50 states + DC) individual elections run at the state level. Each candidate has to apply to get on the ballot individually in all of those jurisdictions. I believe the point of the paper the Federalist Society dudes wrote is that they believe every secretary of state has a duty to make sure the name Donald J. Trump is not on the presidential ballot. Of course Trump would sue in either state or federal courts. I leave it up to the lawyers as to how this would play out and where the proper place to sue would be. There have been cases where ineligible candidates were barred from appearing on presidential ballots by state authorities. Notably in 1968 Eldridge Cleaver ran for president even though he did not meet the age requirement and was kept off the ballot in several states for that reason.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 5083
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#9

Post by p0rtia »

Last week's big Atlantic article on the topic posited that a Sec of State would decline to put Cheetolini on the ballot, and then Cheetolini would have to initiate a lawsuit.

Can't recall more, but the article is quoted somewhere on TFB.
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6869
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#10

Post by pipistrelle »

p0rtia wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 2:57 pm Last week's big Atlantic article on the topic posited that a Sec of State would decline to put Cheetolini on the ballot, and then Cheetolini would have to initiate a lawsuit.

Can't recall more, but the article is quoted somewhere on TFB.
Will he run out of attorneys who aren't sanctioned, disbarred, or imprisoned by then?
jemcanada2
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:12 am

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#11

Post by jemcanada2 »

pipistrelle wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 3:17 pm
p0rtia wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 2:57 pm Last week's big Atlantic article on the topic posited that a Sec of State would decline to put Cheetolini on the ballot, and then Cheetolini would have to initiate a lawsuit.

Can't recall more, but the article is quoted somewhere on TFB.
Will he run out of attorneys who aren't sanctioned, disbarred, or imprisoned by then?
He’ll just start representing himself then. I mean, he does know more about the law than any lawyers or judges. :liar: :liar:
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#12

Post by Reality Check »

Here is an article on topic from Election Law Blog:

States have the power to judge the qualifications of presidential candidates and exclude ineligible candidates from the ballot, if they want to use it

I wish Stern or Allison were still around. They had such great insight into topics like these. :daydreaming:
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1151
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#13

Post by realist »

Reality Check wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 5:20 pm Here is an article on topic from Election Law Blog:

States have the power to judge the qualifications of presidential candidates and exclude ineligible candidates from the ballot, if they want to use it

I wish Stern or Allison were still around. They had such great insight into topics like these. :daydreaming:
Which a couple attempted to do with Obama. But somone has to decide what is "ineligible". And make it stick.
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#14

Post by Reality Check »

realist wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 5:23 pm :snippity:
Which a couple attempted to do with Obama. But somone has to decide what is "ineligible". And make it stick.
Yes, the problem was the Birthers based their claims either of two false narratives; that Obama was born in Kenya or wasn't a natural born citizen because his father wasn't a citizen. No judge was going to buy those so most took the easy paths to dismissal. No SoS actually took the step to remove Obama in 2012 although a few batted eyelashes at Birthers.

In Trump's case many attorneys take his 14th Amendment ineligibility seriously. If one or more SoS take the step to remove him it just might stick.

Edit: Let's say Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and a few others take that move all of a sudden Trump's path to election looks really bleak.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5546
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] ELigibility Cases

#15

Post by bob »

Reality Check wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 2:24 pmThe presidential election however consists of 51 (50 states + DC) individual elections run at the state level.
Correct. And courts have repeatedly ruled Secretaries of State have the inherent authority to police ballots to remove ineligible candidates. Secretaries are traditionally very conservative in this regard, and only use this power when a candidate is facially ineligible. It is an open question whether Secretaries could use their inherent power to conduct an investigation or to simply conclude a candidate is ineligible. (But the birther litigation taught us a rando couldn't compel a Secretary to investigate or to exclude.)

"Standing" refers to a court's jurisdiction, and states and federal courts have different standing requirements. If someone decided to sue in federal court, the plaintiff would have to be a Secretary of State,* the aggrieved candidate, or a bona fide competitor (which would require more than filing a federal declaration of candidacy). OTOH, states have different standing requirements; it is quite possible that a state would allow a voter to sue in state court. (This is how an Indiana truck driver ended up suing Obama and giving us a published case on the meaning of natural-born citizen.)


* It is unlikely a Secretary would sue an aggrieved candidate; if the Secretary thought a candidate was ineligible, just exclude the candidate and wait for the candidate to sue for inclusion. But I could see a Secretary initiating a lawsuit for declaratory relief (although a court punt and say its job isn't to answer hypothetical questions).
Image ImageImage
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3918
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#16

Post by RVInit »

An interesting discussion about how some SoS are currently looking at the possible question of Trump's ineligibility under the 14th amendment.

There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14810
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#17

Post by RTH10260 »

I guess it's timely to study the legalities now and be prepared, not wait until a few months before election.
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#18

Post by Reality Check »

RTH10260 wrote: Mon Sep 04, 2023 2:11 pm I guess it's timely to study the legalities now and be prepared, not wait until a few months before election.
No, this is going to become a big issue probably by the end of the year.

If Trump is found ineligible we can savor the sweet taste of Birther tears as they wail about their boy DT being removed from ballots while Obama skated for 8 years. :crying: :rotflmao:
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 6017
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#19

Post by Suranis »

Well, at least the Birthers can say they helped Obama become ineligible, by helping him serve 2 terms as President. So now Obama IS ineligible to be US President.
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5546
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#20

Post by bob »

As that article upthread noted, there's a technical difference between a primary and general election (no one in a primary is seeking an office; they're seeking a nomination for an office). But the article suggested the courts wouldn't split that hair, and would rule on the issue for a primary election. And those start in months.
.
Image ImageImage
Dave from down under
Posts: 4062
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#21

Post by Dave from down under »

:whistle:
User avatar
keith
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
Verified: ✅lunatic

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#22

Post by keith »

bob wrote: Mon Sep 04, 2023 5:30 pm As that article upthread noted, there's a technical difference between a primary and general election (no one in a primary is seeking an office; they're seeking a nomination for an office). But the article suggested the courts wouldn't split that hair, and would rule on the issue for a primary election. And those start in months.
.
There's another technical hitch, at least in Arizona. You aren't voting for a Presidential candidate in Arizona, you are voting for ELECTORS who are pledged to a candidate. The electors appear on the ballot (under the candidate they are pledged to of course). I assume that's similar in other states. I also assume that hasn't changed since the last time I voted.
Has everybody heard about the bird?
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#23

Post by Reality Check »

keith wrote: Mon Sep 04, 2023 5:59 pm :snippity:
There's another technical hitch, at least in Arizona. You aren't voting for a Presidential candidate in Arizona, you are voting for ELECTORS who are pledged to a candidate. The electors appear on the ballot (under the candidate they are pledged to of course). I assume that's similar in other states. I also assume that hasn't changed since the last time I voted.
I think that is true in every state but the states place the name of the candidate on the ballot an not the electors. That hasn't stopped some states from removing the names of ineligible candidates like Eldridge Cleaver in 1968 and Peta Lindsay in 2012.

Edit: Peta Lindsay sued California SoS Debra Bowen to try to have her name placed on the ballot and lost. Her appeal also lost in the 9th Circuit in 2014.

Our old friend Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote that the state had a responsibility to seek to protect the integrity of the ballot and avoid voter confusion.

"Everyone agrees that Lindsay couldn't hold the office for which she was trying to run," Kozinski said in the court's opinion.

Requiring Bowen to include the name on the ballot "would mean that anyone, regardless of age, citizenship or any other constitutional ineligibility would be entitled to clutter and confuse our electoral ballot," Kozinski wrote.

"Nothing in the First Amendment compels such an absurd result," Kozinski said.

The same might apply to Donald Trump. :fingerwag:
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 18496
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#24

Post by raison de arizona »

IMG_5629.png
IMG_5629.png (207.86 KiB) Viewed 61907 times
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 18496
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Trump 14th Amendment [Lack of] Eligibility Cases

#25

Post by raison de arizona »


Schiff thinks tfg should be disqualified under the 14th.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Post Reply

Return to “US President”