You can file as many FAKE and FLIMSY cases as you want….eventually the truth wins out.

And that’s what we just got in the bogus case filed in Florida attempting to keep President Trump off the ballot under the guise of the 14th Amendment.

TOSSED!

Score one for truth and justice:

Laura Loomer explains the theory of the case in this Tweet from a few days ago:

JUST IN: An individual by the name of Lawrence Caplan has filed in federal court to attempt to have President
@realDonaldTrump
REMOVED AND DISQUALIFIED from the 2024 Presidential Election and barred from the ballot in the state of Florida under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

ADVERTISEMENT

Caplan, who has publicly said he resides in South Florida, is arguing that President Trump cannot legally be on the 2024 election ballot as a candidate for US President because he “engaged in an insurrection”.

Ultimately, a Judge did not agree with Mr. Lawrence Caplan and tossed the case!

The Palm Beach Post was first to report the news:

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.

Donald Trump has entered a plea of not guilty to charges leveled against him in Georgia.
“Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Defendant’s qualifications for seeking the Presidency,” Rosenberg 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.”

Rosenberg also added that “an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individualis qualified to hold public office.” She noted two prior court rulings against plaintiffs trying to keep candidates off the ballot because they participated in the Jan. 6 violence in Washington, D.C.

Former President Donald Trump walks to speak with reporters before departure from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Thursday, Aug. 24, 2023, in Atlanta.
Caplan did not comment on the judge’s ruling Thursday. But in an Aug. 25 interview with the USA TODAY-Florida network, Caplan said he believed his lawsuit would most likely be challenged on the issue of standing, perhaps because he was not, say, a candidate who could argue direct harm.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Western Journal had more:

Palm Beach-based attorney Lawrence Caplan — who filed the lawsuit, along with two other individuals — didn’t comment after the ruling, although he had previously said that standing might be the biggest hurdle his lawsuit would face. Nevertheless, he had previously claimed the Constitution prohibited Trump from running 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.”

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The theory that the 14th Amendment provides a legal remedy to keep certain candidates who wished to challenge the results of the 2020 election off the ballot isn’t a new one. It’s also one that hasn’t gotten very far in court.

The amendment, ratified in the wake of the 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 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.”

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.

Congrats to President Trump on the big win!

Right call, but still a big win.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.