Democrats are beyond sore over the continued rise of former President Donald Trump in his question to win the White House for a second, non-consecutive term. 

Triggered, anti-Trump attorneys, last week, rallied a small movement to get behind the idea of removing Trump from the ballots next year using the 14th Amendment -- an idea that was just shot down by a federal judge.

According to Breitbart, they attempted to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bans officials from running for election if they've "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against."

Not surprisingly, those behind the efforts cited the Jan. 6 Capitol riots as grounds for Trump to be removed under the rule.

What's happening?

Florida attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others failed to convince an Obama-appointed judge that Trump could be removed on those grounds.

The Palm Beach Post noted:

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.

"Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Defendant’s qualifications for seeking the Presidency," the judge wrote, adding that since the Jan. 6 situation happened over two years ago, the plaintiffs' alleged injuries "are not cognizable and not particular to them."

The judge added, “an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individualis qualified to hold public office."

Federal judge dismisses lawsuit claiming Trump can't run for office under the 14th Amendment | Just The News https://t.co/NE01zpOv8r

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) September 2, 2023

The 14th Amendment was last used after the Civil War against former Confederate leaders.

Caplan responds

The attorney didn't offer comment on the federal judge's ruling, but last month, he admitted that he expected the effort to be challenged, but insisted that he was using solid precedent.

"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 at the time. "I read the amendment and I read the facts of the indictment, and they match very closely."

Some legal scholars have aruged that secretaries of state have the ability to remove a candidate from the ballot using that guidance, but so far, there hasn't been one who has signaled that they intend to do so.

Only time will tell what happens as the election draws closer, and the radical leftist activist officials grow increasingly desperate.