729
Donald Trump says he never swore oath "to support the Constitution"
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
729 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2044 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Their argument is that because he did not use the exact word "support" in respect to the Constitution, that he is not able to be excluded from holding office in the US even if he did commit seditious acts. He is saying that his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" is entirely different than an oath to "support" it. It's nonsense, but one judge (in Colorado, I believe?) ~~has already provided legitimacy to that argument, so... the stupid argument now has judicial precedent.~~
Edit: Correcting my mistake about the Judge's verdict. The judge did not uphold the argument that the Presidential oath was not to "support" the Constitution. Instead, the Judge was convinced by Trump's team that the President is not an "officer of the United States". Therefore, Trump took no oath as an Officer of the United States, and, thus, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (which exclude someone who swore such an oath, who then incites an insurrection from holding federal or state office) simply doesn't apply to someone who has only sworn an oath as President.
That judge is insane. The word "officer" literally means "one who holds office". This has always been the dictionary definition of the word. What the fuck is that judge smoking?!
He's smoking his fat bribes from the rich cunts that run the country.
You can read her judgement here: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf
The most convincing part is the other places in the constitution which set up the presidency in opposition to Officers of the United States. However, it's far from clear cut, as people definitely did think of and refer to the president as being an Officer of the United States.
Both can't be true. A president can't be an officer and not an officer. What can be true is an officer that is opposition to other officers. This is what Ben Shapiro would call 'logic.'
I'm afraid that's not the right kind of logic. Laws don't always use words with the exact same meaning throughout, especially when considering a body of law rather than a single document. And here we're not even talking about an inconsistency within the constitution, but consistency between a clause in it and the usage of people in other contexts. Suppose you have a document which says:
Clearly that does not mean the Field Marshal can appoint a new Field Marshal, so in that document we may think "officers" doesn't include Field Marshal. On the other hand in general usage, Field Marshal clearly is an officer. Let's say later on in the document there's a clause which says:
Do we think that "other officers" should include the Field Marshal, here? Sure, we know that in general usage, he is an officer. But also, why did whoever wrote this start with General and then work their way down? Wouldn't they have included the Field Marshal, the most important guy, if they meant for him to be included? Is it not more likely that "other officers" only includes the lower ranks? Besides, in this document we have evidence that "officer" is not always used to include Field Marshal, because he can't appoint a new Field Marshal.
Now in the actual case it's not exactly the same: there are only three things listed besides "officer of the United States" so the argument from the ordering is not as strong. But the argument that officer in general usage included the presidency is also less strong - military ranks are much better defined.
I'm not trying to convince you the argument is right, but to allow you to see the logic of it.
The fuck Simon Says argument is this? Are we in kindergarten?
I'm no lawyer, but I swear 99% of law is laughable semantics like this.
America does produce 4x the lawyers expected per capita, and they've gotta do something to get paid, so ... yeah.
Frankly, there's a lot of it that's creative reading of something so you don't have to spend 6 months fighting an even worse battle. Also, turns out six people can look at the exact same sentence and come away with six different interpretations, so there's a good deal of legitimate disagreement on meaning.
The judge said that the goverment didn't have the power to keep him off a primary ballot, since that's not an election to an office. The actual election is up in the air
That's not quite correct. The judge specifically concluded that the Section 3 clause of the 14th Amendment that would exclude someone from holding office after inciting an insurrection simply did not matter for the presidency. They were somehow convinced that the President is not an "officer of the United States", so Section 3 did not apply. I genuinely don't understand how they were convinced of that. But they basically concluded that a sitting or former Congressman, Judge or soldier who commits insurrection can never hold office again without Congressional pardon, but someone who has only held the office of President like Trump can commit insurrection and not face similar consequences. Like that makes any sense.
It may not matter for the presidency, but it absolutely matters for the Electoral College. Read the 14th amendment again: even if it doesn't apply to the president himself, it explicitly applies to the electors of the president.
Trump was declared an insurrectionist. If an electoral vote for Trump can be considered giving him "aid or comfort", any elector intending to vote for him is unqualified to serve as an elector.
You're missing up the cases, the one in Minnesota is the one where they kept him on the Primary ballot, for the reason you cited
Technically, we don't elect the president. We elect the electors who elect the president. Those electors are required to swear an oath, under 5 USC §3331.
Any elector who intends to vote for Trump is giving "aid or comfort" to a known insurrectionist, which disqualifies them from serving as an elector. They can only be an elector until they try to cast a vote for insurrectionist Trump.