“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
To be fair, “support” isn’t the exact word used, but “preserve, protect, and defend” is pretty unequivocal
The intention is that it’s a step beyond the oath of support, having just dug around in law articles and history on it.
And reading the article, it sounds like the only one making a semantical argument, is Trump and his lawyers.
the only one making a semantical argument, is Trump and his lawyers.
The problem is that the current Supreme Court clearly would support throwing that out, and they LOVE semantics like that to justify clearly bullshit decisions.
If interpreting laws is going to just turn into how much money a wealthy individual (or anyone wealthy enough to foot the bill) can argue the semantics of anything … what good and what use is any law?
They also like using history to support their decisions. If it can be shown that the presidential oath is intended to go beyond “support” I would see the court being persuaded that “support” is implied by “protect, preserve, and defend”. It depends on whether the textualists or the pseudo-historians win the day.
Exactly. It’s a massive stretch to think there’s a false equivalency between “support” and “preserve, protect, and defend”.
But of course…this is Trump here. He’s willing to bend himself into a pretzel if it means he can avoid responsibility for anything bad.
You can preserve, protect, and defend something you don’t support. Debate 101 at even a high school level is learning how to argue the side of an argument that you don’t support.
So while in office, he preserved/protected/defended something he didn’t support. He then lead some form of rebellion against it, causing him to be in violation of the spirit of the 14th but not the letter as it’s written, so he should still be qualified to serve.
The Supreme Court would love this wordplay, except, if they actually accept it, they’re not just invalidating the spirit of the 14th, but undermining it completely as it would never ever ever be relevant to anyone, ever again. And wouldn’t that also be against their oaths to uphold the constitution?
So most likely Trump will be eligible for re-election because I have no doubt that if they can get away with the Citizens United ruling, they can and will do whatever the hell they want.
I think you can make an argument that if you preserve and protect something, you’re supporting it.
But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. If the presidential oath isn’t an example of supporting it, then Article Ii makes no sense at all - why would it even be there?
“The best of his ability” is the loophole he should have exploited.
It’s a lot more believable.
The text of the section they are challenging (emphasis added):
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. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
It’s an exceptionally stupid argument, even for Trump. Obviously “preserve, protect, and defend” are all forms of support, so this challenge is quite possibly the stupidest legal argument they’ve made so far (which is an extremely high bar). But I suppose they don’t think they can realistically claim that he didnt engage in insurrection.
Hold up, if that’s the crux of his argument, does that mean that his argument is
“I can’t be barred from running because I never took an oath to support the constitution. Therefore my inciting insurrection is not covered by this clause. But I totally incited rebellion.”?
Wow that’s stupid. I’m sure this comes up all the time with wording of other laws and I’m sure judges are used to eviscerating it. Now as long as we don’t get stupid judges…
If it ends up on the Supreme Court, I’m sure Clarence Thomas will enthusiastically support the idea.
It’s not quite that simple. To be clear, the argument being proposed by his lawyers is that he is not an “officer of the United States” so it doesn’t apply to him.
Basically, there’s legal precedent that elected officials aren’t officers of the US because they are elected and not hired. Add to that the sheer number of commas, “and”s, and “or”s, that it can get legally murky.
NB: Not a lawyer. Read about the above on Mastadon from a legal scholar. Will see if I can find the link.
Doesn’t the “No person shall be a … elector of President and Vice President” just outright say that the statement obviously includes elected officials? Specifically the POTUS and VPOTUS?
I think it directly implies POTUS, especially this part:
or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,
But also, they don’t have to be legally correct or in-keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Under my assumption that a few of the Supreme Court Justices are surely psychopaths, they just need an interpretation that’s plausible enough to avoid consequences to themselves.
The argument I’ve seen is that the condition part of the clause (insurrection) by language only applies to the bit after “who, having previously…”
Basically, the argument goes “It says you can’t be President or Vice President if you did insurrection while an officer of the US”—but it doesn’t say you can’t be President if you did insurrection while president of the US.
To be clear: I think it’s fucking idiotic and against the spirit of the law—but I’m no lawyer/legal expert.
While i hate Trump and don’t think he has a leg I can see some give in this argument. Just in the idea that I don’t think a president should have to support the entirety of the US constitution. I think a representative of the US government can disagree with aspects of the constitution but still preserve, protect, and defend it.
It’s not a very strong argument but there is something to be said.
There is a record of the Senate debate on this amendment.
One questioned ‘Why doesn’t this include the president?’.
Another senator replied ‘It does under the section of anyone who holds an office’.
The response was ‘Ok, I was unclear on that’. And the debate carried on.
So the writers obviously intended this to include the office of the president.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639
Download the paper, read pages 10 and 11 for context.
Actually, it really might in this case.
A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.
Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.
Does that “strict originalist” view extend to the “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd ammendment?
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The argument is that the word “support” isn’t explicitly there. Therefore, the President is not an officer of the government, and therefore Trump isn’t barred from being President under the 14th Amendment.
This argument is dumb, of course. Scalia once made a similar one, noting that punishments must be cruel and unusual to be constitutionally banned. Cruel or unusual on their own is fine.
Wait, that’s their actual argument? For real?
… 😂
Why stop at that word? Why not complain that every synonym for every word isn’t included? Just turn the whole thing into a thesaurus? (eta: like, the insurrection act doesn’t apply because you’re calling it a coup! Totally different word! I said I killed that guy, but the statute says ‘murder’ not ‘kill’. Checkmate atheists!)
Every time I think they’ve hit maximum daft, they climb back in the hole and dig up some more. Amazing.
Unusual on its own IS fine, and happens fairly regularly.
Just wondering what kind of cruelty would have to be added to this unusual punishment to qualify as illegal.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
I think of the quote as explaining one type of situation, trying to reason with someone who is unreasonable plus want you and those like you out.
It’s illuminating because the extreme opinion do this same thing with words. Splitting hairs, to always find a shape that fits their need. Because their intentions don’t require words, just control and emotions.
It also has a strong reminder for me, my grandfather’s mom was just a baby on her mother’s back during the events of Wounded Knee. The events of a single day have the power to remain for generations.
