Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term
nymag.com
Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.
You are viewing a single comment
Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.
Trump is already disqualified from holding any office, let alone that of the President, under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133
Page 17:
V. The persons who framed Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded the President of the United States as an officer of the United States
The President of the United States was among the officials who took the oath to the Constitution that under Section Three triggered disqualification for participating in an insurrection. As noted in the previous section, the persons responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment sought to bar from present and future office all persons who betrayed their constitutional oath. “All of us understanding the meaning of the third section,” Senator John Sherman of Ohio stated, “those men who have once taken an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States and have Fourteenth Amendment distinguished between the presidential oath mandated by Article II and violated that oath in spirit by taking up arms against the Government of the United States are to be deprived for a time at least of holding office.” No member of the Congress that drafted the the oath of office for other federal and state officers mandated by Article VI. Both were oaths to support the Constitution. Senator Garrett Davis of Kentucky saw no legal difference between the constitutional requirement that “all officers, both Federal and State, should take an oath to support” the Constitution and the constitutional requirement that the president “take an oath, to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin declared that Congress need not pass laws requiring presidents to swear to support the Constitution because that “oath is specified in the constitution.”
In fact, the exact question of whether the disqualification from public office covered the Presidency came up at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was being drafted: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569
Specifically:
I’ll highlight that last bit again:
That is from this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639
Some people seem to have a lot of trouble with figuring out what "or" means, in a list of things.
That doesn't EXPLICITLY say they can't be President. - a Judge in Colorado who probably would also rule the framers PROBABLY meant AR15s in the Second Amendment despite it not being explicitly said.
Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means. He broke his oath of office. He is not fit to hold any public office including that of the President, and he is barred from holding office by the Constitution of the United States. Period dot, and of story.
The courts, so far, don't agree. Unfortunately.
Incorrect. The judge in Colorado ruled he broke his oath of office and engaged in an insurrection, which is what makes the ruling so coo-coo bananapants.
There are people in powerful positions who may try to interpret this as favorably to Trump as possible to let him off the hook for it, holding as much integrity for themselves as they can while still achieving the goal. Are you sure it will hold up? I'm not, unfortunately.
Not with the conservative shills on this Supreme Court, no. Not when it really counts. This is the product of several generations of conservative activism to stack the courts with partisan judges for conservative causes.
I can't really find fault with the ruling. The amendment specifically calls out very important positions like senators and representatives, and even electors for POTUS...but they just plumb forgot the even more important position of POTUS? It's really hard to believe.
I don't know why they would exclude the POTUS, and few want trump off the ballot more than me, but the argument that the POTUS is not included is very reasonable.
The text literally says "any office". Not sure what you're talking about here.
So why do you think they left POTUS out of the list when they listed out other important positions? Why not just say "any office" is that's all inclusive?
Read the excerpt, then go read the rest of the paper at the link. The context of why is in the other sections, before and after 5 which I quoted above.
I read the excerpt, and it makes no mention of why they explicitly call out senators but not the post, and vaguely referencing a 55 page paper just leads me to believe you have no explanation.
If this is not the case, could you put the argument in your own words?
Oh, by all means. You see the President has to take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, and the Framers thought that nobody in their right minds could be stupid enough to think that the Fourteenth Amendment didn't apply to the Office of the President, or the person holding that Office, because the Fourteenth Amendment applies to whether people who break their Oaths of Public Office get to hold Public Office. To wit, they do not. Not unless a quorum of the sitting government says they can with a vote to that effect, anyway.
As such, it was obvious to the Framers that this would also bar someone from the Presidency. As it says in the context I asked you to read.
You're not arguing why one and not the other, but why it should apply to the POTUS even though it doesn't say POTUS.
I'm not saying I disagree, but the same argument could be made for senator or representative as well. So why call out these specifically and not the other?
If you're resting your hat on "well it obviously applies to senator but not POTUS" when I would think, without specific clarification, that it would obviously apply to both ... Well then I think they justified her ruling as reasonable.
Everyone who takes an oath of office is covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. Why?
THEY ALL TAKE OATHS OF OFFICE
That's it. That's the answer to your question. If you want to know why the Fourteenth Amendment was written, that's also in the paper I linked. Your weaponised ignorance disguised as well-meaning debate only works as long as you aren't being obviously disingenuous.
No, it isn't. This is even a shift from your previous argument. But, again, it's just why you think the POTUS is included, but not why they explicitly call out senators but not the POTUS.
It's fair to say you don't know, which is basically what I'm saying here, but claiming that I'm weaponizing my ignorance when I'm asking you to explain, while you're claiming a conclusion is clear despite yours... Well that seems incredibly backwards.
What I am stating hasn't shifted at all. Your "argument" is that because the President isn't explicitly listed in the text, then "we can't know if they're covered". Do you think every list everywhere has to be exhaustive, even when criteria and examples are listed? You know what the text does state?
Section Three states:
I'll bold and italicise the really important bits, and delete the bits that aren't relevant, because you seem to have trouble with the word "or" in lists:
The ONLY argument that "this doesn't cover the Presidency" is that "The Presidency is not an Office of the United States, and the person who holds the Presidency is not an Officer of the United States". This is obviously wrong as the actual, explicit text is "any office, civil or military", and the actual requirement is "having previously taken an oath of office, then engaging in insurrection against that office".
YOU are obviously wrong, because "any office" is pretty fucking explicit - the Presidency is an Office of the US, as laid out in that 55 page paper you refuse to fucking read. "Civil or military" - the President is both. "Previously having taken an oath as an officer of the United States" - check, taking the Presidency does indeed require an oath beforehand. "Having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" - yep, he did that too. That's all the requirements, so are you still going to come back with "but president not listed 🤔" as though it's at all valid?
Edit: Fuck this, I've made my point very clearly, and there is no point in engaging further with you because either you get it or you're a concern troll - maybe both. Good day.
Incorrect. To be very clear, my argument is that it's a very conspicuous omission from a list that explicitly calls out some high importance positions, but does not call out the most important position. And due to that, I have a hard time finding it unreasonable when someone interprets the law to not include that conspicuously omitted position.
You act like I've denied it says "any office." I have not. I've asked you why it calls out a high importance position, but does not call out the most important high importance position. It's a question that you don't have any answer for, so you just keep repeating your point. Or, now, making up my position so you can attack a strawman.
Incorrect. By definition, the way you are interpreting it, it would implicitly include the POTUS. And this is where my issue lies. It does explicitly call out some high importance positions, but not the presidency. Those high importance positions would also be included under any office. So why explicitly call out some, but not others, if "any office" covers all of them? You've completely failed to answer this question. Again, it's fair to admit you don't have an answer but you don't think it matters anyway. It's just then we would have to "agree to disagree" that it's reasonable to consider the parts other than "any office" and ask ourselves what the intent was.
You're inability to answer the question is not my fault, but your own. Why are you trying to blame me? The parting shot is incredibly childish.