"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?
We are long past the point where power and wealth buys better legal outcomes as evidenced by how few rich and powerful people over the last half century have spent any time in prison for their crimes compared to people with neither wealth nor power.
Imprisoning poor people.
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.
Did he really preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution on January 6th though? (Spoiler alert: he didn't). Perhaps that is the better question here than this semantics argument.
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?
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
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?
I'm sure the righter part of the SC will find a reason :|
Yeah I think the difference here is outcomes vs intentions (consequentialism vs virtue theory, if you want to be exact about ethics). Trump could support the constitution through his actions, but communicate his intentions otherwise: and vice versa.
Yes we do.
But he is just playing a game. Semantics.
Still not going to acknowledge you are wrong?
Sure, I had no clue that the military oath included "support."
Would be a stretch to say that article II of the Constitution was only intended to apply to the military.
Here is what you said with confidence:
“But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. “
Then you ignored several people who pointed out that you were wrong.
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."?
"I crossed my fingers when I took the oath of office so it didn't count. Also, I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever 14th Amendment you throw bounces off of me and sticks to you!"
-Trump's next legal arguments..
Unfortunately, I think it is "while I do not admit to starting a rebellion, whether I did or not is immaterial because 'preserve, protect, and defend' definitely doesn't include 'support'"
He only needs to convince 5 Supreme Court justices.
Yes, that's what they're arguing.
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.
America's Uncle Tom.
Uncle Tom is already American.
And was actually a sweet, kind character that through sheer goodness convinced white people, including his murderers, to reject slavery and prejudice.
That will not be Clarance Thomas's story.
I commented that based on the slurs of him from the black community. I do not know the full story but shared it based on what I hear from my black friends. It was explained to me that he was a bad dude that sold out other black people. Similar to Uncle Rukus in The Boondocks.
With that context, I meant it as there is the black uncle tom that sold out other black people and now we have American uncle tom selling out America.
It was the top-selling fictional book of the 19th Century (and second-best period - behind only the Bible), and many of the black characters nece the stereotypes of black characters seen in media even today. Mammy, black waif child, and Uncle Tom included.
Uncle Tom was meant to be an almost Christ-like figure by Stowe. But in later years people came to view him differently - often due to state plays of the story that changed the story to give Tom a "happy" ending.
Now when people refer to an "Uncle Tom" they're referring to a black man who not only allows himself to be mistreated, but actually loves his masters. Someone whose subservience and loyalty amounts to complicity with the mistreatment of himself and others.
In the book, he is kind and peaceful, and the entire books has a theme of goodness prevailing over violence.
The slave hunter sent after Eliza and her family shot in the book, and instead of letting him die they take him to a Quaker community that helps him recover. Through the kindness shown by the escaped slaves and the Quakers he learns to understand what goodness is, rejects slavery and prejudice, and helps the escaped slaves flee to Canada.
Tom's kindness inspires a slave-owning family to reject slavery and prejudice (2 different evils addressed by the book). His tragedy is that the sister of his owner that intended to free him sells him off to Simon Legree - the most purely-evil slave master in the book.
Tom is later mortally beaten, but forgives those who are killing him (it's not subtle at all about the comparison to Christ), and afterwards the men who did it once again reject slavery.
But later adaptations, especially plays and "anti-Tom" literature paint him as an obedient, happy slave that is perfectly content to be abused and watch other be abused. That combined with readers confusing peace and kindness with embracing evil has lead to a tragic misinterpretation of a character meant to outrage people and put a magnifying lens on the evils of slavery.
And it worked. Legend says that when Harriet Beecher Stowe met President Lincoln in 1862, he said "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war."
I enjoyed reading this write. Thank you for sharing.
Why does this remind me of some sovereign citizen bullshit?
I do not stand under.
SovCit thinking is basically being a really bad lawyer.
I'm fully expecting Trump's F-tier lawyers to start making claims about flags and tassle colors.
Sovereign citizens aren't just being bad lawyers. They truly believe that the legal system is a world of magic where saying the exact right phrase will create nonsensical effects. The canadian judge that eviscerated their entire thinking did a really good job of showing how skewed their paradigm is.
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.
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.
If only things like this mattered in this reality.
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?
Certainly doesn't apply to the "secure in their home and persons" part when it comes to limiting police.
Yes, it does.
The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.
This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.
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.
I thought it was absurd when they claimed it in an interview. To actually argue it in court is just. Fucking lmao
Absolutely deranged reading tbh.
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.
being locked in stocks while fulfilling the punishment would be the cruelty part
I’m totally down for locking Trump in stocks on the National Mall as part of his punishment. Sounds like a good idea.
Ah, but see, the word ‘support’ is not explicitly in there so ch-ch-cha! Pocket sand!
From all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But what if the enemy is the one swearing th oath?
Its one of those 'If not one then the other' things.
If you aren't foreign, you are domestic.
If you aren't domestic, you are foreign.
There are dual citizens, in which case the enemy is foreign and domestic.
"For the 'right' people"
-D. J. D. (In his head)
Edit: "Not the poors, the stupid losers"
Again, D. J. D. (Out loud when talking about the military or working people)
“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.”
I hope he has more success arguing semantics with the prison gang leaders.
Even if he went to prison, he's not going to be hanging out with gang members of any kind, except for prison guards.
Can't wait to see him get a tear drop tat.
Yeah, but a hollow one. He's taken enough from others... It's time for him to experience loss in droves
I hope his prison wardens give him pants that don't support adult diapers.
I wish nothing but the wettest socks for the rest of his days.
I want him to be given a phone, but have the only Internet to be a sporadic one that you can only get when you climb atop the toilet in the cell and reach WAY out to the point that you almost fall down.
Remind me. How good is Trump's balance again?
Whoah whoah whoah... oh wait, it's ok in this one case.
He shall be followed for the rest of is life by a mexican ( to remember him about the wall ) who only job would be to throw lego under is feet when he don't have shoes on
Given the oath an elected official needs to swear, you'd think this would invalidate him for even trying to get elected.
But we know the normal rules don't seem to matter any more.
If only he had murdered a bunch of small children instead then Republicans might have cared about the Constitution part.
I think you mean fetuses. Republicans don't care about children after they're outside of a uterus.
What the shit is going on with your username?
This is a work of fiction; any resemblance to the names of actual substances, whether real or fantastic, is purely coincidental.
Not if he did it with a gun. Or they were already born. That's where they draw the line.
They were already born they're politically useless now.
As long as they were non white children, they would have applauded.
They'd call them thugs in the press and then argue the definition of "children"
Everything he did just became the new norm for the GOP to defend. If he had done even worse, it wouldn’t have made him cross a line with the GOP, it just would have normalized even worse actions.
Give him time.
Republicans don't care about children
His only duty is to Putin, and himself.
In that order.
I’m sorry, fucking what now?
That’s the nation’s constitutionalists’ preferred candidate, everyone, nothing wrong here.
Never argue with them on the basis of their claims - protecting America, balancing the budget, saving the children. Those are never good faith arguments, they’re just appeals to feelings.
Instead argue with them on what they actually do.
the nation’s constitutionalists’
Just like everything else they claim, that's a blatant lie.
Gaslight Obstruct/Obfuscate Project
GOP
GOOP?! Get the fuck out of here, Gweneth!!!
No he is not. Generally "Constitutionalists" would be those who believe in freedom and liberty for all, which is more like the Libertarians than Republicans. You will find very little support for Trump with them.
I would argue that “Constitutionalists” (with the quotes) are the people I’m talking about, as opposed to actual Constitutionalists. But yes, we agree. I’m honestly not certain if people read the snark in my original reply or not.
So I guess that's basically an admission that he violated his oath.
Legally, it's a fine distinction. What his attorneys are arguing appears to be that, even if he did commit insurrection, the law in question doesn't apply to the office of the president and, thus, not to Trump. On the surface, the logic is sound: Law applies if conditions are met; conditions were not met, therefore law does not apply.
The problem for Trump is that the law does apply,^1 so he should face the consequences.
If I had access to Westlaw or LexisNexis, I'd be interested to look into the caselaw. My concern is that the argument for specific word choice (i.e. "support" was specifically used instead of "preserve, protect, defend") isn't without some merit. I'm just glad he can never seem to hire competent attorneys. I'm hoping for a long, long, lonely life behind bars for his retirement years. (Though I know this isn't one of his criminal cases.)
1- Assuming, of course, there remains any justice left in the US system. Unfortunately not a small assumption these days.
a fine distinction
So dapper. ❤️
And isn't illegible to run for any office ever again.
Traitor
He's right, cuz he had his fingers crossed while he was being sworn in. 🤞
Look at that fucking baboon. Look at that orange shit on his face. It’s gonna be hilarious to see this traitor cunt without his makeup. His pallid countenance contrasting sharply with his prison jumpsuit.
Not just without his makeup... Also without his hair piece, Adderall, weird combover, weird oversized suit to hide his diapers, ridiculous long tie, girdle, Adderall, spanx, shoes with high heels and lifts inside, Adderall, teleprompter, ozempic, carefully prescribed camera angles to not show his gut/baldspot/chin vulva, Adderall, doctor to lie about his weight/health and his regular mcfishy deluxe diet.
And he also won't have anymore Adderall.
I can't wait until he won't have anymore Adderall™
Don't insult baboons like that.
Trump screeching the quiet part out loud
Wow, what a patriot!
/s just in case
Well, ya know who does have a duty to support the constitution? Literally everyone in the military.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. - Oath of Enlistment
I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. - Oath of Commissioned Officers
Notice that they both specify "all enemies, foreign and domestic".
Every service member that's had the opportunity to engage Trump the same way they do any other enemy to US, and chosen not to do so, has violated their oath.
There's about a dozen layers of nuance that need to be addressed before we advocate for all million or so military members to rise up against presidents (or congressional representatives, or judiciaries, or...)
The first of which is the definition of "enemy."
It's a huge fucking stretch to expect individual soldiers to be able to declare who is or is not an enemy when you're not under imminent danger or protecting any critical assets. Supervising officers largely do not make that decision, as they're focused on a specific near-term tasking set. Unit commanders largely do not make that decision, as they're focused on meshing tactical warfare requirements with the administrative and logistical burdens needed for a competent force. Even combatant commanders largely do not make that decision, as they fight for resources and posture their chess pieces to be able to respond in SHTF situations. The same way we do not expect US Naval ships facing harassment from Iranian rocket boats on a daily basis to decide that "today's the day" and start a war with Iran is how important this distinction is and why it's not an easy ask.
The military needs an actual order, coming from some combination of the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council in order to define enemies and engage in combat. Congress (should) officially declare enemies of the United States. There is some current debate on if the US needs to officially declare "enemies" in order to add gravity to some charges like treason, but my understanding is that China is no more an enemy of the US than Russia is. Another way of saying that is the US might not be friendly towards some, but is not willing to declare those countries as explicit enemies. It's hard to perform effective diplomacy with another entity if you've already announced that you cannot coexist peacefully.
Thus, expecting the military to rise up against a president is expecting them to jump every level in the chain of command and take on the impossible decision of deciding what's in the United States' best interest themselves. I think that's generally considered a shitty take.
Agreed, with literally everything you said. The 'shoulds' and expectations for our military as a whole don't really give way to what the oaths imply; but focusing specifically on the oaths, I stand by my earlier comment.
I was active duty enlisted when Trump took office, and his traitorous behavior became more glaring to me (and, y'know, the rest of the world) every time he opened his mouth. Found myself thinking about the oath a lot, in that for enlisted, Trump represented a paradox. Officially or not, he made himself a domestic threat to the constitution - the ONLY threat addressed specifically by the oath I had taken; but in the very next line, we swore to obey the orders of... the domestic threat to the constitution.
More of a thought experiment than anything else - I was a medic, that hypothetical was never going to be put to test for me lol.
But then I'd see footage of Trump hobbling past some Marine to descend a stair case or something, and I'd look at that Marine just standing there as he passed, and think "You fucking coward."
Not to say I'd have the balls to do any different - I wouldn't be too keen on getting shot by secret service, or spending the rest of my life in prison either; but still, failing to act in that situation is a violation of the oath.
For what it's worth, joining the military and serving contributes more to society than you probably think. The fact that you and your peers are able to have these discussions while performing your duties speaks volumes to how much the US military has improved over generations past. I have no doubts that any blatantly unlawful or unconstitutional orders coming down from the president wouldn't be met with pushback.
Yeah, people always talk about civil war 2.0 situations like "you think your six shooter is going to do shit against an air strike?!" like it would just unilaterally be the military + 'loyalists' vs the odd liberal that got lost one day and wandered into a gun store.
The military does lean red, but overall we're varied like any other slice of society. It's not going to be some "execute order 66!" situation with a bunch of stormtroopers just suddenly gunning down the people they work for/with.
Even in basic training they put a lot of emphasis on following LEGAL orders: had a class segment on the Nuremberg trials; showcased Hugh Thompson Jr. as a positive example of what to do when faced with illegal situations; shit like that. Contrary to popular media, the military does NOT want its troops to be a bunch of mindless drones.
It's also an appealing career field to violent sociopaths who struggle with things like obtaining a GED, so, y'know... grain of salt. Oh whoops, I already said it leans red - pardon the redundancy.
It is not only the military who takes the oath to support the Constitution and defend it against all enemies. It's generally most Federal employees. I took the oath as a requirement for one of my former jobs too and I'm not military. I was proud to take that oath and I still uphold it for life.
This is like cops saying they no obligation to serve and protect.
Unfortunately, that statement has been successfully argued in court.
Besides what @0110010001100010@lemmy.world pointed out,
"To Protect and to Serve" is just a motto, specifically the LAPD's (and other forces have also adopted this). Police aren't public protectors, their job is just to enforce the law (and a lot struggle with that).
must've ran out of spaghetti to throw at the wall, and this is what is left.
I believe that he's telling the truth in so far as he believes that he didn't need to support or even abide by the Constitution as President. He was fond of claiming that "Article 2" gave him the ability to do anything he wanted.
The US Constitution and Donald Trump are mutual enemies.
And he would like to be in charge of the country again.
He says a lot of things.
He has the best words.
Bigly Covfefe!
Bruh…
Off with his head!
In other news, water is wet.
Bear with me for a minute: why should the Constitution be an immutable document? It was written hundreds of years ago by slave-owners coming off of countless years of British oppression.
It would be like if Palestine gained independence, Hamas wrote a constitution, and every government for centuries afterwards followed that constitution.
It isn't immutable. There are already 27 amendments.
What are you actually arguing in relation to the subject of this post?
Your post feels odd... like a drunk driver killed a kid and then you came in here and said, "now hear me out, the person was 13 years old, does that actually qualify as a kid?"
Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. We may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous. He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that - do not listen.
Children of America: You are not stupid. Don't let them continue to treat you like you are.
If it helps to understand. I am from a red state. Stand your ground.
What would help is not speaking in analogies and fables. Unless your people understand your code, then by all means...
"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 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?
We are long past the point where power and wealth buys better legal outcomes as evidenced by how few rich and powerful people over the last half century have spent any time in prison for their crimes compared to people with neither wealth nor power.
Imprisoning poor people.
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.
Did he really preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution on January 6th though? (Spoiler alert: he didn't). Perhaps that is the better question here than this semantics argument.
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?
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
I'm sure the righter part of the SC will find a reason :|
Yeah I think the difference here is outcomes vs intentions (consequentialism vs virtue theory, if you want to be exact about ethics). Trump could support the constitution through his actions, but communicate his intentions otherwise: and vice versa.
Yes we do.
But he is just playing a game. Semantics.
Still not going to acknowledge you are wrong?
Sure, I had no clue that the military oath included "support."
Would be a stretch to say that article II of the Constitution was only intended to apply to the military.
Here is what you said with confidence:
“But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. “
Then you ignored several people who pointed out that you were wrong.
Then you responded that you had no clue.
Why are you spouting off with zero knowledge?
Are you even American?
that is the exact kind of loophole that gives conservative judges the cover they need to be terrible human beings.
“The best of his ability” is the loophole he should have exploited.
It’s a lot more believable.
That'd be my defense!
Like, I can understand thinking my ability exceeds my performance, but I think that might just be a simple overestimation of my ability
I've taken a couple oaths to the US government...
I dont remember any of them saying "support the constitution"
So by their logic, this effects no one.
Maybe he'll argue that it just means the physical written constitution itself.
"The constitution is a piece of paper in a box, okay? I defended it"
The text of the section they are challenging (emphasis added):
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."?
"I crossed my fingers when I took the oath of office so it didn't count. Also, I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever 14th Amendment you throw bounces off of me and sticks to you!"
-Trump's next legal arguments..
Unfortunately, I think it is "while I do not admit to starting a rebellion, whether I did or not is immaterial because 'preserve, protect, and defend' definitely doesn't include 'support'"
He only needs to convince 5 Supreme Court justices.
Yes, that's what they're arguing.
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.
America's Uncle Tom.
Uncle Tom is already American.
And was actually a sweet, kind character that through sheer goodness convinced white people, including his murderers, to reject slavery and prejudice.
That will not be Clarance Thomas's story.
I commented that based on the slurs of him from the black community. I do not know the full story but shared it based on what I hear from my black friends. It was explained to me that he was a bad dude that sold out other black people. Similar to Uncle Rukus in The Boondocks.
With that context, I meant it as there is the black uncle tom that sold out other black people and now we have American uncle tom selling out America.
It was the top-selling fictional book of the 19th Century (and second-best period - behind only the Bible), and many of the black characters nece the stereotypes of black characters seen in media even today. Mammy, black waif child, and Uncle Tom included.
Uncle Tom was meant to be an almost Christ-like figure by Stowe. But in later years people came to view him differently - often due to state plays of the story that changed the story to give Tom a "happy" ending.
Now when people refer to an "Uncle Tom" they're referring to a black man who not only allows himself to be mistreated, but actually loves his masters. Someone whose subservience and loyalty amounts to complicity with the mistreatment of himself and others.
In the book, he is kind and peaceful, and the entire books has a theme of goodness prevailing over violence.
The slave hunter sent after Eliza and her family shot in the book, and instead of letting him die they take him to a Quaker community that helps him recover. Through the kindness shown by the escaped slaves and the Quakers he learns to understand what goodness is, rejects slavery and prejudice, and helps the escaped slaves flee to Canada.
Tom's kindness inspires a slave-owning family to reject slavery and prejudice (2 different evils addressed by the book). His tragedy is that the sister of his owner that intended to free him sells him off to Simon Legree - the most purely-evil slave master in the book.
Tom is later mortally beaten, but forgives those who are killing him (it's not subtle at all about the comparison to Christ), and afterwards the men who did it once again reject slavery.
But later adaptations, especially plays and "anti-Tom" literature paint him as an obedient, happy slave that is perfectly content to be abused and watch other be abused. That combined with readers confusing peace and kindness with embracing evil has lead to a tragic misinterpretation of a character meant to outrage people and put a magnifying lens on the evils of slavery.
And it worked. Legend says that when Harriet Beecher Stowe met President Lincoln in 1862, he said "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war."
I enjoyed reading this write. Thank you for sharing.
Why does this remind me of some sovereign citizen bullshit?
I do not stand under.
SovCit thinking is basically being a really bad lawyer.
I'm fully expecting Trump's F-tier lawyers to start making claims about flags and tassle colors.
Sovereign citizens aren't just being bad lawyers. They truly believe that the legal system is a world of magic where saying the exact right phrase will create nonsensical effects. The canadian judge that eviscerated their entire thinking did a really good job of showing how skewed their paradigm is.
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:
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.
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.
If only things like this mattered in this reality.
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?
Certainly doesn't apply to the "secure in their home and persons" part when it comes to limiting police.
Yes, it does.
The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.
This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.
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.
I thought it was absurd when they claimed it in an interview. To actually argue it in court is just. Fucking lmao
Absolutely deranged reading tbh.
Unusual on its own IS fine, and happens fairly regularly.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/news/2017/03/28/as-punishment-judge-orders-defendants-to-hold-poster-with-crime-committed
Just wondering what kind of cruelty would have to be added to this unusual punishment to qualify as illegal.
being locked in stocks while fulfilling the punishment would be the cruelty part
I’m totally down for locking Trump in stocks on the National Mall as part of his punishment. Sounds like a good idea.
Ah, but see, the word ‘support’ is not explicitly in there so ch-ch-cha! Pocket sand!
From all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But what if the enemy is the one swearing th oath?
Its one of those 'If not one then the other' things.
If you aren't foreign, you are domestic. If you aren't domestic, you are foreign.
There are dual citizens, in which case the enemy is foreign and domestic.
"For the 'right' people"
-D. J. D. (In his head)
Edit: "Not the poors, the stupid losers"
Again, D. J. D. (Out loud when talking about the military or working people)
― Jean-Paul Sartre
I hope he has more success arguing semantics with the prison gang leaders.
Even if he went to prison, he's not going to be hanging out with gang members of any kind, except for prison guards.
Can't wait to see him get a tear drop tat.
Yeah, but a hollow one. He's taken enough from others... It's time for him to experience loss in droves
I hope his prison wardens give him pants that don't support adult diapers.
I wish nothing but the wettest socks for the rest of his days.
I want him to be given a phone, but have the only Internet to be a sporadic one that you can only get when you climb atop the toilet in the cell and reach WAY out to the point that you almost fall down.
Remind me. How good is Trump's balance again?
Whoah whoah whoah... oh wait, it's ok in this one case.
He shall be followed for the rest of is life by a mexican ( to remember him about the wall ) who only job would be to throw lego under is feet when he don't have shoes on
Given the oath an elected official needs to swear, you'd think this would invalidate him for even trying to get elected.
But we know the normal rules don't seem to matter any more.
If only he had murdered a bunch of small children instead then Republicans might have cared about the Constitution part.
I think you mean fetuses. Republicans don't care about children after they're outside of a uterus.
What the shit is going on with your username?
This is a work of fiction; any resemblance to the names of actual substances, whether real or fantastic, is purely coincidental.
Not if he did it with a gun. Or they were already born. That's where they draw the line.
They were already born they're politically useless now.
As long as they were non white children, they would have applauded.
They'd call them thugs in the press and then argue the definition of "children"
Everything he did just became the new norm for the GOP to defend. If he had done even worse, it wouldn’t have made him cross a line with the GOP, it just would have normalized even worse actions.
Give him time.
Republicans don't care about children
His only duty is to Putin, and himself.
In that order.
I’m sorry, fucking what now?
That’s the nation’s constitutionalists’ preferred candidate, everyone, nothing wrong here.
Never argue with them on the basis of their claims - protecting America, balancing the budget, saving the children. Those are never good faith arguments, they’re just appeals to feelings.
Instead argue with them on what they actually do.
Just like everything else they claim, that's a blatant lie.
Gaslight Obstruct/Obfuscate Project
GOP
GOOP?! Get the fuck out of here, Gweneth!!!
No he is not. Generally "Constitutionalists" would be those who believe in freedom and liberty for all, which is more like the Libertarians than Republicans. You will find very little support for Trump with them.
I would argue that “Constitutionalists” (with the quotes) are the people I’m talking about, as opposed to actual Constitutionalists. But yes, we agree. I’m honestly not certain if people read the snark in my original reply or not.
The insanity of this mf
So I guess that's basically an admission that he violated his oath.
Legally, it's a fine distinction. What his attorneys are arguing appears to be that, even if he did commit insurrection, the law in question doesn't apply to the office of the president and, thus, not to Trump. On the surface, the logic is sound: Law applies if conditions are met; conditions were not met, therefore law does not apply.
The problem for Trump is that the law does apply,^1 so he should face the consequences.
If I had access to Westlaw or LexisNexis, I'd be interested to look into the caselaw. My concern is that the argument for specific word choice (i.e. "support" was specifically used instead of "preserve, protect, defend") isn't without some merit. I'm just glad he can never seem to hire competent attorneys. I'm hoping for a long, long, lonely life behind bars for his retirement years. (Though I know this isn't one of his criminal cases.)
1- Assuming, of course, there remains any justice left in the US system. Unfortunately not a small assumption these days.
So dapper. ❤️
And isn't illegible to run for any office ever again.
Traitor
He's right, cuz he had his fingers crossed while he was being sworn in. 🤞
Look at that fucking baboon. Look at that orange shit on his face. It’s gonna be hilarious to see this traitor cunt without his makeup. His pallid countenance contrasting sharply with his prison jumpsuit.
Not just without his makeup... Also without his hair piece, Adderall, weird combover, weird oversized suit to hide his diapers, ridiculous long tie, girdle, Adderall, spanx, shoes with high heels and lifts inside, Adderall, teleprompter, ozempic, carefully prescribed camera angles to not show his gut/baldspot/chin vulva, Adderall, doctor to lie about his weight/health and his regular mcfishy deluxe diet.
And he also won't have anymore Adderall.
I can't wait until he won't have anymore Adderall™
Don't insult baboons like that.
Trump screeching the quiet part out loud
Wow, what a patriot!
/s just in case
Well, ya know who does have a duty to support the constitution? Literally everyone in the military.
Notice that they both specify "all enemies, foreign and domestic".
Every service member that's had the opportunity to engage Trump the same way they do any other enemy to US, and chosen not to do so, has violated their oath.
There's about a dozen layers of nuance that need to be addressed before we advocate for all million or so military members to rise up against presidents (or congressional representatives, or judiciaries, or...)
The first of which is the definition of "enemy."
It's a huge fucking stretch to expect individual soldiers to be able to declare who is or is not an enemy when you're not under imminent danger or protecting any critical assets. Supervising officers largely do not make that decision, as they're focused on a specific near-term tasking set. Unit commanders largely do not make that decision, as they're focused on meshing tactical warfare requirements with the administrative and logistical burdens needed for a competent force. Even combatant commanders largely do not make that decision, as they fight for resources and posture their chess pieces to be able to respond in SHTF situations. The same way we do not expect US Naval ships facing harassment from Iranian rocket boats on a daily basis to decide that "today's the day" and start a war with Iran is how important this distinction is and why it's not an easy ask.
The military needs an actual order, coming from some combination of the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council in order to define enemies and engage in combat. Congress (should) officially declare enemies of the United States. There is some current debate on if the US needs to officially declare "enemies" in order to add gravity to some charges like treason, but my understanding is that China is no more an enemy of the US than Russia is. Another way of saying that is the US might not be friendly towards some, but is not willing to declare those countries as explicit enemies. It's hard to perform effective diplomacy with another entity if you've already announced that you cannot coexist peacefully.
Thus, expecting the military to rise up against a president is expecting them to jump every level in the chain of command and take on the impossible decision of deciding what's in the United States' best interest themselves. I think that's generally considered a shitty take.
Agreed, with literally everything you said. The 'shoulds' and expectations for our military as a whole don't really give way to what the oaths imply; but focusing specifically on the oaths, I stand by my earlier comment.
I was active duty enlisted when Trump took office, and his traitorous behavior became more glaring to me (and, y'know, the rest of the world) every time he opened his mouth. Found myself thinking about the oath a lot, in that for enlisted, Trump represented a paradox. Officially or not, he made himself a domestic threat to the constitution - the ONLY threat addressed specifically by the oath I had taken; but in the very next line, we swore to obey the orders of... the domestic threat to the constitution.
More of a thought experiment than anything else - I was a medic, that hypothetical was never going to be put to test for me lol.
But then I'd see footage of Trump hobbling past some Marine to descend a stair case or something, and I'd look at that Marine just standing there as he passed, and think "You fucking coward."
Not to say I'd have the balls to do any different - I wouldn't be too keen on getting shot by secret service, or spending the rest of my life in prison either; but still, failing to act in that situation is a violation of the oath.
For what it's worth, joining the military and serving contributes more to society than you probably think. The fact that you and your peers are able to have these discussions while performing your duties speaks volumes to how much the US military has improved over generations past. I have no doubts that any blatantly unlawful or unconstitutional orders coming down from the president wouldn't be met with pushback.
Yeah, people always talk about civil war 2.0 situations like "you think your six shooter is going to do shit against an air strike?!" like it would just unilaterally be the military + 'loyalists' vs the odd liberal that got lost one day and wandered into a gun store.
The military does lean red, but overall we're varied like any other slice of society. It's not going to be some "execute order 66!" situation with a bunch of stormtroopers just suddenly gunning down the people they work for/with.
Even in basic training they put a lot of emphasis on following LEGAL orders: had a class segment on the Nuremberg trials; showcased Hugh Thompson Jr. as a positive example of what to do when faced with illegal situations; shit like that. Contrary to popular media, the military does NOT want its troops to be a bunch of mindless drones.
It's also an appealing career field to violent sociopaths who struggle with things like obtaining a GED, so, y'know... grain of salt. Oh whoops, I already said it leans red - pardon the redundancy.
It is not only the military who takes the oath to support the Constitution and defend it against all enemies. It's generally most Federal employees. I took the oath as a requirement for one of my former jobs too and I'm not military. I was proud to take that oath and I still uphold it for life.
This is like cops saying they no obligation to serve and protect.
Unfortunately, that statement has been successfully argued in court.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
This is actually nothing like that.
Besides what @0110010001100010@lemmy.world pointed out, "To Protect and to Serve" is just a motto, specifically the LAPD's (and other forces have also adopted this). Police aren't public protectors, their job is just to enforce the law (and a lot struggle with that).
must've ran out of spaghetti to throw at the wall, and this is what is left.
I believe that he's telling the truth in so far as he believes that he didn't need to support or even abide by the Constitution as President. He was fond of claiming that "Article 2" gave him the ability to do anything he wanted.
The US Constitution and Donald Trump are mutual enemies.
And he would like to be in charge of the country again.
He says a lot of things.
He has the best words.
Bigly Covfefe!
Bruh…
Off with his head!
In other news, water is wet.
Bear with me for a minute: why should the Constitution be an immutable document? It was written hundreds of years ago by slave-owners coming off of countless years of British oppression.
It would be like if Palestine gained independence, Hamas wrote a constitution, and every government for centuries afterwards followed that constitution.
It isn't immutable. There are already 27 amendments.
What are you actually arguing in relation to the subject of this post?
Your post feels odd... like a drunk driver killed a kid and then you came in here and said, "now hear me out, the person was 13 years old, does that actually qualify as a kid?"
Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. We may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous. He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that - do not listen.
Children of America: You are not stupid. Don't let them continue to treat you like you are.
If it helps to understand. I am from a red state. Stand your ground.
What would help is not speaking in analogies and fables. Unless your people understand your code, then by all means...