• SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    They are arguing that the oath doesn’t include the word “support” not that he didn’t take the oath. Not saying it’s a good argument but that’s what they are actually arguing.

    “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.”

    Emphasis mine.

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I wonder what their definition of “support” is and how they plan on using that as a defense.

      • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Or what their definition of “defend” is, and how they plan to use that as support.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Looks like the founding fathers fucked up, and the writers of the 14th amendment didn’t catch it.

        The oaths of office for the Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court, and all civil and military offices except the presidency include the requirement to “support” the constitution. Even the vice presidency requires it, but the presidency does not.

        I don’t think this distinction is particularly relevant. I don’t think the “previously swore an oath” requirement is particularly relevant. The “insurrection” part should disqualify him, and the Colorado judge ruled that he did, in fact, commit insurrection.

        I am curious whether he ever made a campaign speech or other public statement about the constitution, and used the word “support”.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          “I am curious whether he ever made a campaign speech or other public statement about the constitution, and used the word “support”.”

          Knowing him it was probably more like “I love our Beautiful Constitution™ really, very good stuff, Great Constitution. I would touch that Constitution, you know they let you when you’re famous, that Constitution is the best they say, the best Constitution in the world (I don’t support it) the Democrats though, they want to take Our Beautiful Constitution™ and make it Communism! Venezuela and eating rats! It’s what Disgusting Democrats love to do. Anyway, such a Beautiful Constitution, really the best, maybe the best of all time they say. Never supported it though.”

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            I just thought of something. Every officer of the US except the president is obligated to take an oath to support the constitution. 5 USC §3331

            Read the 14th amendment again:

            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.

            Trump was found to be an insurrectionist.

            Every member of the electoral college is obligated to take an oath to support the constitution. Any of them providing “aid and comfort” to insurrectionist Trump is barred from serving as an elector. They can’t cast a vote for Trump, because doing so would be giving him “aid or comfort”.

            So even if Trump can’t be barred from service, all of his electors can be. With no members of the electoral college able to vote for him, he can’t be elected.

            By the same argument, if he is elected, any state or federal civil or military officer who follows his orders would be giving “aid or comfort”, immediately disqualifying themself from their position.

            • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Just you wait and see. Bet everything I know on it. Come November every trumpet will be tooting, “it was just a little insurrection.”

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      11 months ago

      The judge also found that the “Office of President of the United States” was not an office of the United States… so yeah…

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        “Elector of the President or Vice President” is an office. Even if this ruling means that Trump himself can’t be disqualified from running, his electors (as in: the electoral college) can be disqualified for providing “aid or comfort” to an insurrectionist by voting for him.

        • jballs@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yeah it’s pretty wild. Someone else linked the full ruling below, but the relevant parts are:

          1. The Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the Presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification. The disqualified offices enumerated are presented in descending order starting with the highest levels of the federal government and descending downwards. It starts with “Senator or Representatives in Congress,” then lists “electors of President and Vice President,” and then ends with the catchall phrase of “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 3.

          Edit: Starting on page 95 of this doc if you want to read it yourself: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023 Final Order.pdf

          • jrburkh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I despise Trump and think he absolutely should be disqualified from holding office (including the presidency) - AT A MINIMUM. I’m also far more a “spirit of the law” advocate than “letter of the law”. With that said, the findings of the judge are perfectly reasonable in full context. The letter of the law clearly omits in its enumerations the office of the presidency. For this to have been merely a mistake would be so monumental an oversight as to make it highly unlikely. If there had been no listing of included offices, then the catch-all portion of that language would perhaps inarguably include the presidency (because of course it SHOULD be included). Thus, this omission also strikes at the spirit of the law. What the judge is saying is that the fact this list is included, yet fails to include so obvious an office one would imagine should be included (the presidency), indicates - absent compelling evidence to the contrary - that the Founders intended it to be omitted. In other words, absent said evidence, neither the letter of the law nor the spirit of the law suggest the presidency was meant to be included.

            This is a circumstance in which I would argue the judge ain’t wrong and if we’re not happy with that, then the law needs to be changed.

            • jballs@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I see your point, but can’t help thinking this from a layman’s perspective. If I were going out of town for the weekend and left a note for my kids that said “While I’m away, no keggers, ragers or any other types of parties at the house.” Then I come back to find out they held a massive rave that destroyed my house, and they say “obviously a rave wasn’t included when you said any other types of parties. A rave is bigger than a kegger or a rager.” I would be more than a bit upset.