The bizarre legal defence, put forward by the former president’s attorneys, comes in response to a suit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which seeks to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment.
>The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,” said the filing, obtained by news outlet Law and Crime.
Fuck the Constitution! I’m the leading candidate for the party of law and order!
Eat my ass and let me do anything with no consequence…for freedom!
>preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
But not ‘support’, ffs? Don’t know how you do the former without the latter. Just some more semantic bullshit from a known liar.
Well this isn’t going to work. Time to move on to plan Z.
“It was just a prank, bro!”
Nobody with any humanity or intelligence could support this fool.
This is how you know that he knows how fucked he is.
Not surprising. Textualism is nothing but an excuse by the right to be able to ignore laws when they find them inconvenient.
He accepted a federal pay check! Hang the treasonous bastard! After a speed trial first!
He’s stuck in an endless loop of the narcissist’s prayer.
>That didn’t happen.
>And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
>And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
>And if it is, that’s not my fault.
>And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
>And if I did, you deserved it.
Arguing the legal definition of betraying an oath of office that is in large part on the honor system.
In many ways, I’d guess that says quite a bit about whether the oath was taken in good faith to begin with.
He just had to swear he would. He didn’t have to actually do it.
Additionally – Trump claims that he had his fingers crossed while swearing the oath, thereby invalidating it.
Based on this alone, Trump would have been on the side of King George during the revolution
So another lie. He swore on the bible during his interrogation with no intention of honouring any of it. Yet all the evangelical Christians think he’s the 2nd coming. That shows just what kind of “Christians “ they really are.
>‘The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,’ read a filing from the former president’s attorneys…”Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to ‘support’ the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President.
If we’re going to interpret the Constitution under strict constructionism then oh boy are we in for a ride. No judge is going to take this argument seriously.
This is the defense of a 4th grader, and not a very smart one.
This is like the stupidity with “send them a check with a small payment but write paid in full on the memo line. If they cash it, you don’t owe them any more money!”
TIL “support” doesn’t mean “defend” or “protect”….
Why do lawyers work for this schmuck?
>A clause of the amendment, which passed into the Constitution in 1868, bans those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate.
>Mr Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the phrasing of the clause – section three – does not apply to all officers of the United States, “but only those who take an oath ‘to support the US Constitution’”.
>“The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,” said the filing, obtained by news outlet Law and Crime.
Watching republicans split hairs on defending the constitution vs supporting the constitution is going to be maddening and hysterical.
I don’t like it when the people in power start trying to make up rules for a game like they’re 5 and on the playground.
This semantics bullshit is an argument made in bad faith.
“I am above the law.”
Full stop.
It’s crazy how under Trump, lawyers are reduced to finding loopholes or gray areas in the Constitution or related legal texts in order to sow doubt on the intent of the framers.
Is it just me, or does it look like every time trump says anything or writes anything it is more outlandish and obscure than the day before?
It doesn’t matter if that he didn’t use the word “Support” in his oath of office. The “support” is baked into the requirement for the job via the constitutional 14th amendment.
Did a quick scan of the oaths for VP and congress. All have the word “support” specifically in them. Did a bit more digging, and the presidential oath is the first to be statutorily defined. “Preserve, protect and defend” appears to be inclusive of “support and defend”. “Preserve and protect” is even stronger, and *assumes* inclusion of “support.”
Sadly, this Supreme Court is compromised, so it will be interesting to watch it play out.
So Trump is admitting that any oath he takes to defend the Constitution is meaningless, this alone should automatically disqualify him from ever holding office again.
Why is the Oath administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then?
Is this kinda like how cops have no obligation to “protect and serve”? Is that the angle?
For people accustomed to reinterpreting the Bible as needed to fit their politics, redefining the Constitution is small potatoes.
Pray tell, how does one “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution WITHOUT supporting it?
The USA has less than 5 years of democracy if the gop, white supremacy, Christian right, and all the other fascist take power, unless those who believe in true democracy defend and vote true
>Mr Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the phrasing of the clause – section three – does not apply to all officers of the United States, “but only those who take an oath ‘to support the US Constitution’”.
“The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,” said the filing, obtained by news outlet Law and Crime.
Wow, just wow!
Seems like a great candidate for president. Doesn’t care about the US constitution. Great choice repubs.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and just say Fuck this POS
It’s nice to see “patriots” stand behind this fool. No Republican is a patriot to the United States. They have all sworn their allegiance to Cheeto. They call everyone else traitors which I guess we are when we don’t bow down to their supreme leader. I plead he my allegiance to the United States of America. Fatty mccheeto can go fuck himself.
37 comments
The bizarre legal defence, put forward by the former president’s attorneys, comes in response to a suit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which seeks to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment.
Read the full story here: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-consitution-legal-b2428941.html
Wow…just wow…
He swore an oath in front of “millions”
Yeah… he’s going to prison for sure.
>The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,” said the filing, obtained by news outlet Law and Crime.
Fuck the Constitution! I’m the leading candidate for the party of law and order!
Eat my ass and let me do anything with no consequence…for freedom!
>preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
But not ‘support’, ffs? Don’t know how you do the former without the latter. Just some more semantic bullshit from a known liar.
Well this isn’t going to work. Time to move on to plan Z.
“It was just a prank, bro!”
Nobody with any humanity or intelligence could support this fool.
This is how you know that he knows how fucked he is.
Not surprising. Textualism is nothing but an excuse by the right to be able to ignore laws when they find them inconvenient.
He accepted a federal pay check! Hang the treasonous bastard! After a speed trial first!
He’s stuck in an endless loop of the narcissist’s prayer.
>That didn’t happen.
>And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
>And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
>And if it is, that’s not my fault.
>And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
>And if I did, you deserved it.
Arguing the legal definition of betraying an oath of office that is in large part on the honor system.
In many ways, I’d guess that says quite a bit about whether the oath was taken in good faith to begin with.
He just had to swear he would. He didn’t have to actually do it.
Additionally – Trump claims that he had his fingers crossed while swearing the oath, thereby invalidating it.
Based on this alone, Trump would have been on the side of King George during the revolution
So another lie. He swore on the bible during his interrogation with no intention of honouring any of it. Yet all the evangelical Christians think he’s the 2nd coming. That shows just what kind of “Christians “ they really are.
>‘The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,’ read a filing from the former president’s attorneys…”Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to ‘support’ the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President.
If we’re going to interpret the Constitution under strict constructionism then oh boy are we in for a ride. No judge is going to take this argument seriously.
This is the defense of a 4th grader, and not a very smart one.
This is like the stupidity with “send them a check with a small payment but write paid in full on the memo line. If they cash it, you don’t owe them any more money!”
TIL “support” doesn’t mean “defend” or “protect”….
Why do lawyers work for this schmuck?
>A clause of the amendment, which passed into the Constitution in 1868, bans those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate.
>Mr Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the phrasing of the clause – section three – does not apply to all officers of the United States, “but only those who take an oath ‘to support the US Constitution’”.
>“The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,” said the filing, obtained by news outlet Law and Crime.
Watching republicans split hairs on defending the constitution vs supporting the constitution is going to be maddening and hysterical.
I don’t like it when the people in power start trying to make up rules for a game like they’re 5 and on the playground.
This semantics bullshit is an argument made in bad faith.
“I am above the law.”
Full stop.
It’s crazy how under Trump, lawyers are reduced to finding loopholes or gray areas in the Constitution or related legal texts in order to sow doubt on the intent of the framers.
Is it just me, or does it look like every time trump says anything or writes anything it is more outlandish and obscure than the day before?
It doesn’t matter if that he didn’t use the word “Support” in his oath of office. The “support” is baked into the requirement for the job via the constitutional 14th amendment.
Did a quick scan of the oaths for VP and congress. All have the word “support” specifically in them. Did a bit more digging, and the presidential oath is the first to be statutorily defined. “Preserve, protect and defend” appears to be inclusive of “support and defend”. “Preserve and protect” is even stronger, and *assumes* inclusion of “support.”
Sadly, this Supreme Court is compromised, so it will be interesting to watch it play out.
So Trump is admitting that any oath he takes to defend the Constitution is meaningless, this alone should automatically disqualify him from ever holding office again.
Why is the Oath administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then?
Is this kinda like how cops have no obligation to “protect and serve”? Is that the angle?
For people accustomed to reinterpreting the Bible as needed to fit their politics, redefining the Constitution is small potatoes.
Pray tell, how does one “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution WITHOUT supporting it?
The USA has less than 5 years of democracy if the gop, white supremacy, Christian right, and all the other fascist take power, unless those who believe in true democracy defend and vote true
>Mr Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the phrasing of the clause – section three – does not apply to all officers of the United States, “but only those who take an oath ‘to support the US Constitution’”.
“The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,” said the filing, obtained by news outlet Law and Crime.
Wow, just wow!
Seems like a great candidate for president. Doesn’t care about the US constitution. Great choice repubs.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and just say Fuck this POS
It’s nice to see “patriots” stand behind this fool. No Republican is a patriot to the United States. They have all sworn their allegiance to Cheeto. They call everyone else traitors which I guess we are when we don’t bow down to their supreme leader. I plead he my allegiance to the United States of America. Fatty mccheeto can go fuck himself.