Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president

[brooklynite]

Source: Raw Story

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.

The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the amendment prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office without unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve.

But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

"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 by Trump'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."

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-wont-support-constitution/

---

There actually is an argument that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the Presidency:

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 ...

The Amendment specifically references House and Senate but not President. "An officer of the United States" has been interpreted as referring to staff officials.

Needless to say, Trump's lawyers are the curdled cream of the crop.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. To "uphold and defend " the Constitution is the same

As SUPPORTING it.

The argument over wording borders on rediculousness.

[ananda]

16. I know. This is ridiculous to think otherwise.

!!!

[Cha]

61. Yes & typo.. Ridiculous. TY

[PortTack]

77. Sadly those words meant nothing to him...obviously still don't

[Lonestarblue]

2. Could Trump and his lawyers get any more ridiculous?

How is “I swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States” any different from supporting the Constitution? Judges must be getting tired of the Trump errant nonsense.

[usaf-vet]

72. Trump is a proven liar, he is F*****g delusional, and will say anything to save his own neck.

Can't get any clearer than this.

[SouthernDem4ever]

3. Well, causing an insurrection isn't protecting or defending the constitution

what a moron argument.

[ashredux]

4. Good Lord! That's insane. George Orwell was a prophet in his book 1984.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. I have no Constitutional duty to pay the IRS, but you know what? /nt

Last edited Wed Oct 11, 2023, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Tell me how you can "defend" the Constitution without "supporting" it . . . . .

Asshole.

[Freethinker65]

7. Trump sees the word support and thinks it means financially?

Like child support, spousal support/alimony. Trump has lots of experience with "support". Trump, as President, was never required to pay money to the Constitution.

[YDogg]

8. Just when I thought trump couldn't be any more disgusting ...

[Blue Owl]

9. In it just for himself as usual

Fuck that fat fucking fuck

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. tRump basically admitted to attacking the Constitution. You have to support it to preserve it

Quibbling over wording like tRump is arguing is barracks-room lawyer stuff.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. Prof. Tribe and Judge Luttig disgree with this theory/claim

I am predicting that there will be an amicus brief from Prof. Tribe and Judge Luttig on this issue

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ificandream]

12. Jack Smith just rubbed his hands with glee over hearing this.

[Ray Bruns]

81. That's a lot of words for "Trump is a fucking liar."

[iluvtennis]

13. Ludricous. How I despise tfg. n/t

[KY_EnviroGuy]

14. Rethugs never let a little thing like our Constitution get in the way of a good grift or power grab.

Rules and laws for thee but not me 'cuz I'm rich, powerful, and live in a gated neighborhood.......


KY..............

[AllaN01Bear]

15. hogwash.

[moonshinegnomie]

17. his lawyers should be disbarred for idiocy

[LiberalFighter]

18. The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew,

The Framers knew nothing of the 14th Amendment.

[Shermann]

19. I like presidents who DO support the Constitution nt

[ffr]

64. +1

[IronLionZion]

20. "uphold and defend" could mean cut it up into toilet paper

same diff

It was a dangerous time in American history to let that ass be president.

[hlthe2b]

21. Laurence Tribe wrote in detail with another scholar about this being BS. That indeed the President

IS an Officer of the United States. As Commander in Chief, he would HAVE to be in such a position, even if his line is through the Presidency and not the military.

I don't have a searchable Twitter account and am heading to work shortly but perhaps another will take the time to find it. I believe the treatise was published elsewhere as well.

[hlthe2b]

22. Laurence Tribe on why this argument is sheer bullshit:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4198350-does-the-constitution-disqualify-trump-from-running-for-president/

One of these “drive-by claims” is made by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. He makes the strained argument that Trump cannot be disqualified by Section 3 because the president is not an “officer of the United States” because he is elected, not appointed. There is nothing in the language of the 14th Amendment that would support this conclusion.

As Tribe points out: If the precise provision (Article II, section 1) of the Constitution that creates the presidency explicitly refers to that position as an “Office,” then how can the holder of that Office not be an “officer” of the United States under that very same Constitution? Indeed, Article II of the Constitution refers to the “Office” of President nine times.

Mukasey cites an 1888 Supreme Court case, involving the princely sum of $83.28, for the proposition that “unless a person in the service of the government … holds his place by virtue of an appointment … he is not strictly speaking an officer of the United States.” This case, however, did not involve the Constitution. It did involve an elected official. It did involve a statute providing for reimbursement of travel expenses to certain duly appointed naval officers, but not to the plaintiff, a paymaster’s clerk.

What Mukasey overlooks is that Trump has already claimed in court that he is or was an officer of the United States, and has even cited case law where he himself removed a civil action to federal court as an elected officer of the U.S.

In his petition for removal in the New York indictment charging falsification of business records in connection with a hush money payment to a porn actress, Trump unsuccessfully sought removal to the federal court. There he alleged he was formerly an “officer of the United States” and cited law permitting federal-officer removal for elected members of Congress.

There is recent precedent for this disqualification strategy. Couy Griffin was an elected commissioner for Otero County, New Mexico. Turns out he joined in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. A group of New Mexico citizens, also supported by CREW, filed an action against Griffin under New Mexico law, seeking his removal from office. The New Mexico district court took evidence, received legal arguments and then concluded that Griffin was disqualified under Section 3.

Of course, the debate assumes that Trump engaged in an insurrection or rebellion on Jan. 6 or aided and abetted those who did. This is a matter that will have to be resolved at a trial. But, as Tribe notes: “I think it’s clear to most people that if Trump doesn’t qualify [for that] nobody would.” He continues, “It’s important for the survival of the republic that someone who has shown himself … to be an insurrectionist against the Constitution not get another chance to try.”

The bottom line: The disqualification argument has legs, and is a serious lawsuit. The president is not an “officer” of the United States? Apple sauce.

[Puppyjive]

40. What is the commander and chief?

Why do military members salute the president? Duh. He is the highest ranking officer.

[malthaussen]

83. Well, sort of.

Jim Wright did a good take on this, but I'll give the TLDR version: the military salute the President because it symbolizes that they are subordinate to the civilian power. Technically, the President should not return the salute, but it has become the fashion to do so. Kind of an absurd fashion, since saluting in civvies while not wearing a cover outdoors is not proper protocol.

The President stands at the top of the Chain of Command, but he is not an officer of the military and is not subject to the UCMJ.

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

84. Which is, I suppose, tantamount to admitting that he did *not* support the Constitution...

... in case anybody was unaware of that.

-- Mal

[Probatim]

23. It also explains why he dry-humped and wiped his ass with the Constitution...

neither of those are explicitly stated either...

[oldsoftie]

57. Well, THERE'S an image.......

[Probatim]

69. Sorry about that - he's classless and thinks rules don't apply to him.

And we all saw how he hugged the flag and how he looks at his daughter.

No telling what he did with Epstein.

[BunnyMcGee]

24. Ahhh Hell!

[VGNonly]

25. Like those sovereign citizens idiots

that claim driving, is different than traveling.

[TeamProg]

26. " hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State," CIVIL includes

the Presidency, right?

Seems pretty clear.

[Think. Again.]

28. Yep...

...I'd say the "any office" part covers all the offices.

[Think. Again.]

27. A question:

At the time the 14th was written, did any of the existing 'oath(s) of office' include the words 'support the Constitution'?

If not, then no, trump can't claim that it was written specifically to exclude any oaths that do not contain that word.

[BidenRocks]

29. As a Marine veteran,

or any vet, or active, we all took the same oath.
Did anyone here parse it?
Something only a bone spurs, draft dodging coward would do.
Remember how he wanted a Purple Heart?

[oldsoftie]

56. Oh God I had forgotten that. Ugh

[keithbvadu2]

62. Trump actually received a Purple Heart

Trump actually received a Purple Heart

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+got+a+purple+heart&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Today, a Donald Trump supporter handed him a Purple Heart. Trump’s flippant and repugnant reply: “I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier.”

[Permanut]

76. Navy vet here..

Mango Mussolini is just below shit on the disgusting scale.

Or maybe just above, depending on the scale.

[aggiesal]

30. Maybe he should re-read the Presidential Oath ...

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.

[Hekate]

31. Sick, sick minds. Hollow souls. Psychopaths.

I hipe the republic survives this phase of its existence.

[Evolve Dammit]

32. Such a total fraud, sociopath and mob boss.

[ArizonaLib]

33. Are they preparing for SCOTUS appeal?

Sounds like something an attorney would plan to add to a list to 'dazzle with bullshit' to present to an immoral conservative majority court.

[aggiesal]

34. ..., or hold any office ...

I believe applies to both President & Vice President.

I just don't believe that the framers of the 14th Amendment or any other Amendment ever
visualized that the actual President would commit an insurrection.

[Nasruddin]

37. Good question

visualized that the actual President would commit an insurrection.

One in fact did - John Tyler. He worked on the Virginia secession docs & was elected to the
Confederate Congress. He didn't outlive the war tho.

This makes it a cogent question - perhaps the "framers" did have it in mind and left some record.

[ck4829]

35. This actually seems like a very 'novel' legal argument by some Federalist Society crackpots

https://www.google.com/search?q=%2214th+amendment+does+not+apply+to+the+president%22
-"14th Amendment does not apply to the President"

https://www.google.com/search?q=%2214th+amendment+does+not+apply+to+the+president%22&sca_esv=572714518&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F11%2F2023&tbm=
-"14th Amendment does not apply to the President", but a month ago

[Wounded Bear]

36. When the facts are against you, argue the law...

when the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and shout.

trump usually just jumps to that last step.

[pnwmom]

38. Garbage. Of course he's an officer of the US, even by an originalist interpretation.

This is a 2017 piece from the Stanford law review.

Page 12, section H

II. “Corpus Linguistics” and the Original Public Meaning Analysis
This article’s “original public meaning” analysis of the phrase “Officers of the
United States” suggests that an “Officer[]” is anyone entrusted with ongoing
responsibility for a federal statutory duty regardless of the duty’s significance

Being President is the highest Federal office, which made him a federal officer.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

[ancianita]

39. Then what was the inaugural OATH OF OFFICE all about. Why bother if the oath words are

debatable within the Constitution itself. Seriously, the oath can't just mean whatever the swearer decides it means.

[TomSlick]

41. In my 40 years as a lawyer, I have heard some silly-ass legal arguments but none to top this.

Pardon my language but nothing else gets across the point and it's been a long day.

[Old Crank]

42. By this logic

Can Joe boot the Robert's bought and paid for 6 off the court and replace them?

[Sogo]

43. "...or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States"

Ya think??

[Turbineguy]

44. I smell the beginning of an insanity plea.

And then the repubs can elect him.

[republianmushroom]

45. Damn dumb, dude.

32 months and counting

[smb]

46. Shades Of "It Depends What The Meaning Of 'Is' Is" nt

[Wednesdays]

82. And while we, and especially Repugs, make fun of that phrase,

Clinton actually had a point. When he was asked if there is a relationship between himself and Monica Lewinsky, in the present tense, it would be in the negative because the relationship was in the past by that time. So he wanted to clarify the meaning of "is," whether it meant present tense or past tense.

[marble falls]

47. After we jail TFG, we'll just have to clarify the fourteenth for the RW with Congressional action.

[COL Mustard]

48. Cream rises to the top

But so does shit.

[czarjak]

49. When truth isn't truth, context becomes meaningless.

[usonian]

50. I've had enough of his insanity.

I'll gladly pay for his one way ticket to Russia out of my Social Security.

Economy class.

Though I suspect I'm not alone.

[ArkansasDemocrat1]

71. n/t

?1658587343

[niyad]

74. I will chip in. I would happily eat ramen for the rest of the year if he would just GO

AWAY FOREVER.

[Rhiannon12866]

51. He swore an oath to the Constitution, obviously he had no comprehension of what the job entails.

[Martin68]

52. This is a direct admission that Trump is unable or unwilling to honor his oath of office.

He is therefore unfit to hold the office. Period.

[C Moon]

53. This will go over well in the election ads. No wonder he doesn't want to debate.

[calimary]

54. All I've got is "are you fuckin' KIDDING me?????"

Oh for Pete’s sake. “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” doesn’t include “support”? So then, explain how preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution has nothing to do with supporting the Constitution.

W.

T.

F.

???????????

donald, go to Hell. Go directly to Hell. Do NOT pass “Go” and do NOT collect ANY MONEY AT ALL!!!

[YoshidaYui]

55. HE IS SO FULL OF BULLSHIT

TOTALLY FULL, NO MORE CAN FIT.

[Cha]

58. TRAITOR had a blood oath

To support war criminal Putin

[NewHendoLib]

59. What the everliving fuck?

[kimbutgar]

60. There should be ads run on right wing media having him stating this and then have his magaloons

Defend him.

[ffr]

63. So than, as the leader of the domestic terrorist organization MAGA, this means all members

also DO NOT SUPPORT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, as don't the faction of senators and congressman who voted not to impeach TFG because of their political alliance with him.

If you're leader says that's his new brand, own it!

[jmowreader]

65. I've heard better arguments from sovereign citizens...

...who claim they don't need driver's licenses because they're not operating their cars for hire.

The argument that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump doesn't hold up. Please note that it says "any office, civil or military." The presidency is one of those offices.

[ancianita]

79. ...

The presidency is one of those offices.

With its own official Oval Office for the office of president.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

66. Just like whiney little child

[3catwoman3]

67. 5th definition of DEFEND per...

…dictionary.com - to support.

Lame, lame lame LAME!!!

[Warpy]

68. I'm sure the court will beg to differ.

since appointing himself king is just not within any of our body of law.

[kevinore]

70. Not much of a surprise

I don't think Trump knows the Constitution, and if he does, he certainly does not support it.

[kacekwl]

73. Our current Supreme Court

will certainly side with trumps view of the oath.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

75. Absurd argument YES. But it's all they got. Can you imagine

being in that room of lawyers brainstorming a possible defense? "How about this?", "Na". "How about that?", "Na". This was the ONLY thing that they could come up with !!!

[colorado_ufo]

78. To quote the great Bo Diddley:

"That is the biggest load of rubbish I ever heard in my life." (Said in a long ago different context, of course!)

[trusty elf]

80. What a grotesque and despicable imbecile.

[hamsterjill]

85. We all know he scoffed at the oath of office.

But it MEANS something to the rest of us.

[BComplex]

86. That argument right there...that he doesn't believe he has any obligation to "support" the

constitution, should disqualify him full stop.

[Wonder Why]

87. "Cheer up. Things could be worse". I cheered up. Then I read what he said. It's worse.

[qwlauren35]

88. And this man might be president in 2024.

Scary. Just, scary.

[jmowreader]

89. It does occur to me...

…that there’s such a thing as a two way street.

If Trump doesn’t believe the Constitution applies to him, why can’t we just lock him up without trial? Or work a little corruption of blood and throw his entire miserable family in prison?

Ten to one the Constitution would magically apply to him.