Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

FakeNoose

(42,469 posts)
Tue Nov 28, 2023, 07:01 PM Nov 2023

Trump's Latest Legal Defense: He Didn't Take Oath to "Support" the Constitution [View all]


Truthout link: https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-latest-legal-defense-he-didnt-take-oath-to-support-the-constitution/

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a brief with the Colorado state Supreme Court this week arguing that a constitutional provision that would disallow him from being able to run for the presidency again in 2024 should be ignored because, as they put it, he never made an oath, as president, to “support” the Constitution.

The argument is one of semantics, as the president of the United States is sworn in through a different oath than members of Congress or other government officials. Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires presidents-elect to read an oath promising to “preserve, protect and defend” the document as they are being sworn into office.

Six residents in Colorado sued to have Trump barred from being able to appear on the state ballot next year as a candidate for president, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — sometimes known as the insurrectionist clause — as their basis for doing so. That provision states that no person can be elected to any office within the United States if they have served in a position where they “previously [took] an oath … to support the Constitution” while subsequently engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” or giving aid or comfort to those who have engaged in such activities.

Because the language of the amendment says “support” rather than any of the words used in the presidential oath of office, Trump’s lawyers contend the provision doesn’t apply to him. The former president’s lawyers claim this difference in the language was “purposefully” created by the authors of the amendment.
- more at link -

Oh my God, will someone please shut this man up?

Chump is guilty AND ineligible to be President. (Or run for President.)
For that matter he should be ineligible for running for any office ever again.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump's Latest Legal Defe...