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
Latest Breaking News
Showing Original Post only (View all)Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president [View all]
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."
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.
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president [View all]
brooklynite
Oct 2023
OP
Trump is a proven liar, he is F*****g delusional, and will say anything to save his own neck.
usaf-vet
Oct 2023
#72
Well, causing an insurrection isn't protecting or defending the constitution
SouthernDem4ever
Oct 2023
#3
Tell me how you can "defend" the Constitution without "supporting" it . . . . .
no_hypocrisy
Oct 2023
#6
tRump basically admitted to attacking the Constitution. You have to support it to preserve it
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2023
#10
Rethugs never let a little thing like our Constitution get in the way of a good grift or power grab.
KY_EnviroGuy
Oct 2023
#14
The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew,
LiberalFighter
Oct 2023
#18
Laurence Tribe wrote in detail with another scholar about this being BS. That indeed the President
hlthe2b
Oct 2023
#21
Which is, I suppose, tantamount to admitting that he did *not* support the Constitution...
malthaussen
Oct 2023
#84
" hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State," CIVIL includes
TeamProg
Oct 2023
#26
This actually seems like a very 'novel' legal argument by some Federalist Society crackpots
ck4829
Oct 2023
#35
Garbage. Of course he's an officer of the US, even by an originalist interpretation.
pnwmom
Oct 2023
#38
Then what was the inaugural OATH OF OFFICE all about. Why bother if the oath words are
ancianita
Oct 2023
#39
In my 40 years as a lawyer, I have heard some silly-ass legal arguments but none to top this.
TomSlick
Oct 2023
#41
After we jail TFG, we'll just have to clarify the fourteenth for the RW with Congressional action.
marble falls
Oct 2023
#47
I will chip in. I would happily eat ramen for the rest of the year if he would just GO
niyad
Oct 2023
#74
He swore an oath to the Constitution, obviously he had no comprehension of what the job entails.
Rhiannon12866
Oct 2023
#51
This is a direct admission that Trump is unable or unwilling to honor his oath of office.
Martin68
Oct 2023
#52
This will go over well in the election ads. No wonder he doesn't want to debate.
C Moon
Oct 2023
#53
There should be ads run on right wing media having him stating this and then have his magaloons
kimbutgar
Oct 2023
#60
So than, as the leader of the domestic terrorist organization MAGA, this means all members
ffr
Oct 2023
#63
That argument right there...that he doesn't believe he has any obligation to "support" the
BComplex
Oct 2023
#86
"Cheer up. Things could be worse". I cheered up. Then I read what he said. It's worse.
Wonder Why
Oct 2023
#87