• brown567@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    269
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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.”

    To be fair, “support” isn’t the exact word used, but “preserve, protect, and defend” is pretty unequivocal

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The intention is that it’s a step beyond the oath of support, having just dug around in law articles and history on it.

      And reading the article, it sounds like the only one making a semantical argument, is Trump and his lawyers.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        1 year ago

        the only one making a semantical argument, is Trump and his lawyers.

        The problem is that the current Supreme Court clearly would support throwing that out, and they LOVE semantics like that to justify clearly bullshit decisions.

        • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          If interpreting laws is going to just turn into how much money a wealthy individual (or anyone wealthy enough to foot the bill) can argue the semantics of anything … what good and what use is any law?

          • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            We are long past the point where power and wealth buys better legal outcomes as evidenced by how few rich and powerful people over the last half century have spent any time in prison for their crimes compared to people with neither wealth nor power.

        • vortic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They also like using history to support their decisions. If it can be shown that the presidential oath is intended to go beyond “support” I would see the court being persuaded that “support” is implied by “protect, preserve, and defend”. It depends on whether the textualists or the pseudo-historians win the day.

          • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The five conservative “justices” are conservatives first and “justices” second. They will always rule however the standard, bigoted, Fox-News-loving white nationalist will rule. They do this by using wordplay and bad-faith semantics.

            Every word uttered by a conservative is either deception or manipulation. Every word.

    • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. It’s a massive stretch to think there’s a false equivalency between “support” and “preserve, protect, and defend”.

      But of course…this is Trump here. He’s willing to bend himself into a pretzel if it means he can avoid responsibility for anything bad.

      • time_lord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can preserve, protect, and defend something you don’t support. Debate 101 at even a high school level is learning how to argue the side of an argument that you don’t support.

        So while in office, he preserved/protected/defended something he didn’t support. He then lead some form of rebellion against it, causing him to be in violation of the spirit of the 14th but not the letter as it’s written, so he should still be qualified to serve.

        The Supreme Court would love this wordplay, except, if they actually accept it, they’re not just invalidating the spirit of the 14th, but undermining it completely as it would never ever ever be relevant to anyone, ever again. And wouldn’t that also be against their oaths to uphold the constitution?

        So most likely Trump will be eligible for re-election because I have no doubt that if they can get away with the Citizens United ruling, they can and will do whatever the hell they want.

        • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Did he really preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution on January 6th though? (Spoiler alert: he didn’t). Perhaps that is the better question here than this semantics argument.

        • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you can make an argument that if you preserve and protect something, you’re supporting it.

          But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. If the presidential oath isn’t an example of supporting it, then Article Ii makes no sense at all - why would it even be there?

          • IamRoot@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

          • time_lord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. If the presidential oath isn’t an example of supporting it, then Article Ii makes no sense at all - why would it even be there?

            I’m sure the righter part of the SC will find a reason :|

          • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I think the difference here is outcomes vs intentions (consequentialism vs virtue theory, if you want to be exact about ethics). Trump could support the constitution through his actions, but communicate his intentions otherwise: and vice versa.

            • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, I had no clue that the military oath included “support.”

              Would be a stretch to say that article II of the Constitution was only intended to apply to the military.

              • IamRoot@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Here is what you said with confidence:

                “But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. “

                Then you ignored several people who pointed out that you were wrong.

                Then you responded that you had no clue.

      • brown567@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’d be my defense!

        Like, I can understand thinking my ability exceeds my performance, but I think that might just be a simple overestimation of my ability

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve taken a couple oaths to the US government…

      I dont remember any of them saying “support the constitution”

      So by their logic, this effects no one.

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Maybe he’ll argue that it just means the physical written constitution itself.
      “The constitution is a piece of paper in a box, okay? I defended it”

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    153
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The text of the section they are challenging (emphasis added):

    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.

    It’s an exceptionally stupid argument, even for Trump. Obviously “preserve, protect, and defend” are all forms of support, so this challenge is quite possibly the stupidest legal argument they’ve made so far (which is an extremely high bar). But I suppose they don’t think they can realistically claim that he didnt engage in insurrection.

    • Tidesphere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hold up, if that’s the crux of his argument, does that mean that his argument is

      “I can’t be barred from running because I never took an oath to support the constitution. Therefore my inciting insurrection is not covered by this clause. But I totally incited rebellion.”?

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “I crossed my fingers when I took the oath of office so it didn’t count. Also, I’m rubber and you’re glue. Whatever 14th Amendment you throw bounces off of me and sticks to you!”

        -Trump’s next legal arguments…

      • vortic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately, I think it is “while I do not admit to starting a rebellion, whether I did or not is immaterial because ‘preserve, protect, and defend’ definitely doesn’t include ‘support’”

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow that’s stupid. I’m sure this comes up all the time with wording of other laws and I’m sure judges are used to eviscerating it. Now as long as we don’t get stupid judges…

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it ends up on the Supreme Court, I’m sure Clarence Thomas will enthusiastically support the idea.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Uncle Tom is already American.

            And was actually a sweet, kind character that through sheer goodness convinced white people, including his murderers, to reject slavery and prejudice.

            That will not be Clarance Thomas’s story.

            • pensa@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I commented that based on the slurs of him from the black community. I do not know the full story but shared it based on what I hear from my black friends. It was explained to me that he was a bad dude that sold out other black people. Similar to Uncle Rukus in The Boondocks.

              With that context, I meant it as there is the black uncle tom that sold out other black people and now we have American uncle tom selling out America.

              • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It was the top-selling fictional book of the 19th Century (and second-best period - behind only the Bible), and many of the black characters nece the stereotypes of black characters seen in media even today. Mammy, black waif child, and Uncle Tom included.

                Uncle Tom was meant to be an almost Christ-like figure by Stowe. But in later years people came to view him differently - often due to state plays of the story that changed the story to give Tom a “happy” ending.

                Now when people refer to an “Uncle Tom” they’re referring to a black man who not only allows himself to be mistreated, but actually loves his masters. Someone whose subservience and loyalty amounts to complicity with the mistreatment of himself and others.

                In the book, he is kind and peaceful, and the entire books has a theme of goodness prevailing over violence.

                The slave hunter sent after Eliza and her family shot in the book, and instead of letting him die they take him to a Quaker community that helps him recover. Through the kindness shown by the escaped slaves and the Quakers he learns to understand what goodness is, rejects slavery and prejudice, and helps the escaped slaves flee to Canada.

                Tom’s kindness inspires a slave-owning family to reject slavery and prejudice (2 different evils addressed by the book). His tragedy is that the sister of his owner that intended to free him sells him off to Simon Legree - the most purely-evil slave master in the book.

                Tom is later mortally beaten, but forgives those who are killing him (it’s not subtle at all about the comparison to Christ), and afterwards the men who did it once again reject slavery.

                But later adaptations, especially plays and “anti-Tom” literature paint him as an obedient, happy slave that is perfectly content to be abused and watch other be abused. That combined with readers confusing peace and kindness with embracing evil has lead to a tragic misinterpretation of a character meant to outrage people and put a magnifying lens on the evils of slavery.

                And it worked. Legend says that when Harriet Beecher Stowe met President Lincoln in 1862, he said “So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war.”

          • SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sovereign citizens aren’t just being bad lawyers. They truly believe that the legal system is a world of magic where saying the exact right phrase will create nonsensical effects. The canadian judge that eviscerated their entire thinking did a really good job of showing how skewed their paradigm is.

    • Saganaki@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not quite that simple. To be clear, the argument being proposed by his lawyers is that he is not an “officer of the United States” so it doesn’t apply to him.

      Basically, there’s legal precedent that elected officials aren’t officers of the US because they are elected and not hired. Add to that the sheer number of commas, “and”s, and “or”s, that it can get legally murky.

      NB: Not a lawyer. Read about the above on Mastadon from a legal scholar. Will see if I can find the link.

      • samsepi0l@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t the “No person shall be a … elector of President and Vice President” just outright say that the statement obviously includes elected officials? Specifically the POTUS and VPOTUS?

        • BOMBS@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it directly implies POTUS, especially this part:

          or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,

          But also, they don’t have to be legally correct or in-keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Under my assumption that a few of the Supreme Court Justices are surely psychopaths, they just need an interpretation that’s plausible enough to avoid consequences to themselves.

        • Saganaki@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The argument I’ve seen is that the condition part of the clause (insurrection) by language only applies to the bit after “who, having previously…”

          Basically, the argument goes “It says you can’t be President or Vice President if you did insurrection while an officer of the US”—but it doesn’t say you can’t be President if you did insurrection while president of the US.

          To be clear: I think it’s fucking idiotic and against the spirit of the law—but I’m no lawyer/legal expert.

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      While i hate Trump and don’t think he has a leg I can see some give in this argument. Just in the idea that I don’t think a president should have to support the entirety of the US constitution. I think a representative of the US government can disagree with aspects of the constitution but still preserve, protect, and defend it.

      It’s not a very strong argument but there is something to be said.

  • Kepabar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There is a record of the Senate debate on this amendment.

    One questioned ‘Why doesn’t this include the president?’.

    Another senator replied ‘It does under the section of anyone who holds an office’.

    The response was ‘Ok, I was unclear on that’. And the debate carried on.

    So the writers obviously intended this to include the office of the president.

      • Kepabar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually, it really might in this case.

        A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.

        Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They are opportunists who clung to the the idea of “originalism” when it served them. A much more modern take is they are a religious insurgency trying to legislate morality from the bench.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Does that “strict originalist” view extend to the “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd ammendment?

          • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Certainly doesn’t apply to the “secure in their home and persons” part when it comes to limiting police.

          • Kepabar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, it does.

            The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.

            This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      1 year ago

      The argument is that the word “support” isn’t explicitly there. Therefore, the President is not an officer of the government, and therefore Trump isn’t barred from being President under the 14th Amendment.

      This argument is dumb, of course. Scalia once made a similar one, noting that punishments must be cruel and unusual to be constitutionally banned. Cruel or unusual on their own is fine.

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ah, but see, the word ‘support’ is not explicitly in there so ch-ch-cha! Pocket sand!

        • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Its one of those ‘If not one then the other’ things.

          If you aren’t foreign, you are domestic. If you aren’t domestic, you are foreign.

          There are dual citizens, in which case the enemy is foreign and domestic.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “For the ‘right’ people”

      -D. J. D. (In his head)

      Edit: “Not the poors, the stupid losers”

      Again, D. J. D. (Out loud when talking about the military or working people)

  • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

    ― Jean-Paul Sartre

      • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think of the quote as explaining one type of situation, trying to reason with someone who is unreasonable plus want you and those like you out.

        It’s illuminating because the extreme opinion do this same thing with words. Splitting hairs, to always find a shape that fits their need. Because their intentions don’t require words, just control and emotions.

        It also has a strong reminder for me, my grandfather’s mom was just a baby on her mother’s back during the events of Wounded Knee. The events of a single day have the power to remain for generations.

    • thejml@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wish nothing but the wettest socks for the rest of his days.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I want him to be given a phone, but have the only Internet to be a sporadic one that you can only get when you climb atop the toilet in the cell and reach WAY out to the point that you almost fall down.

        Remind me. How good is Trump’s balance again?

    • BobVersionFour@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He shall be followed for the rest of is life by a mexican ( to remember him about the wall ) who only job would be to throw lego under is feet when he don’t have shoes on

  • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    1 year ago

    Given the oath an elected official needs to swear, you’d think this would invalidate him for even trying to get elected.

    But we know the normal rules don’t seem to matter any more.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If only he had murdered a bunch of small children instead then Republicans might have cared about the Constitution part.

  • mateomaui@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m sorry, fucking what now?

    That’s the nation’s constitutionalists’ preferred candidate, everyone, nothing wrong here.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      the nation’s constitutionalists’

      Just like everything else they claim, that’s a blatant lie.

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Never argue with them on the basis of their claims - protecting America, balancing the budget, saving the children. Those are never good faith arguments, they’re just appeals to feelings.

      Instead argue with them on what they actually do.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No he is not. Generally “Constitutionalists” would be those who believe in freedom and liberty for all, which is more like the Libertarians than Republicans. You will find very little support for Trump with them.

      • mateomaui@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would argue that “Constitutionalists” (with the quotes) are the people I’m talking about, as opposed to actual Constitutionalists. But yes, we agree. I’m honestly not certain if people read the snark in my original reply or not.

    • ALQ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Legally, it’s a fine distinction. What his attorneys are arguing appears to be that, even if he did commit insurrection, the law in question doesn’t apply to the office of the president and, thus, not to Trump. On the surface, the logic is sound: Law applies if conditions are met; conditions were not met, therefore law does not apply.

      The problem for Trump is that the law does apply,^1 so he should face the consequences.

      If I had access to Westlaw or LexisNexis, I’d be interested to look into the caselaw. My concern is that the argument for specific word choice (i.e. “support” was specifically used instead of “preserve, protect, defend”) isn’t without some merit. I’m just glad he can never seem to hire competent attorneys. I’m hoping for a long, long, lonely life behind bars for his retirement years. (Though I know this isn’t one of his criminal cases.)

      1- Assuming, of course, there remains any justice left in the US system. Unfortunately not a small assumption these days.