You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
153 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
58 points

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.”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

“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…

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points
*

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’”

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

He only needs to convince 5 Supreme Court justices.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Yes, that’s what they’re arguing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

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…

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

America’s Uncle Tom.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Why does this remind me of some sovereign citizen bullshit?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I do not stand under.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

SovCit thinking is basically being a really bad lawyer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 526K

    Comments