‘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,’ read a filing from the former president’s attorneys
  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    107·
    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
      38·
      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
        271·
        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
        20·
        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’”

    • someguy3@lemmy.world
      17·
      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…

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      12·
      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.