That’s a roundabout and somewhat disingenuous interpretation of their defense. They’re arguing that the presidency doesn’t fall under “officer of the United States” which is obviously weak as hell, but people get weird when it comes to interpreting the constitution. They aren’t trying to claim he didn’t take an oath.
and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to “support” the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution during his role as president.
You’re talking about the reasoning in the ruling by the district judge. This article is about trump’s argument in filings to the appeals court.
Oh my fuck. Aight well that’s on me for assuming they were twisting the lawyer’s argument to make him sound bad. I should’ve known he’d hang himself out to dry as usual.
It’s obviously an overly legalistic and technical argument that doesn’t speak to the merits. But it’s an appeals case, you have to argue legal errors not factual ones. I’m not a lawyer and have no idea how likely it is to succeed, but I think “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” is best legal practice, so I don’t see how this filing hangs him out to dry. It’s bad optics but I don’t think is gonna matter to anyone.
sigh I guess preserve, protect and defend is not supporting.
We have a person that likely will be the primary candidate for the GOP, that is saying he doesn’t support the constitution and all of those “patriots” will still vote for him.
Weak? It’s non-existent. It’s an imaginary “argument”. The word “officer” has always been defined (in every English language dictionary) as “one who holds office”. That is what the word literally means. Their “argument” must therefore be predicated on the idea that a president does not “hold office”.
They did actually argue that the Presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” is not the same as an oath to “support” the Constitution.
From the article: “In their appeal against the Colorado lawsuit, Trump’s lawyers reiterated that the wording of Section Three does not apply to people running for president and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to “support” the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution during his role as president.”
all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir but it seems pretty clear that as president (holding the highest executive office) he is bound by oath to support the constitution.
That’s a roundabout and somewhat disingenuous interpretation of their defense. They’re arguing that the presidency doesn’t fall under “officer of the United States” which is obviously weak as hell, but people get weird when it comes to interpreting the constitution. They aren’t trying to claim he didn’t take an oath.
Did you not read the article?
You’re talking about the reasoning in the ruling by the district judge. This article is about trump’s argument in filings to the appeals court.
Oh my fuck. Aight well that’s on me for assuming they were twisting the lawyer’s argument to make him sound bad. I should’ve known he’d hang himself out to dry as usual.
It’s obviously an overly legalistic and technical argument that doesn’t speak to the merits. But it’s an appeals case, you have to argue legal errors not factual ones. I’m not a lawyer and have no idea how likely it is to succeed, but I think “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” is best legal practice, so I don’t see how this filing hangs him out to dry. It’s bad optics but I don’t think is gonna matter to anyone.
sigh I guess preserve, protect and defend is not supporting.
We have a person that likely will be the primary candidate for the GOP, that is saying he doesn’t support the constitution and all of those “patriots” will still vote for him.
Weak? It’s non-existent. It’s an imaginary “argument”. The word “officer” has always been defined (in every English language dictionary) as “one who holds office”. That is what the word literally means. Their “argument” must therefore be predicated on the idea that a president does not “hold office”.
I want him banned from office, but no, it’s not non-existent.
They did actually argue that the Presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” is not the same as an oath to “support” the Constitution.
From the article: “In their appeal against the Colorado lawsuit, Trump’s lawyers reiterated that the wording of Section Three does not apply to people running for president and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to “support” the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution during his role as president.”
I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir but it seems pretty clear that as president (holding the highest executive office) he is bound by oath to support the constitution.
Wasn’t Clinton impeached for something similar, like the definition of the word ‘is?’