Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dance around it all day long, but what the interpretation of what the original context is will be the deciding factor.The cotus does not exclude the president from supporting and defending the Constitution.
Protecting and preserving the constitution, is simply a step further than just supporting it, reserved for the president's executive position.
Preserving and protecting the constitution is supporting it, using all means to preserve it, through the department of justice, and law suits they may need to bring against any person, entity or State, not supporting it.
No one else sworn in has this extra responsibility of preserving and protecting above and beyond supporting the constitution, but the president of the United States....
that is why his oath, as said, goes BEYOND Support,
not EXCLUDING Support... as trump lawyers tried to claim.
Yes they can. They are His attorneys. He has had to sign papers giving them the power of attorney before they can represent Him.Legally, his lawyers could not make that argument on Donald Trump's behalf, without former Pres. Trump's approval.
I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.My bad, I thought you were serious.
Of course supporting the Constitution applies to the president....They argued that clause 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the President. And it doesn't. Nothing about preserving, protecting ,defending or supporting the Constitution.
He's right. He may have an ethical duty, but he has no legal duty.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.
Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president
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...www.rawstory.com
This is totally bizarre! If the President of the United States isn't required to support the Constitution - then who is? What do you think?
I know you're not:I thought you were serious.
The Reason Foundation is an American libertarian think tank
His lawyers speak for him on court you dopeyes of course Trump did not argue this himself! He did not utter it!
His lawyers argued this in court, on Mr. Trump's behalf. Trump did not personally represent himself in court without an attorney!!!
Legally, his lawyers could not make that argument on Donald Trump's behalf, without former Pres. Trump's approval.
YupOf course supporting the Constitution applies to the president....
Well, It actually wasn't the founders, it was congress 80 years later, after the civil war.There is no amount of twisting and turning semantics crap, that could conjure up that our founders would make a claim that only the President would be constitutionally allowed to incite an insurrection or aid an Enemy, and not be restricted or punished by not being allowed to hold office again.
NopeTrump's lawyers are arguing that the founders gave the President the authority to incite or aid an insurrection or enemy.
NopeDo you really believe that Rawley? That the founders would exclude the president from the punishment in section 3 of the 14th because the president never took an oath to support the constitution....
NopeDo you believe the President of the U.S. does not need to support the U.S. Constitution? That supporting the constitution is not required of our president?
Too many big words for you?I know you're not:
Indeed, Congress added that section specifically to prevent seditionists, like Trump, from gaining office. Thus, the "disqualification clause" being "fairly obscure until January 6, 2021, when supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol building." Unfortunately, not at all too obvious for moronic libertarian space cadets!Well, It actually wasn't the founders, it was congress 80 years later, after the civil war.
They have to be convicted of insurrection, moronIndeed, Congress added that section specifically to prevent seditionists, like Trump, from gaining office. Thus, the "disqualification clause" being "fairly obscure until January 6, 2021, when supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol building." Unfortunately, not at all too obvious for moronic libertarian space cadets!
Good luck with that. Your desperation is showing.Indeed, Congress added that section specifically to prevent seditionists, like Trump, from gaining office. Thus, the "disqualification clause" being "fairly obscure until January 6, 2021, when supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol building." Unfortunately, not at all too obvious for moronic libertarian space cadets!
findlaw.com vs. reason.comGood luck with that. Your desperation is showing.
Please tell me you're kidding. You seem halfway intelligent. An insulting asshole, but halfway intelligent.
I skimmed it and quit just as soon as it being nothing but circularly argued nonsense became bleedingly obvious. Took me about 20 seconds, IIRC. You read it again.Did you even read the Reason piece?
S'matter, no pictures?I skimmed it and quit just as soon as it being nothing but circularly argued nonsense became bleedingly obvious. Took me about 20 seconds, IIRC. You read it again.
Hardly, you gullible buffoon. Kids these days! TryBy the way here's their full 54 page paper published by NYU Law School
Just two lonely wackos, jacking each other off..Mr. Tillman, who is represented by Josh Blackman
Ya got me there. NYU has nothing on the Mitchell Hamline School of Law.Hardly, you gullible buffoon. Kids these days! Try
"N.Y.U. J.L." = About — NYU Journal of Law & Liberty
& "LIBERTY 1 (2021)" = gold coins ???
Like pictures? Well do ya punk? Check this guy's..
And this one..Josh Blackman - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
‘Lonely Scholar With Unusual Ideas’ Defends Trump, Igniting Legal Storm (Published 2017)
A scholar’s fight, invoking Alexander Hamilton, to show that the Constitution does not bar foreign payments to the president yielded a barrage of attacks, and then an apology.www.nytimes.com
Just two lonely wackos, jacking each other off..
So just "NYU" again. Jesus! Welcome to my extensive ignore repertoire..Ya got me there. NYU has nothing on the Mitchell Hamline School of Law.
Fukin hilarious when progressive pinheads stoop to denigrating the scholarship at NYU to make an asinine legally incomprehensible argument about the14th Amendment because it supposedly makes Trump look vulnerable.
Smart move Taking the conclusion of "It's theoretically possible" by the unnamed staff at findlaw.com over the 54 page, well supported legal analysis of two law professors published by NYU, it's probably best to hang your head an slink away.So just "NYU" again. Jesus! Welcome to my extensive ignore repertoire..
