Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president

[Lesh]

The op was a lie, and you have zero business moderating when you clearly have an issue with being unbiased when it comes to Trump, which makes up 80% of the content on this board.

How was it a lie?

 

[Grumblenuts]

So why run for an office you're admittedly unable to fill? You like wasting everyone's time, money, and resources?

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

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?

well this rawstory was shoved up your ass sideways

 

[White 6]

The op was a lie, and you have zero business moderating when you clearly have an issue with being unbiased when it comes to Trump, which makes up 80% of the content on this board.

Not a lie, but an interpretation of the meaning of what team trump did assert in the submission to dismiss that was rejected by the judge.

 

[Leviticus]

Ok, so firstly, your title is misleading, trump himself didn’t say this, it was his lawyers, just for clarification.

Secondly, where did rawstory get the article, they only link to a tweet by some other lady who has a segment of some text but doesn’t really say where she got it from. Does anyone have a link to the actual full text of the filing document that his lawyers filed?

Also, rawstory is the only one to run this story?

If your lawyer says something in court, It's something you approve of since your lawyer cannot say anything legally in court that you did not personally approve of. If his attorneys are saying these things in court that he did not believe he could legally sue his attorneys for it And have them disbarred for misrepresentation.

 

[Care4all]

Well, again, I think it’s simpler than that. They are trying to make the argument that S3 simply doesn’t apply to the president because of the wording of the oath he takes. I think it’s a word play move as well and I think it’s flimsy, but that’s their argument.

Yes, it is flimsy....but at the same time, what else has his lawyer's got?

i think the constitution disqualification clause does not say that the Officer disqualified had to be CONVICTED of insurrection or aiding enemies to the Constitution... not even being impeached for such.....is a requirement...

but maybe it should have or should be....????

 

[White 6]

Here's a link talking about it....

Trump claims the insurrection clause 'does not apply' to the president

Trump's latest argument seeks to stake out new territory as to what, exactly the insurrection clause demands in a broader constitutional context, as well as who it demands such things from.

lawandcrime.com

It gives the Trump team court defense.....

That is my understanding also, and while unflattering, is somewhat different than the title of the Raw Story post. For the record, I do not agree with the letter of what trump is claiming, nor will any judge, though easy to see how somebody would interpret what was said in the actual submission to say what the Raw Story article stated as fact. Still, it is nothing more than an interpretation, not the clearly stated factual statement of the Trump submission put forth by Raw Story, as team trump never said it and it is not a quote, as far as I have found.

Mind you, I don't like the man, don't trust the man, am certain he cares more about himself than the country (especially with our constitution), but the raw story headline is put forth sounding as a quote, when it appears to be nothing but an interpretation, no matter how unflattering the actual statement are of the character and oilyness of the trump argument.

 

[OldFlame]

Not a lie, but an interpretation of the meaning of what team trump did assert in the submission to dismiss that was rejected by the judge.

It was a lie.

 

[OldFlame]

That is my understanding also, and while unflattering, is somewhat different than the title of the Raw Story post. For the record, I do not agree with the letter of what trump is claiming, nor will any judge, though easy to see how somebody would interpret what was said in the actual submission to say what the Raw Story article stated as fact. Still, it is nothing more than an interpretation, not the clearly stated factual statement of the Trump submission put forth by Raw Story, as team trump never said it and it is not a quote, as far as I have found.

Mind you, I don't like the man, don't trust the man, am certain he cares more about himself than the country (especially with our constitution), but the raw story headline is put forth sounding as a quote, when it appears to be nothing but an interpretation, no matter how unflattering the actual statement are of the character and oilyness of the trump argument.

You're giving very broad leeway to a lie because of your bias. Simple as that.

 

[Care4all]

That is my understanding also, and while unflattering, is somewhat different than the title of the Raw Story post. For the record, I do not agree with the letter of what trump is claiming, nor will any judge, though easy to see how somebody would interpret what was said in the actual submission to say what the Raw Story article stated as fact. Still, it is nothing more than an interpretation, not the clearly stated factual statement of the Trump submission put forth by Raw Story, as team trump never said it and it is not a quote, as far as I have found.

Mind you, I don't like the man, don't trust the man, am certain he cares more about himself than the country (especially with our constitution), but the raw story headline is put forth sounding as a quote, when it appears to be nothing but an interpretation, no matter how unflattering the actual statement are of the character and oilyness of the trump argument.

All true....

It is an interpretation of the Trump argument.

With good reason, for the opinion, in my opinion!

Arguing this clause did not pertain to the Chief Executive Officer of the United States,

without another disqualifying clause specific to the President in the constitution regarding aiding the enemy or insurrection, is essentially claiming the President can not be disqualified by his participation in an insurrection or by aiding or abetting enemies of the constitution....

or it essentially means the president takes no oath to support (follow) the constitution....as their argument...imho.

 

[White 6]

You're giving very broad leeway to a lie because of your bias. Simple as that.

People interpret things on here all the time, and it the interpretation is somewhat understandable, but not exactly the same, as we are talking about legalities, not rhetoric. It is an interpretation that would easily fly on the courthouse steps, but not in front of a judge.
In this case, even the exact legalities of what team trump said were rightfully rejected by the judge and the case was bound over to trial on October 30, and there is no arguing with that, as it is legal fact.

 

[Mac1958]

His only "duty" is to himself, in his constant, desperate search for validation and approval.

Everything else can go to hell.

 

[White 6]

All true....

It is an interpretation of the Trump argument.

With good reason, for the opinion, in my opinion!

Arguing this clause did not pertain to the Chief Executive Officer of the United States,

without another disqualifying clause specific to the President in the constitution regarding aiding the enemy or insurrection, is essentially claiming the President can not be disqualified by his participation in an insurrection or by aiding or abetting enemies of the constitution....

or it essentially means the president takes no oath to support (follow) the constitution....as their argument...imho.

Even you had to use the qualifier "essentially".

 

[g5000]

With his hand on the Bible, Trump swore the following oath:

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.

From the OP link:

"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," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. "Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President."

 

[g5000]

It sounds like another democrat lie.

The quote by Trump's attorneys is in the OP link.

"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," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. "Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President."

 

[Care4all]

Even you had to use the qualifier "essentially".

True! That's why it is my opinion!!!
Wonder what was the Judge's words used to describe it, when he rejected the argument??? He did reject it, no?!?

Or has that decision not been made yet?

 

[g5000]

Ok, so firstly, your title is misleading, trump himself didn’t say this, it was his lawyers, just for clarification.

Secondly, where did rawstory get the article, they only link to a tweet by some other lady who has a segment of some text but doesn’t really say where she got it from. Does anyone have a link to the actual full text of the filing document that his lawyers filed?

Also, rawstory is the only one to run this story?

It's all over the internet.

Here is Trump's filing: DocumentCloud

See page 13 for the "support" argument.


There's an even dumber argument on page 8:

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit someone from running for office—it prohibits someone from holding office, and even then, only if Congress chooses not to lift the prohibition.

 

[Care4all]

From the OP link:

"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," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. "Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President."

I think the president swears to support the constitution by his oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, but the president's oath goes further than just support it, like other officers and officials sworn in....the president not only has to support it, as President he is responsible to defend it and protect it to preserve it, through the DOJ and courts.

 

[g5000]

At this point, Trump must be getting his lawyers from ads on shopping carts.

 

[Dragonlady]

It sounds like another democrat lie.

Everything "sounds like another democrat lie" to those who believe Donald Trump. That's why you're part of a Cult. You can't tell the truth from lies, and you choose to believe the lies.