Trump's lawyers: He didn't take an oath to defend the Constitution

[Nostra]

the oath is to "uphold and defend the constitution...." do you need a thesaurus? is english not your native language?

Tater doesn’t uphold, defend, or support the Constitution.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

"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."

See. No support.

 

[Rogue AI]

di you really think robt e lee would be allowed to run for president?

and your premise is false. the president gets a pay check and a w-2. he is a government employee.

Yes, if enough people voted for him. In a sane country the winner would get the exemption vote, if not Congress can impeach and remove. Those are the available Constitutional remedies. There is no enforcement apparatus built into the 14th.

If the 14th applied to the President it would say so, it doesn't. Stop crying and attempting to silence the opposition through lawfare.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Colorado judge dismissed the specious lawsuit.

 

[Care4all]

Here's the Presidential 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.

Technically, it doesn't use the word support, so the lawyers are correct.

Now let's look at the 14th Amendment, Section 3: 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.

So aside from the fact that Trump didn't engage in rebellion or insurrection, the President doesn't take an oath to support the Constitution, so it doesn't apply to the office of President. Supreme Court justices likewise take no oath to support the Constitution, but Congressmen and the Vice President do.

You're wrong on that and so is the judge.....imho...

Here is why....

-the president is the chief executive officer, of the Executive Office branch of the United States government so he is an Officer of the United States....the Chief Officer.

-yes his oath is slightly different in wording because he has even greater responsibility than a congressman or military guy with the constitution.... As president he not only has to support the constitution which is a given, he has to protect and preserve it through using the DOJ and their lawyers to defend it in a court of law.... You can't preserve the constitution without supporting the constitution.

-the argument that the president's oath doesn't say support, so he is not included in the wording in the 14th..... is first off.... ridiculous! Yes his oath to the constitution is slightly different, but guess what? The Military oath of office is slightly different than the congress critter oath and the presidential oath....and Military officers ARE INCLUDED in the section 3 of the 14thA....

The military oath is to UPHOLD
the president is to PRESERVE and PROTECT
the congress critters is to SUPPORT

the Constitution.

And for all of the above, DEFEND

Military oath being different, and not using the word support, but using the word uphold, did not stop the military or exempt them from this punishment if they participated in an insurrection or aided our enemies,

As it does not exempt the president from being punished if he participated in an insurrection or aided or abetted the enemy, foreign or domestic.

Why would the president or vice president be exempt from any punishment if they broke their oaths to the constitution, by aiding the enemy or participating in an insurrection? Why would the forefathers or previous amendment writers, ever in a million gazillion years, let a president run for office again after doing either of those things....aiding the enemy or participate thru incitement, in an insurrection?

I contend, they wouldn't! It makes absolutely no sense that the forefather legislators would...! Imo.

Of course, the courts will decide in the end and I could be wrong soooo, we will see!

 

[Mac1958]

"Trump never did what we all saw him do on live television."

Cultists: "That seems right."

At the very foundation of this is the fact that they don't care.

Remember the rule: He can (rape and/or) shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and they won't care.

It's not like this is a first:

 

[LeroyDumonde]

You're wrong on that and so is the judge.....imho...

Here is why....

-the president is the chief executive officer, of the Executive Office branch of the United States government so he is an Officer of the United States....the Chief Officer.

-yes his oath is slightly different in wording because he has even greater responsibility than a congressman or military guy with the constitution.... As president he not only has to support the constitution which is a given, he has to protect and preserve it through using the DOJ and their lawyers to defend it in a court of law.... You can't preserve the constitution without supporting the constitution.

-the argument that the president's oath doesn't say support, so he is not included in the wording in the 14th..... is first off.... ridiculous! Yes his oath to the constitution is slightly different, but guess what? The Military oath of office is slightly different than the congress critter oath and the presidential oath....and Military officers ARE INCLUDED in the section 3 of the 14thA....

The military oath is to UPHOLD
the president is to PRESERVE and PROTECT
the congress critters is to SUPPORT

the Constitution.

And for all of the above, DEFEND

Military oath being different, and not using the word support, but using the word uphold, did not stop the military or exempt them from this punishment if they participated in an insurrection or aided our enemies,

As it does not exempt the president from being punished if he participated in an insurrection or aided or abetted the enemy, foreign or domestic.

Why would the president or vice president be exempt from any punishment if they broke their oaths to the constitution, by aiding the enemy or participating in an insurrection? Why would the forefathers or previous amendment writers, ever in a million gazillion years, let a president run for office again after doing either of those things....aiding the enemy or participate thru incitement, in an insurrection?

I contend, they wouldn't! It makes absolutely no sense that the forefather legislators would...! Imo.

Of course, the courts will decide in the end and I could be wrong soooo, we will see!

That the military oath doesn't use the word support is irrelevant. The Amendment would apply to any member of the military whose oath uses the word support, and not to those that don't. The wording of military oaths can be changed simply by legislation to that effect. The President's oath would have to be changed by an Amendment, which is much harder to do and wouldn't retroactively apply to Trump. The wording of the Amendment and the presidential oath are clear, whether the judge recognizes it or not.

 

[Curried Goats]

That the military oath doesn't use the word support is irrelevant. The Amendment would apply to any member of the military whose oath uses the word support, and not to those that don't. The wording of military oaths can be changed simply by legislation to that effect. The President's oath would have to be changed by an Amendment, which is much harder to do and wouldn't retroactively apply to Trump. The wording of the Amendment and the presidential oath are clear, whether the judge recognizes it or not.

Sorry but that's how dictatorships operate. In a constitutional federal republic like our own the President is subject to the checks and balances of the court.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Sorry but that's how dictatorships operate. In a constitutional federal republic like our own the President is subject to the checks and balances of the court.

He is and I didn't argue otherwise. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President because of the way it was worded.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I ran out of adjectives to describe this disaster a long time ago. I know Trump's followers -- and I do mean followers -- will defend this.

From the Colorado case:

In a filing made to the Colorado Supreme Court, lawyers for former President Donald Trump say that he never took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States’’ and should therefore not be banned from the state’s presidential ballots in 2024 based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Trump legal news brief: Appeals court rules Trump can be sued for inciting Jan. 6 violence

A federal appeals court rules that civil lawsuits seeking damages against former President Donald Trump for his role in inciting the U.S. Capitol riot carried out by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, can proceed.

news.yahoo.com

I would ask the Trumpsters what they think of this, but I know they're fine with the idea.

I still can't believe this is happening here. In America. No way.

Wasn’t this issue already debated? I thought there was a thread about this a month or two ago.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He is and I didn't argue otherwise. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President because of the way it was worded.

It says "officers".

What is the title of trump's former office?

"Office of the President of the United States"

Seems like it applies.

 

[Dr.Know]

Piss ignorant lawyers I'd say.

At this point,,,Trump is a bigger threat to the Deep State and Democrats than Hamas or Iran. They must stop him at all costs because they are on a short timeline ( as we all know, 2030 is their first target date for implementation ). With co-operation from the FBI controlled Left, Biden should be able to find a way to keep Trump off of the ballots.

 

[my2¢]

My quick search didn't turn up any court transcript of defense filings to actually see what was said, but no matter, watching court cases on YouTube its apparent that what these defense lawyers can dream up knows no bounds. I don't see it as any reflection on Trump himself, as these lawyers are in a league of their own. I reckon in this situation they hooked on "support" and what came to mind was 'if the word doesn't fit, you must acquit'.

 

[Moonglow]

At this point,,,Trump is a bigger threat to the Deep State and Democrats than Hamas or Iran. They must stop him at all costs because they are on a short timeline ( as we all know, 2030 is their first target date for implementation ). With co-operation from the FBI controlled Left, Biden should be able to find a way to keep Trump off of the ballots.

Trump is not anymore special than any other Republican through history rivals tend to want to play gotcha games to get rid of opponents, hell look how Trump acted with Hillary.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

At this point,,,Trump is a bigger threat to the Deep State and Democrats than Hamas or Iran. They must stop him at all costs because they are on a short timeline ( as we all know, 2030 is their first target date for implementation ). With co-operation from the FBI controlled Left, Biden should be able to find a way to keep Trump off of the ballots.

Trump is a threat to the entire planet.

 

[Nostra]

Trump is a threat to the entire planet.

Please explain in great detail how you think Trump will destroy “the entire planet”.

Do you morons ever read your posts before hitting “reply”?

 

[LeroyDumonde]

It says "officers".

What is the title of trump's former office?

"Office of the President of the United States"

Seems like it applies.

It says officers who took an oath to support the Constitution. The word support never appears in the presidential oath.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It says officers who took an oath to support the Constitution. The word support never appears in the presidential oath.

Irrelevant. Preserve and support are synonyms.

 

[bripat9643]

I ran out of adjectives to describe this disaster a long time ago. I know Trump's followers -- and I do mean followers -- will defend this.

From the Colorado case:

In a filing made to the Colorado Supreme Court, lawyers for former President Donald Trump say that he never took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States’’ and should therefore not be banned from the state’s presidential ballots in 2024 based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Trump legal news brief: Appeals court rules Trump can be sued for inciting Jan. 6 violence

A federal appeals court rules that civil lawsuits seeking damages against former President Donald Trump for his role in inciting the U.S. Capitol riot carried out by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, can proceed.

news.yahoo.com

I would ask the Trumpsters what they think of this, but I know they're fine with the idea.

I still can't believe this is happening here. In America. No way.

I know you're fin with the idea that a judge can revoke the right of the people to vote for the candidate of their choice. All the people who are constantly blubbering about how Republicans were trying to overthrow democracy are fine with the idea of judges taking it away.

What a bunch of scathing hypocrites.

 

[Rawley]

Please explain in great detail how you think Trump will destroy “the entire planet”.

Do you morons ever read your posts before hitting “reply”?

LOL Particularly when the demented simp he put in office is joking about blowing up the world with our nukes.