The former president's lawyers argue why he cannot be barred from running for office for allegedly violating the 14th Amendment.
    • NegativeNull@lemm.ee@lemm.eeEnglish
      982·
      11 months ago

      The Narcissist’s Prayer:

      That didn’t happen.
      And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
      And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
      And if it is, that’s not my fault.
      And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
      And if I did, you deserved it.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      241·
      11 months ago

      Their argument is that because he did not use the exact word “support” in respect to the Constitution, that he is not able to be excluded from holding office in the US even if he did commit seditious acts. He is saying that his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” is entirely different than an oath to “support” it. It’s nonsense, but one judge (in Colorado, I believe?) has already provided legitimacy to that argument, so… the stupid argument now has judicial precedent.

      Edit: Correcting my mistake about the Judge’s verdict. The judge did not uphold the argument that the Presidential oath was not to “support” the Constitution. Instead, the Judge was convinced by Trump’s team that the President is not an “officer of the United States”. Therefore, Trump took no oath as an Officer of the United States, and, thus, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (which exclude someone who swore such an oath, who then incites an insurrection from holding federal or state office) simply doesn’t apply to someone who has only sworn an oath as President.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        45·
        11 months ago

        That judge is insane. The word “officer” literally means “one who holds office”. This has always been the dictionary definition of the word. What the fuck is that judge smoking?!

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          221·
          11 months ago

          He’s smoking his fat bribes from the rich cunts that run the country.

        • FishFace@lemmy.world
          91·
          11 months ago

          You can read her judgement here: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023 Final Order.pdf

          The most convincing part is the other places in the constitution which set up the presidency in opposition to Officers of the United States. However, it’s far from clear cut, as people definitely did think of and refer to the president as being an Officer of the United States.

          • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
            4·
            11 months ago

            Both can’t be true. A president can’t be an officer and not an officer. What can be true is an officer that is opposition to other officers. This is what Ben Shapiro would call ‘logic.’

            • FishFace@lemmy.world
              12·
              11 months ago

              I’m afraid that’s not the right kind of logic. Laws don’t always use words with the exact same meaning throughout, especially when considering a body of law rather than a single document. And here we’re not even talking about an inconsistency within the constitution, but consistency between a clause in it and the usage of people in other contexts. Suppose you have a document which says:

              The Field Marshal may appoint officers as he sees fit

              Clearly that does not mean the Field Marshal can appoint a new Field Marshal, so in that document we may think “officers” doesn’t include Field Marshal. On the other hand in general usage, Field Marshal clearly is an officer. Let’s say later on in the document there’s a clause which says:

              Generals, Lieutenant generals, major generals, brigadiers, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants and other officers are eligible for…

              Do we think that “other officers” should include the Field Marshal, here? Sure, we know that in general usage, he is an officer. But also, why did whoever wrote this start with General and then work their way down? Wouldn’t they have included the Field Marshal, the most important guy, if they meant for him to be included? Is it not more likely that “other officers” only includes the lower ranks? Besides, in this document we have evidence that “officer” is not always used to include Field Marshal, because he can’t appoint a new Field Marshal.

              Now in the actual case it’s not exactly the same: there are only three things listed besides “officer of the United States” so the argument from the ordering is not as strong. But the argument that officer in general usage included the presidency is also less strong - military ranks are much better defined.

              I’m not trying to convince you the argument is right, but to allow you to see the logic of it.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          9·
          11 months ago

          I’m no lawyer, but I swear 99% of law is laughable semantics like this.

          • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            4·
            11 months ago

            America does produce 4x the lawyers expected per capita, and they’ve gotta do something to get paid, so … yeah.

            • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
              1·
              11 months ago

              Frankly, there’s a lot of it that’s creative reading of something so you don’t have to spend 6 months fighting an even worse battle. Also, turns out six people can look at the exact same sentence and come away with six different interpretations, so there’s a good deal of legitimate disagreement on meaning.

    • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
      0·
      11 months ago

      They are arguing that the oath doesn’t include the word “support” not that he didn’t take the oath. Not saying it’s a good argument but that’s what they are actually arguing.

      “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.”

      Emphasis mine.

  • Melllvar@startrek.websiteEnglish
    951·
    11 months ago

    “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,” Blue wrote.

    By the same token, the Second Amendment doesn’t say “guns”.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      23·
      11 months ago

      Remember that a large portion of the country still rallies behind this person. It’s a sad state of affairs.

    • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      11 months ago

      And we all used to pretty much universally agree he’s a piece of shit. Like every villain in every 80s and 90s movie is overtly based on him.

      Turns out, all you have to do is lie about your financial history in the intro of a popular reality TV show in order to 100% reverse that. Man, people (in general) are fucking stupid.

    • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
      47·
      11 months ago

      The sophistry here is that the presidential oath doesn’t contain the word “support”. It’s complete bullshit but you never know with this SCOTUS.

      • neclimdul@lemmy.world
        401·
        11 months ago

        Not sure how support doesn’t fall under “preserve, protect and defend” in every way that’s meaningful

        • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
          29·
          11 months ago

          That is the sophistry part. It clearly was intended to be a higher level of oath that included the lower one. Watch: SCOTUS will say that the president actually doesn’t have to support the Constitution.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        2·
        11 months ago

        I mean, a Colorado court just decided that he did engage in an insurrection, and the phrase “office of the president” appears all over all sorts of documentation, but the guy who holds the office of the president is not an officer, so he’s allowed to commit treason and still run for president

    • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
      1111·
      11 months ago

      Why is this comment so heavily upvoted? His argument is not that he never took an oath, but that the wording of it was not to “support.”

      It still a stupid argument as far as I’m concerned, although it may be a good legal one, but its clear you didn’t even bother to read the argument, yet are very confident in your ignorance.

      These are exactly the type of comments that should be down voted.

      • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
        81·
        11 months ago

        Trymps arguments are moving goal posts, he’s a narcissist. For the past 6 years we have all given him the benefit of the doubt and America and the rest of the world have been debating what he really means at every tweet and followed the narrative that HE wanted us to follow. Had we all taken OPs approach earlier and more often this guy would be in an old people’s house where he belongs, bragging with incontinent people about passing the men, woman camera TV test.

        We should have called a funking liar and a demented that cannot articulate a point instead of talking to each other about what his argument was. This is staring from the media and down to individuals.

        Remember if your uncle behaved like this at thanksgiving dinner you’d have him checked.

        • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
          19·
          11 months ago

          Whos been giving this guy the benefit of the doubt for 6 years now? I’m all for calling him a liar and a rambling idiot, which he is.

          But I don’t see what this has to do with anything. Trump didn’t make the argument that he never took an oath, but that he never took an oath to “defend.” This is not debating what he really means, it’s just accepting the facts. You, like trump, might ignore reality to make the point you want, but I can’t do that. Sorry.

          • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
            71·
            11 months ago

            What he really means doesn’t matter, and he will keep changing it as you let him drag you in the mud.

            Sorry we* wouldn’t have accepted a statement like this from Obama or even George w. And that’s the way it should be.

            And by we I mean society, the media, his peers anyone. While you sit proudly on your high horse fascism takes over.

            • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
              21·
              11 months ago

              Holy shit this is amazing. I’m just pointing out what his actual argument is, like quite literally what his argument is in court.

              I’m not saying we should accept it. You’re stuck in black and white thinking, and so because I point out that the facts contradict something that someone you agree with is claiming, then I must be drawing the exact opposite conclusion.

              But, just like trump, it appears you don’t want to facts to get in the way of the narrative. If that high horse is basing opinions on facts and reality, then I’ll proudly sit tall upon it.

                • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
                  21·
                  11 months ago

                  I disagree that the problem was solved, because this was never the problem to begin with, but I’m okay moving on as well.

  • vortic@lemmy.world
    48·
    11 months ago

    The argument that I’ve heard from some prominent lawyers is that “preserve, protect and defend” was intended by the framers to be a stronger oath than “support” and that it should be construed as including “support”. Hopefully the courts agree with that reasoning.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      25·
      11 months ago

      Even if not stronger per se, surely if I said I was going to “protect” you, we would agree that I am “supporting” you. It’s like saying I only promised to make you wealthier, not pay you. They are not literally the same word but paying someone is a way to make them wealthier.

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        122·
        11 months ago

        Straight up, if you’re protecting something it should be obvious that you support it

        Otherwise why would you protect it?

        For example: I protect personal privacy because I support the idea of personal privacy

        • ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world
          103·
          11 months ago

          Counter example: “I will protect your right to practice religion, even if I don’t support religion.”

          There are some things worth protecting, regardless if you support it or not.

          • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
            161·
            11 months ago

            But you’re not protecting the religion, you’re protecting the right to practice it, which it seems like you also support. It would be strange to say “I will protect your religion” if you don’t support any aspect of said religion.

            • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
              62·
              11 months ago

              Maybe, maybe not. Military and police are two examples of groups that frequently defend/protect people/ideas that individual members don’t support. Doctors and lawyers are legally required to protect their patients/clients within the confines of their practices, but they certainly don’t have to support their patients/clients.

              • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
                5·
                11 months ago

                This may seem like splitting hairs, but I honestly don’t think it is:

                Military and police are groups that defend/protect their country, it’s laws and it’s fundamental principles, which they most likely support. Just like your previous argument: Police can defend and support the right to protest, without supporting the content of the protest. This extends to pretty much anything.

                Doctors and lawyers can support a universal right to life, good health, and a just trial, and by supporting those things, it makes sense to help, defend and protect a patient / client regardless of their background, practices or actions.

                In both cases, we could make an exemption for police / military / doctors / lawyers that are there just for the cash. At that point, it’s basically, “I’m defending / protecting because I support me getting paid.” and the whole argument is kind of moot.

                • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
                  33·
                  11 months ago

                  Respectfully disagree. You’re talking about institutions that, frankly, a good chunk of these professions just do not support. Like there is a solid contingent of lawyers that fundamentally disagree with just outcomes since anything can be spun. You’ll find doctors everywhere that don’t support a universal right to life. Police, to be blunt, frequently and demonstrably do not give a shit about the laws they purport to uphold. Military have some brainwashing issues you have to take into account, but frequently their personal beliefs clash with their training.

                  In all of these, the professional is legally required to defend certain principles that they might not personally support. I guess they professionally have to support them too, but at that point we’ve gone full circle

              • pedalmore@lemmy.world
                1·
                11 months ago

                You seem to be conflating two entirely separate things here. The idea of protesting in general and any individual protest about topic X are entirely different things, only related by the fact that the word protest is in both. Same for all your other examples - you can support a women’s right to choose but be against abortion personally because those are two entirely different things that are logically compatible. This is not the case for defend/support the constitution itself, because there’s only one meaning of the constitution in this context.

  • paddirn@lemmy.worldEnglish
    40·
    11 months ago

    What a simpler time when we could all joke about Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word “is”.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      25·
      11 months ago

      At least then we could argue about a lie being a lie, now it’s all “he never said that (literally 4 seconds ago), if he did it’s fine, if you’re mad that’s your fault, he never said it anyway. I like that he said it.”

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      24·
      11 months ago

      thing about that is, clinton actually had a point. he said “there is nothing going on between [he and monica lewinsky]” when asked, and was then accused of perjury. He argued that “is” meant “is”, and because at the time of asking he and lewinsky didn’t have an ongoing relationship he didn’t lie.

    • Smokeydope@lemmy.worldEnglish
      143·
      11 months ago

      Also back then a president getting a BJ was grounds for impeachment lol it really puts things into perspective

      • Oderus@lemmy.world
        142·
        11 months ago

        IIRC, he was impeached for lying about it, not actually doing it which IMHO, is less of an issue than cheating on your wife.

        • Smokeydope@lemmy.worldEnglish
          162·
          11 months ago

          Great now im imagining a timeline where bill was 100% honest about it in a congressional hearing “Yeah I solicited a blowjob from monica, im one of the most famous and wealthiest politicians of the era. Spoilers, all us rich politicians like to get away with stuff we shouldn’t be doing, and the system is rigged to let us do it. So, what are you gonna do about it?”

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            111·
            11 months ago

            Or even better:

            “Hilldawg and I have been ethically non-monogamous since reading The Ethical Slut and I don’t really understand why America should be brought into our personal business. Monica is regularly our third and we both filed paperwork with White House HR before any physical interaction to avoid suspicion of bias towards her job performance”

            I mean if it’s my dream timeline, I wanna make it fun.

            • AdamHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
              1·
              11 months ago

              I’ve always wondered why they stuck it out. It seems they both have different ideas about physical intimacy, so why stay? Is money worth years of being unloved and unhappy. It makes no sense to me.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                1·
                11 months ago

                I don’t think they’re unloved. I genuinely think more politicians than you think have “arrangements.” Even if not, infidelity happens, and I’m glad they worked through it

        • VR20X6@sh.itjust.works
          101·
          11 months ago

          Cheating on his wife was reprehensible, but not really impeachment-worthy. Did it make any difference in his ability to govern? Nope. But sure, if it didn’t happen in his second term, I’m not going to say you shouldn’t have been allowed to consider it for whether or not you should vote for his reelection.

          • voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
            2·
            11 months ago

            Cheating on your wife isn’t illegal, because we don’t live in a theocracy. That’s between him and his wife and maybe a marriage counselor. It has nothing to do with his office.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      6·
      11 months ago

      I was listening a podcast abour history of philosophy and the guy spent like two chapters talking abouts the meaning of “is” is, because of a middle age philosophers called the grammaticals or something like that, that keep discussing the meaning of words.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    327·
    11 months ago

    If the Founders wanted Presidents removed for committing Insurrection they would have EXPLICITLY stated it in the Constitution! Just like how the EXPLICITLY allow people to own AR15 guns and how it’s EXPLICITLY allowed to shoot up schools with those guns!

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    221·
    11 months ago

    Harry & Lloyd, Laurel & Hardy, Trump & The Republican Party.

    Not sure which one’s the dumbest.

    • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      71·
      11 months ago

      The fact that you included Laurel & Hardy shows how big their genius was. They mastered the dumb in a way that is still influencing to this day!

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      91·
      11 months ago

      The 22nd amendment goes:

      No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

      So if you can believe someone else stole the election in 2016 for Trump, then he wasn’t elected, and if he wasn’t really super duper sworn in, then he can get two more terms. Which with any luck should let him die in office, thus not having to go to jail.

      If you listen to some of the MAGA folks, they’ll want to believe this.

      • Techmaster@lemm.ee
        4·
        11 months ago

        or acted as president

        Checkmate! He never acted presidential, so that first term doesn’t even count!