A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt by former President Donald Trump to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to keep him off the state ballot. The lawsuit claims the U.S.
Trump swore a presidential oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, but the text of the 14th Amendment says it applies to those who have sworn oaths to “support” the Constitution, Blue pointed out the sematic difference in an Oct. 6 filing in the case.
Both oaths “put a weighty burden on the oath-taker,” but those who wrote the amendment were aware of the difference, Blue argued.
“The framers of the 14th Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President,” he wrote.
Absolutely despicable.
That’s a lawyer arguing that a president is free to engage in insurrection because of a semantic difference between the 14th Amendment and the wording of the Oath of Office sworn by the president.
All of these people are fine with America descending into a totalitarian dictatorship, presumably thinking they’re the clever ones who would be doing the dictatoring.
I’ve thought this many times in the last 7 years, but the whole set up is built on the basic premise that “the people” would not elect someone who will so obviously act against their interests.
If voters want to elect an insurrectionist then none of it really matters. The horse has bolted. The egg is scrambled. What a mess.
It would be slightly more palatable if the President was elected by popular vote. With our current system, some nut jobs in small population states and a couple “swing” states can choose to install a dictator.
This is a bit like the “take the warning labels off and let the problem sort itself out” idea, and I can see a little merit in it, but unfortunately the 50% who need the warning labels are going to kill everyone.
A more optimistic view is that these people know that the legal standpoints they are taking are absurd and/or preposterous, but they also know they Trump is dumb enough to buy it and keep the meter running until he’s incarcerated.
On the other hand, I could be giving them too much credit
It’s about as nourishing to the intellect as “surprise mechanics” are to loot boxes. “Preserve, protect and defend” are all ways of “supporting” something.
Absolutely despicable.
That’s a lawyer arguing that a president is free to engage in insurrection because of a semantic difference between the 14th Amendment and the wording of the Oath of Office sworn by the president.
All of these people are fine with America descending into a totalitarian dictatorship, presumably thinking they’re the clever ones who would be doing the dictatoring.
This is right up there with Nixon’s “if the president does it, it isn’t illegal.”
Nixon believed that and Trump believes that the president can declassify documents with his mind.
I feel like if they’re going to make this argument in court, they should be forced to adopt the position in their campaign material.
“TRUMP 2024: I never swore to support the Constitution”
It’s preposterous. Laughably absurd.
I’ve thought this many times in the last 7 years, but the whole set up is built on the basic premise that “the people” would not elect someone who will so obviously act against their interests.
If voters want to elect an insurrectionist then none of it really matters. The horse has bolted. The egg is scrambled. What a mess.
It would be slightly more palatable if the President was elected by popular vote. With our current system, some nut jobs in small population states and a couple “swing” states can choose to install a dictator.
This is a bit like the “take the warning labels off and let the problem sort itself out” idea, and I can see a little merit in it, but unfortunately the 50% who need the warning labels are going to kill everyone.
A more optimistic view is that these people know that the legal standpoints they are taking are absurd and/or preposterous, but they also know they Trump is dumb enough to buy it and keep the meter running until he’s incarcerated.
On the other hand, I could be giving them too much credit
I read “until he’s incinerated.” Freudian slip, perhaps.
It’s about as nourishing to the intellect as “surprise mechanics” are to loot boxes. “Preserve, protect and defend” are all ways of “supporting” something.