‘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,’ read a filing from the former president’s attorneys
The text of the section they are challenging (emphasis added):
It’s an exceptionally stupid argument, even for Trump. Obviously “preserve, protect, and defend” are all forms of support, so this challenge is quite possibly the stupidest legal argument they’ve made so far (which is an extremely high bar). But I suppose they don’t think they can realistically claim that he didnt engage in insurrection.
Hold up, if that’s the crux of his argument, does that mean that his argument is
“I can’t be barred from running because I never took an oath to support the constitution. Therefore my inciting insurrection is not covered by this clause. But I totally incited rebellion.”?
“I crossed my fingers when I took the oath of office so it didn’t count. Also, I’m rubber and you’re glue. Whatever 14th Amendment you throw bounces off of me and sticks to you!”
-Trump’s next legal arguments…
Unfortunately, I think it is “while I do not admit to starting a rebellion, whether I did or not is immaterial because ‘preserve, protect, and defend’ definitely doesn’t include ‘support’”
He only needs to convince 5 Supreme Court justices.
Yes, that’s what they’re arguing.
Wow that’s stupid. I’m sure this comes up all the time with wording of other laws and I’m sure judges are used to eviscerating it. Now as long as we don’t get stupid judges…
If it ends up on the Supreme Court, I’m sure Clarence Thomas will enthusiastically support the idea.
America’s Uncle Tom.
Uncle Tom is already American.
And was actually a sweet, kind character that through sheer goodness convinced white people, including his murderers, to reject slavery and prejudice.
That will not be Clarance Thomas’s story.
I commented that based on the slurs of him from the black community. I do not know the full story but shared it based on what I hear from my black friends. It was explained to me that he was a bad dude that sold out other black people. Similar to Uncle Rukus in The Boondocks.
With that context, I meant it as there is the black uncle tom that sold out other black people and now we have American uncle tom selling out America.
It was the top-selling fictional book of the 19th Century (and second-best period - behind only the Bible), and many of the black characters nece the stereotypes of black characters seen in media even today. Mammy, black waif child, and Uncle Tom included.
Uncle Tom was meant to be an almost Christ-like figure by Stowe. But in later years people came to view him differently - often due to state plays of the story that changed the story to give Tom a “happy” ending.
Now when people refer to an “Uncle Tom” they’re referring to a black man who not only allows himself to be mistreated, but actually loves his masters. Someone whose subservience and loyalty amounts to complicity with the mistreatment of himself and others.
In the book, he is kind and peaceful, and the entire books has a theme of goodness prevailing over violence.
The slave hunter sent after Eliza and her family shot in the book, and instead of letting him die they take him to a Quaker community that helps him recover. Through the kindness shown by the escaped slaves and the Quakers he learns to understand what goodness is, rejects slavery and prejudice, and helps the escaped slaves flee to Canada.
Tom’s kindness inspires a slave-owning family to reject slavery and prejudice (2 different evils addressed by the book). His tragedy is that the sister of his owner that intended to free him sells him off to Simon Legree - the most purely-evil slave master in the book.
Tom is later mortally beaten, but forgives those who are killing him (it’s not subtle at all about the comparison to Christ), and afterwards the men who did it once again reject slavery.
But later adaptations, especially plays and “anti-Tom” literature paint him as an obedient, happy slave that is perfectly content to be abused and watch other be abused. That combined with readers confusing peace and kindness with embracing evil has lead to a tragic misinterpretation of a character meant to outrage people and put a magnifying lens on the evils of slavery.
And it worked. Legend says that when Harriet Beecher Stowe met President Lincoln in 1862, he said “So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war.”
I enjoyed reading this write. Thank you for sharing.
Why does this remind me of some sovereign citizen bullshit?
I do not stand under.
SovCit thinking is basically being a really bad lawyer.
Removed by mod
Sovereign citizens aren’t just being bad lawyers. They truly believe that the legal system is a world of magic where saying the exact right phrase will create nonsensical effects. The canadian judge that eviscerated their entire thinking did a really good job of showing how skewed their paradigm is.
It’s not quite that simple. To be clear, the argument being proposed by his lawyers is that he is not an “officer of the United States” so it doesn’t apply to him.
Basically, there’s legal precedent that elected officials aren’t officers of the US because they are elected and not hired. Add to that the sheer number of commas, “and”s, and “or”s, that it can get legally murky.
NB: Not a lawyer. Read about the above on Mastadon from a legal scholar. Will see if I can find the link.
Doesn’t the “No person shall be a … elector of President and Vice President” just outright say that the statement obviously includes elected officials? Specifically the POTUS and VPOTUS?
I think it directly implies POTUS, especially this part:
But also, they don’t have to be legally correct or in-keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Under my assumption that a few of the Supreme Court Justices are surely psychopaths, they just need an interpretation that’s plausible enough to avoid consequences to themselves.
The argument I’ve seen is that the condition part of the clause (insurrection) by language only applies to the bit after “who, having previously…”
Basically, the argument goes “It says you can’t be President or Vice President if you did insurrection while an officer of the US”—but it doesn’t say you can’t be President if you did insurrection while president of the US.
To be clear: I think it’s fucking idiotic and against the spirit of the law—but I’m no lawyer/legal expert.
While i hate Trump and don’t think he has a leg I can see some give in this argument. Just in the idea that I don’t think a president should have to support the entirety of the US constitution. I think a representative of the US government can disagree with aspects of the constitution but still preserve, protect, and defend it.
It’s not a very strong argument but there is something to be said.