- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
So Trump is arguing that he had no duty to support the constitution?
Posted on 10/11/23 at 7:53 pm
Posted on 10/11/23 at 7:53 pm
"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.
LINK
LINK
15
Posted on 10/11/23 at 7:54 pm to BamaGradinTn
I’d pay good money to hear Trump explain his understanding of the Constitution for a full two minutes.
Posted on 10/11/23 at 7:55 pm to BamaGradinTn
Trump was just taking a page out of the Dems playbook who shite on the Constitution every chance they get
Posted on 10/11/23 at 7:56 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I’d pay good money to hear Trump explain his understanding of the Constitution for a full two minutes.
I'd pay $5-10 dollars to hear yours.
Posted on 10/11/23 at 7:56 pm to BamaGradinTn
He had a constitutional duty to invoke the insurrection act to stop a Manchurian candidate from being installed into the office of the president by our enemies.
If you really want to get technical, but 70% of the country wasn’t “woke” enough to do that.
Give me a break on his constitutional duties.
If you really want to get technical, but 70% of the country wasn’t “woke” enough to do that.
Give me a break on his constitutional duties.
Posted on 10/11/23 at 7:59 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
"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."
Posted on 10/11/23 at 8:00 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
So Trump is arguing that he had no duty to support the constitution?
This is pretty much the democrat party’s platform
Posted on 10/11/23 at 8:00 pm to TigerAttorney
quote:
Give me a break on his constitutional duties.
I guess he feels the same way? That he was obligated to "defend" the constitution but not "support" the constitution. Is that what you're looking for in a president?
Reminds me of Bill Clinton saying "it depends on what your definition of is is".
Posted on 10/11/23 at 8:04 pm to BamaGradinTn
Why would the plaintiff in this case use the word “support” that is not in the presidential oath to disqualify him for the ballot in Colorado? Why not use the words in the oath to for a solid argument? 
Posted on 10/11/23 at 8:15 pm to GumboPot
So that this exact “argument” can be made by the simpletons.
It’s a smart distinction for Trump’s attorneys to make. The basis for not including him on the ballot is his failure to “support” the Constitution…Toss it judge, that isn’t a requirement and this suit has no basis in the law. It’s strictly a procedural argument, but the useful idiots get their talking point.
It’s a smart distinction for Trump’s attorneys to make. The basis for not including him on the ballot is his failure to “support” the Constitution…Toss it judge, that isn’t a requirement and this suit has no basis in the law. It’s strictly a procedural argument, but the useful idiots get their talking point.
This post was edited on 10/11/23 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 10/11/23 at 8:18 pm to boosiebadazz
It depends on what the word "is" is.
Posted on 10/11/23 at 8:42 pm to BamaGradinTn
Take the loss, Trumps going to win. Your side is no longer selecting who we can vote for.
Your sides petty attacks won't persuade us to vote for any GOPe/uni-party member again.
It's over for your side.
Your sides petty attacks won't persuade us to vote for any GOPe/uni-party member again.
It's over for your side.
Posted on 10/11/23 at 9:44 pm to TigerAttorney
quote:
He had a constitutional duty to invoke the insurrection act to stop a Manchurian candidate ...
Yes he did and I prayed he would.
Posted on 10/11/23 at 9:58 pm to BamaGradinTn
BBonds is probably the only lawyer I would hire off TD's.
Posted on 10/11/23 at 10:13 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
This is pretty much the democrat party’s platform
Well, he's a democrat so....
Posted on 10/11/23 at 10:35 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
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.
That statement is simply stating that whoever filled the suit is an idiot who apparently didn’t even read the Presidential oath before filing the suit. The filers could have easily used the term preserving, or protecting, or defending the Constitution; which are in the oath. But no, instead they accused him of breaking an oath; supporting; that isn’t there.. I am guessing it must simply be incompetence by their law team.
Posted on 10/11/23 at 11:10 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
It’s a smart distinction for Trump’s attorneys to make. The basis for not including him on the ballot is his failure to “support” the Constitution…Toss it judge, that isn’t a requirement and this suit has no basis in the law. It’s strictly a procedural argument, but the useful idiots get their talking point.
Thanks bond, a nuance that was obviously missed by the OP who actually posted an argument proving he is a knucklehead.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 12:08 am to BamaGradinTn
Doesn't make a lot of sense. You don't even have to be a US citizen to participate in an insurrection, much less take an oath.
I don't see this going anywhere though, if nothing it may provide some future guidance on what exactly constitutes a trigger for the 14th.
I don't see this going anywhere though, if nothing it may provide some future guidance on what exactly constitutes a trigger for the 14th.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 12:09 am to boosiebadazz
A full two minutes on any serious topic would be a challenge for Trump.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News