re: SIAP: Donald Trump Says He Never Swore Oath 'to Support the Constitution'

I think the headline is more marketing than the main points of the article. There isn't a blind denial of applicability based on the oath. Instead, Trump's legal team use the text of the oath as evidence of applicability. Indeed, the quote used in the article states in full

quote:

---

"The framers excluded the office of President from Section Three purposefully," Trump's legal team wrote. "Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office 'under the United States,' the president is not an 'officer of the United States,' and President Trump did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution of the United States.'"

---

In fact, in Judge Wallace's decision, she discusses the concept of how exclusion applies in the law (i.e. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius); namely,

(1) The Constitution specifically refers to the office of President and Vice President when they want to refer to President and Vice President. That is absent in the 14th Amendment, yet there is specific reference to other government positions, such as Senator or Representative.

(2) The 14th Amendment list is hierarchal, starting with Congressional disqualifications, going to electors and then moving down to other offices.

More specifically, "offices" aren't meant to be a sweeping clause. There isn't language such as "including"; "at a minimum;" or other such words that would show they are trying to incorporate things that might be left out. Thus, offices would be lesser positions than a Congressional position.

Its reasonable to disagree with that logic; however, the discussion of the oath is just one item to show how the Amendment focuses on the type of oath taken by legislatures rather than the one taken by the President.

A reasonable person could disagree. You can find plenty here that disagree with the finding of Trump having engaged in an insurrection, but I don't think this is on the same level of "That depends on what you mean by 'is'"

quote:

---

I'm actually serious. I haven't been better off under any other president.

---

How old are you?

quote:

---

but literally nothing has negatively changed for me and mines

---

That's a LIE!!

quote:

---

Didn't he win the Colorado case because of it?

---

Did he win the Colorado argument specifically because of the support vs defend argument? I find that hard to believe but if I am wrong, please let me know. I don't think it will change my opinion on how that plays for the general voter population but I also don't want to make incorrect statements.

quote:

---

Trump will be prepared for this line of attack.

---

I like Trump. I like his brand of saying what's on his mind with no care for political correctness and how great the economy was doing under him, until he gave control over to Fauci in 2020. Debate, and interview, prep are not his strong suits. Do you really have faith in him to make that cogent argument?

Again, I'm a DeSantis supporter so take this as you will but I had a similar conversation with my parents (my mom is a dyed in the wool Trump supporter since 2015 and my dad is center-center left (economically right but socially liberal), that DeSantis is Trump better at articulating the MAGA agenda.

Trump could, and should, have destroyed every debate whenever minorities came up. Yet, he was never able to clearly state how much better his administration was for minorities than any other President since the Civil Rights Act. I don't se him getting better at that so I have no faith in him being able to defend the legal nuance of this argument even though I think it's the right, although unnecessary, legal argument to make.

What the hell have I lied about? Are you that insecure that no matter what I say you'll never believe?

Point on the doll where your parents abused you.

Protip: not everyone will share the same opinion as yours. That's a good, healthy thing. Please don't murder them with a sling blade. Musterd n biscuits

quote:

---

Maybe I got lucky?

---

Yep. So let's define lucky. Play along ...

What Biden action(s), policy, etc. is responsible for you being "better off" under Biden than you were under any other President?

quote:

---

It doesn’t really matter. Trump doesn’t know the Contitution and ignores it, anyway.

---

Probably from when he was a Democrat....

Dude has been crushed but keeps coming back even without basic knowledge

quote:

---

AKA I got NC_Tigah (which is a very gay way to spell that btw)'s panties in a wad

---

teamjackson getting schooled and so turns to saying he was trolling like those getting owned usually do. Lolz

quote:

---

Did he win the Colorado argument specifically because of the support vs defend argument? I find that hard to believe but if I am wrong, please let me know. I don't think it will change my opinion on how that plays for the general voter population but I also don't want to make incorrect statements.

---

Not specifically on "Support" v "Defend" but on the wider question of whether the 14th amendment is meant to disqualify someone for the office of President. The no oath for support is just an evidence point in an argument that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the office of president.

Wallace did rule that Trump engaged in insurrection, but that is also subject to appeal.