That’s missing the previous clause of “under the United States”. How is that not Federal?
I can see how electors aren’t officers and need to be called out. I fail to see how anything called “Office of…” isn’t an officer.
6 Likes
A pretty big piece of historical context is Trump is the first president in American history who hadn’t held public office before or had a military background.
Every single other president had gone through at least one of the positions explicitly mentioned in the 14th Amendment. So it’s far more likely that the people who wrote it didn’t think there could be a president it wouldn’t apply to anyway.
Makes more sense than writing a law that’d exclude insurrectionists from being a State mine inspector but not from the highest office in the country…
5 Likes
But the court has found, several times, that the Constitution establishes that: “the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch” (U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982))
Most recently, at President Trump’s request, that the U.S. President is a federal officer: “President Trump removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).” (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC, 951 F. 3d 503 (2020))
This ‘officer’ definition, as applied to the President, seems a litigated and settled matter.
15 Likes
my gist here is that gatto is just explaining in detail the judges “reasoning”; doesnt mean agreeing.
10 Likes
thats a given.
Trump’s J6 legal defense: he never swore to support the Constitution, despite taking an oath to protect it
If this isn’t a direct admission to breaking the law and committing treasonous acts i don’t know what is
16 Likes
But he had his fingers crossed on his left hand.
7 Likes
I hate to break it to you, but he’s appealing that part of the ruling:
If you have enough lawyers and money, you can appeal anything.
8 Likes
Gotcha. Sorry if I misread you, @gatto .
4 Likes
i was trying separate “did he break his oath” from “why did the judge decide this way.”
i felt the difference was important. everyone ( including the judge ) agrees he broke his oath. his lawyer’s argument is stupid dumb.
21 Likes
Tiny, tiny, tiny fingers.
For anything else, there is guns.
13 Likes
People like Barr. Demonstrate how dangerous the office of the presidency can be the hands of someone like trump, prove that the constitution is inadequate towards addressing the harm, and then rewrite the constitution from top to bottom once you control enough captive state legislatures.
7 Likes
Will no one rid us of this troublesome prick?
8 Likes
It wasn’t adultery because my fingers were crossed when I said, “I do”.
I owe @KathyPartdeux a coke.
9 Likes
Jack Smith and Fanny Willis are trying…
8 Likes
And again, we have the GOP trying to defend their actions as legal. Never mind moral, beneficial, or actual leadership … they’re just still clawing for basic legality.
9 Likes
Yes, but please see Roe v Wade
11 Likes
Again we also have Trump and co not even bothering to deny wrongdoing. Just that their wrongdoing is some how excused by some legalistic bullshit.
20 Likes
Also, when reading the text that they are trying to figure out if it applies to the president, I get the sense that it assumes that an insurrection would originate from outside the executive branch. Maybe the writers of this amendment never conceived that an insurrection could originate from within the executive branch?
12 Likes
…and that, for some reason, “well, I may be incompetent but I’m not breaking the law” is supposed to convince us they’re the better candidate.
8 Likes
