politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That's a roundabout and somewhat disingenuous interpretation of their defense. They're arguing that the presidency doesn't fall under "officer of the United States" which is obviously weak as hell, but people get weird when it comes to interpreting the constitution. They aren't trying to claim he didn't take an oath.
Did you not read the article?
You’re talking about the reasoning in the ruling by the district judge. This article is about trump’s argument in filings to the appeals court.
Oh my fuck. Aight well that's on me for assuming they were twisting the lawyer's argument to make him sound bad. I should've known he'd hang himself out to dry as usual.
It’s obviously an overly legalistic and technical argument that doesn’t speak to the merits. But it’s an appeals case, you have to argue legal errors not factual ones. I’m not a lawyer and have no idea how likely it is to succeed, but I think “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” is best legal practice, so I don’t see how this filing hangs him out to dry. It’s bad optics but I don’t think is gonna matter to anyone.
sigh I guess preserve, protect and defend is not supporting.
We have a person that likely will be the primary candidate for the GOP, that is saying he doesn't support the constitution and all of those "patriots" will still vote for him.
Weak? It's non-existent. It's an imaginary "argument". The word "officer" has always been defined (in every English language dictionary) as "one who holds office". That is what the word literally means. Their "argument" must therefore be predicated on the idea that a president does not "hold office".
I want him banned from office, but no, it's not non-existent.
They did actually argue that the Presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" is not the same as an oath to "support" the Constitution.
From the article: "In their appeal against the Colorado lawsuit, Trump's lawyers reiterated that the wording of Section Three does not apply to people running for president and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution during his role as president."
I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir but it seems pretty clear that as president (holding the highest executive office) he is bound by oath to support the constitution.
Wasn't Clinton impeached for something similar, like the definition of the word 'is?'