Trump: Trump did not swear to "support" the constitution!

Biden and his cult followers, think that there is nothing to see when a polling place says they're done counting for the night and sends GOP observers home and then resumes counting

 

If you're going to make a claim like this you probably want to include a direct quote from him in your op.

 

There is nothing quite so peculiar as watching democrats outrages over their own rhetoric especially when it lacks both logic an merit.

 

lol - you can't "preserve, protect and defend the constitution" while at the same time not supporting the constitution.

 

Fake news. 14a Sec 3 lists every office that is covered in a single sentence and the President is not one of those offices. It does cover Bribed Joe though as a former member of Congress.

 

You can if you are ultra MAGA and bottomless.

 

The presidency is an office. Trump was an officer.

Section 3 does allow Trump to get a pass by a 2/3 vote of both houses of congress, though.

Do you think he will try that?

 

That's what one would hope for. Refusing to support section 3 is the same as erasing it, isn't it?

 

Yes.

Fake News. President Trump was an Office Holder - not an "Officer of the United States." Officers of the United States are appointed, not elected, positions.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.​

President is not listed, just as I have told you, repeatedly, so now that you finally admit as much, you retrench and claim that the President is "An officer of the United States".

You claim is false as SCOTUS has already previously pointed out:

The phrase "officers of the United States" is used in the Constitution, so we do not have to guess who is referred to. The Appointments Clause spells out with clarity that the president can nominate "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States."

ALL means EVERY. EVERY Officer of the United States is appointed. NO Officer of the United States is elected.

SCOTUS AFFIRMS: Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), 'Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."'

This is not a new position for SCOTUS:

'In United States v. Mouat (1888 ), Justice Samuel Miller interpreted a statute that used the phrase "officers of the United States." He wrote, "Unless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the president, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not strictly speaking, an officer of the United States." Justice Miller's opinion, drafted two decades after the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification, is probative evidence of the original public meaning of Section 3's "officer of the United States"-language.'

We've always told you that this silly dance that the protest was an 'insurrection" when it wasn't. It was a peaceful protest whipped into a riot by Feds, but never an insurrection, and 14a Sect 3 does not apply to the President.

'In 1943, Attorney General Francis Biddle cited Miller's opinion, and explained that "under the Constitution of the United States, all its officers were appointed by the President . . . or heads of departments or the courts of law." (emphases added). '

'In 2007, the Office of Legal Counsel reaffirmed this position. The Executive Branch has long taken the position that the phrase "officers of the United States" does not extend beyond persons appointed pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures.'

'During the 1876 impeachment trial of William Belknap, Senator Newton Booth from California observed, "the President is not an officer of the United States." Instead, Booth argued, the President is "part of the Government."'

'David McKnight's 1878 treatise on the American electoral system reached a similar conclusion. McKnight wrote that "t is obvious that . . . the President is not regarded as 'an officer of, or under, the United States,' but as one branch of 'the Government.'"'

 

We'll see. The idea of an office holder not being an officer is ridiculous.

As for the Miller case, it was about an appeal of a denial of an $83 charge for delivery services and the question of whether it was a legal charge.

The president was not involved in any way.

 

It's a long settled fact of US Constitutional law. It has never been otherwise.

 

when you can show us a dem President saying they do not support the Constitution, let us know

 

Just look at Joe biden's ideas on gun control.
Look at Obama's Obamacare that was ruled unconstitutional.

 

I'm still waiting on a quote of what he allegedly said.

 

He said it on Truth Social the week of Sept 10.

Trump claimed "almost all legal scholars" agree that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply. He called the effort to keep him off the ballot "election interference" and "just another 'trick' being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an election."

I am not going to sign up for Truth Social.

 

Hello - these were often REPUBLICAN controlled districts and Trump APPOINTED judges who ruled that there was no interference - so please,
your BS post is simply BS.

 

That NEVER happened!

 

Yea it did.

 

@WillReadmore

Show us Trump was convicted of
“insurrection or rebellion”….
Just your accusation doesn’t hold water at all.

 

We could say this is the ONE time in which Trump is being honest. Because he has consistently done the OPPOSITE of supporting the Constitution. Of course, if he is implying that he IS preserving, protecting or defending, we go back to the usual pathological liar.

Clearly, as any moderately reasonable person understands, there is no difference between "support" and "preserve, protect and defend". But, if Trump says it, his cult will somehow make some of their typical weird neural connections to convince themselves that there is. At least until they need to use the word in a different context. That is the nature of cults.

 

Go ahead and provide the EVIDENCE that it did...

...or NOT...

....because you do you!

 

Who knew that 1984 would become a REALITY series for everyone in America?

 

It really is not that hard, no matter how you misquote Trump’s oath. You don’t have any proof he violated the 14/3 section. So he is supporting and defending the constitution.

"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."

https://www.usa.gov/inauguration#:~:text=the U.S. Constitution:-,"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will,Constitution of the United States."

 

Good point! He didn't support the constitution because that would be beyond the ability of a sick psychopath. The "best of my ability" ends at "making a profit to benefit myself". Not inciting an insurrection would clearly be beyond his ability. So technically, he didn't violate his oath of office. Of course, that would never hold before any rational human being. But it should be good enough when addressing his followers.

 

No duty to support the Constitution.........And that's supposed to help his case? It's a ADMISSION he doesn't give a rats ass about the Constitution, and its also an admission that he in fact did NOT support it. Its an idiotic argument if there ever was one, but what else is new......