Next, he’s going to say that he did repeat the oath, but he had his fingers crossed so it doesn’t count.
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
715 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22535 readers
3543 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The Narcissist's Prayer:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
Damn. Well, you win this time, Mr Donald, but we'll get you in the end!
"Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President," Blue wrote.
By the same token, the Second Amendment doesn't say "guns".
Walk down 5th Ave with a good ole fashioned saber and see what happens 🫠
load more comments
(2 replies)
We're all dumber for having this guy around
Remember that a large portion of the country still rallies behind this person. It's a sad state of affairs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes, you did.We saw it. It was recorded. Stop lying, goddamn you.
The sophistry here is that the presidential oath doesn't contain the word "support". It's complete bullshit but you never know with this SCOTUS.
Not sure how support doesn't fall under "preserve, protect and defend" in every way that's meaningful
That is the sophistry part. It clearly was intended to be a higher level of oath that included the lower one. Watch: SCOTUS will say that the president actually doesn't have to support the Constitution.
Textualism at it's finest
load more comments
(3 replies)
Why is this comment so heavily upvoted? His argument is not that he never took an oath, but that the wording of it was not to "support."
It still a stupid argument as far as I'm concerned, although it may be a good legal one, but its clear you didn't even bother to read the argument, yet are very confident in your ignorance.
These are exactly the type of comments that should be down voted.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I can't comprehend how any American who calls himself a patriot can vote for this traitorous pig.
Super easy: if you feel strongly enough, words don't need to mean anything. There, all fixed!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Bam. Perjury.
The argument that I've heard from some prominent lawyers is that "preserve, protect and defend" was intended by the framers to be a stronger oath than "support" and that it should be construed as including "support". Hopefully the courts agree with that reasoning.
Even if not stronger per se, surely if I said I was going to "protect" you, we would agree that I am "supporting" you. It's like saying I only promised to make you wealthier, not pay you. They are not literally the same word but paying someone is a way to make them wealthier.
Straight up, if you're protecting something it should be obvious that you support it
Otherwise why would you protect it?
For example: I protect personal privacy because I support the idea of personal privacy
What a simpler time when we could all joke about Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word “is”.
thing about that is, clinton actually had a point. he said "there is nothing going on between [he and monica lewinsky]" when asked, and was then accused of perjury. He argued that "is" meant "is", and because at the time of asking he and lewinsky didn't have an ongoing relationship he didn't lie.
At least then we could argue about a lie being a lie, now it's all "he never said that (literally 4 seconds ago), if he did it's fine, if you're mad that's your fault, he never said it anyway. I like that he said it."
Also back then a president getting a BJ was grounds for impeachment lol it really puts things into perspective
IIRC, he was impeached for lying about it, not actually doing it which IMHO, is less of an issue than cheating on your wife.
Great now im imagining a timeline where bill was 100% honest about it in a congressional hearing "Yeah I solicited a blowjob from monica, im one of the most famous and wealthiest politicians of the era. Spoilers, all us rich politicians like to get away with stuff we shouldn't be doing, and the system is rigged to let us do it. So, what are you gonna do about it?"
Or even better:
"Hilldawg and I have been ethically non-monogamous since reading The Ethical Slut and I don't really understand why America should be brought into our personal business. Monica is regularly our third and we both filed paperwork with White House HR before any physical interaction to avoid suspicion of bias towards her job performance"
I mean if it's my dream timeline, I wanna make it fun.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
If the Founders wanted Presidents removed for committing Insurrection they would have EXPLICITLY stated it in the Constitution! Just like how the EXPLICITLY allow people to own AR15 guns and how it's EXPLICITLY allowed to shoot up schools with those guns!
I hope we see this in the political ads next year
Harry & Lloyd, Laurel & Hardy, Trump & The Republican Party.
Not sure which one's the dumbest.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
I mean, the word "support" doesn't appear there, although it's a stretch to say that "Preserve, protect, and defend" doesn't imply "support" also.
It says "to the best of my ability" and since he has no abilities, he has no responsibility to do anything.
Also a stretch to say he did "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution.
This is how fucking annoying these asshats are. They will argue the technicality over the word "support" while ignoring his very real failures.
load more comments
(2 replies)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ohgTEk9h1kc&t=36 wtf did I just watch then? Is this some weird DnD timeline, where you can roll to disbelieve?
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's cool guys, he crossed his toes before he took the stand so it didn't count.
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?
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.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
It's past time for the states to remove Traitor Trump from the ballot.
From the outside it's absolutely crazy that there is a good chance that he's gonna be president again.
Yeah well he didn't swear to read the Constitution either, so it's okay if he doesn't support it /s
It's actually rather painfully clear he's never read it anyway.
This is just some inane bullshit dancing around language.
Yeah, he was crossing his fingers behind his back. Like every other time when he opens his mouth.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›