• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does the U.S. President have a duty to "support" the Constitution of the United States.

fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
It is difficult to believe that anyone would accept an argument this absurd. But this was actually presented to a court.

DONALD J. TRUMP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

Page 13 reads:

"The September 29th Motion to Dismiss also explains how Section Three does not apply to all officers of the United States, but only those who take an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States.”34 As explained there, the Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution—not “to support” the Constitution."


I thought I was going insane when I read that.

Anyone here think this is a good argument? Is there anyone here who is going to disagree with me that this is absolutely ridiculous?
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I had thought of starting such a thread myself, @fantome profane, but you beat me to it.

I can't imagine that any court is going to accept this argument.
  • The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.
  • The meaning of "support" in this context cannot mean "financial support," nor can it mean support in the sense of physically bear the weight of a thing.
  • That leaves only the meaning "to provide material assistance," which includes "maintenance" and "keep."
  • "Keep," in this context, must include the meaning of "preserve," and I think any rational court would uphold that.
But we must not forget, lawyers will argue endlessly over what "the meaning of 'is' is," -- and probably how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, if they thought it would get their client off.
 
Drunk_Uncle_Bob

Drunk_Uncle_Bob

Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
I had thought of starting such a thread myself, @fantome profane, but you beat me to it.

I can't imagine that any court is going to accept this argument.
  • The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.
  • The meaning of "support" in this context cannot mean "financial support," nor can it mean support in the sense of physically bear the weight of a thing.
  • That leaves only the meaning "to provide material assistance," which includes "maintenance" and "keep."
  • "Keep," in this context, must include the meaning of "preserve," and I think any rational court would uphold that.
But we must not forget, lawyers will argue endlessly over what "the meaning of 'is' is," -- and probably how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, if they thought it would get their client off.
Click to expand...
There is only one answer. We must purge all the unnecessary words in our language till we have only the select few that are necessary.
 
Stevicus

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
fantome profane said:
It is difficult to believe that anyone would accept an argument this absurd. But this was actually presented to a court.

DONALD J. TRUMP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

Page 13 reads:

"The September 29th Motion to Dismiss also explains how Section Three does not apply to all officers of the United States, but only those who take an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States.”34 As explained there, the Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution—not “to support” the Constitution."


I thought I was going insane when I read that.

Anyone here think this is a good argument? Is there anyone here who is going to disagree with me that this is absolutely ridiculous?
Click to expand...

I would take its meaning as an oath to follow and/or obey the Constitution, as well as enforce it as the country's Chief Executive.

When I was a kid, hearing the phrase for the first time made me think that they had to "preserve, protect, and defend" the physical document itself.
 
Quetzal

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Speaking of Trump being a god/messiah-like figure. Has anyone else noticed that in conservative political cartoons, he is always buff?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say....
The President should honor & support the Constitution.
The President shouldn't stage a coup, or support insurrection.
The President shouldn't commit financial fraud.

So those things are all fair game to violate.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Quetzal said:
Speaking of Trump being a god/messiah-like figure. Has anyone else noticed that in conservative political cartoons, he is always buff?
Click to expand...
I must need my dinner pretty badly. I could only find one pro-Trump cartoon, you are right for that one at least:

1697164963616.png
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
fantome profane said:
It is difficult to believe that anyone would accept an argument this absurd. But this was actually presented to a court.

DONALD J. TRUMP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

Page 13 reads:

"The September 29th Motion to Dismiss also explains how Section Three does not apply to all officers of the United States, but only those who take an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States.”34 As explained there, the Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution—not “to support” the Constitution."


I thought I was going insane when I read that.

Anyone here think this is a good argument? Is there anyone here who is going to disagree with me that this is absolutely ridiculous?
Click to expand...
I read that the ot get day. I thought it was too ridiculous to even start a thread lol.
 
Shaul

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The argument made is sound. Amendment XIV section 3 does not apply to Presidents. The part you ripped out of context makes fine sense when read in its context.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
fantome profane said:
It is difficult to believe that anyone would accept an argument this absurd. But this was actually presented to a court.

DONALD J. TRUMP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

Page 13 reads:

"The September 29th Motion to Dismiss also explains how Section Three does not apply to all officers of the United States, but only those who take an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States.”34 As explained there, the Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution—not “to support” the Constitution."


I thought I was going insane when I read that.

Anyone here think this is a good argument? Is there anyone here who is going to disagree with me that this is absolutely ridiculous?
Click to expand...
Looks to me it is a situation where they try it and lose, they are not out anything, but if they win woo hoo.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
McBell said:
Looks to me it is a situation where they try it and lose, they are not out anything, but if they win woo hoo.
Click to expand...
Some of these motions seem to be to use for appeals later, which will just delay things more. That is Trump's playbook, just delay everything all the time regardless of there being any actual legal issue to the resolved. The courts know what he is doing and they have been getting impatient as this bad faith effort. Attorney's have to act in good faith, and when they violate these rules they can face all sorts of problems. Five of Trump's lawyers got fined $7500 each due to miconduct in their filings.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
F1fan said:
Some of these motions seem to be to use for appeals later, which will just delay things more. That is Trump's playbook, just delay everything all the time regardless of there being any actual legal issue to the resolved. The courts know what he is doing and they have been getting impatient as this bad faith effort. Attorney's have to act in good faith, and when they violate these rules they can face all sorts of problems. Five of Trump's lawyers got fined $7500 each due to miconduct in their filings.
Click to expand...
Has that not been Trumps playbook from get go?
Keep it tangled up in court till his accuser runs out of time, patience and or money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top