this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
1008 points (97.2% liked)

News

23406 readers
4291 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brown567@sh.itjust.works 270 points 1 year ago (7 children)

"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."

To be fair, "support" isn't the exact word used, but "preserve, protect, and defend" is pretty unequivocal

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 74 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The intention is that it's a step beyond the oath of support, having just dug around in law articles and history on it.

And reading the article, it sounds like the only one making a semantical argument, is Trump and his lawyers.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (5 children)

the only one making a semantical argument, is Trump and his lawyers.

The problem is that the current Supreme Court clearly would support throwing that out, and they LOVE semantics like that to justify clearly bullshit decisions.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Exactly. It's a massive stretch to think there's a false equivalency between "support" and "preserve, protect, and defend".

But of course...this is Trump here. He's willing to bend himself into a pretzel if it means he can avoid responsibility for anything bad.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 154 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

The text of the section they are challenging (emphasis added):

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. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It's an exceptionally stupid argument, even for Trump. Obviously "preserve, protect, and defend" are all forms of support, so this challenge is quite possibly the stupidest legal argument they've made so far (which is an extremely high bar). But I suppose they don't think they can realistically claim that he didnt engage in insurrection.

[–] Tidesphere@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hold up, if that's the crux of his argument, does that mean that his argument is

"I can't be barred from running because I never took an oath to support the constitution. Therefore my inciting insurrection is not covered by this clause. But I totally incited rebellion."?

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

"I crossed my fingers when I took the oath of office so it didn't count. Also, I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever 14th Amendment you throw bounces off of me and sticks to you!"

-Trump's next legal arguments..

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unfortunately, I think it is "while I do not admit to starting a rebellion, whether I did or not is immaterial because 'preserve, protect, and defend' definitely doesn't include 'support'"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wow that's stupid. I'm sure this comes up all the time with wording of other laws and I'm sure judges are used to eviscerating it. Now as long as we don't get stupid judges...

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If it ends up on the Supreme Court, I'm sure Clarence Thomas will enthusiastically support the idea.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why does this remind me of some sovereign citizen bullshit?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Kepabar@startrek.website 138 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There is a record of the Senate debate on this amendment.

One questioned 'Why doesn't this include the president?'.

Another senator replied 'It does under the section of anyone who holds an office'.

The response was 'Ok, I was unclear on that'. And the debate carried on.

So the writers obviously intended this to include the office of the president.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago (6 children)

If only things like this mattered in this reality.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 97 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I do solemnly swear 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.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 50 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The argument is that the word "support" isn't explicitly there. Therefore, the President is not an officer of the government, and therefore Trump isn't barred from being President under the 14th Amendment.

This argument is dumb, of course. Scalia once made a similar one, noting that punishments must be cruel and unusual to be constitutionally banned. Cruel or unusual on their own is fine.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Wait, that’s their actual argument? For real?

… 😂

Mood image.

Why stop at that word? Why not complain that every synonym for every word isn’t included? Just turn the whole thing into a thesaurus? (eta: like, the insurrection act doesn’t apply because you’re calling it a coup! Totally different word! I said I killed that guy, but the statute says ‘murder’ not ‘kill’. Checkmate atheists!)

Every time I think they’ve hit maximum daft, they climb back in the hole and dig up some more. Amazing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago

Absolutely deranged reading tbh.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ah, but see, the word ‘support’ is not explicitly in there so ch-ch-cha! Pocket sand!

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

From all enemies, foreign and domestic.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 85 points 1 year ago (2 children)

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

― Jean-Paul Sartre

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hope he has more success arguing semantics with the prison gang leaders.

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if he went to prison, he's not going to be hanging out with gang members of any kind, except for prison guards.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Can't wait to see him get a tear drop tat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es 71 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I hope his prison wardens give him pants that don't support adult diapers.

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wish nothing but the wettest socks for the rest of his days.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 65 points 1 year ago

Given the oath an elected official needs to swear, you'd think this would invalidate him for even trying to get elected.

But we know the normal rules don't seem to matter any more.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 61 points 1 year ago (8 children)

If only he had murdered a bunch of small children instead then Republicans might have cared about the Constitution part.

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 57 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think you mean fetuses. Republicans don't care about children after they're outside of a uterus.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] necromancyr@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Not if he did it with a gun. Or they were already born. That's where they draw the line.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

They were already born they're politically useless now.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago

His only duty is to Putin, and himself.

In that order.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I’m sorry, fucking what now?

That’s the nation’s constitutionalists’ preferred candidate, everyone, nothing wrong here.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Ktheone@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So I guess that's basically an admission that he violated his oath.

[–] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Legally, it's a fine distinction. What his attorneys are arguing appears to be that, even if he did commit insurrection, the law in question doesn't apply to the office of the president and, thus, not to Trump. On the surface, the logic is sound: Law applies if conditions are met; conditions were not met, therefore law does not apply.

The problem for Trump is that the law does apply,^1 so he should face the consequences.

If I had access to Westlaw or LexisNexis, I'd be interested to look into the caselaw. My concern is that the argument for specific word choice (i.e. "support" was specifically used instead of "preserve, protect, defend") isn't without some merit. I'm just glad he can never seem to hire competent attorneys. I'm hoping for a long, long, lonely life behind bars for his retirement years. (Though I know this isn't one of his criminal cases.)

1- Assuming, of course, there remains any justice left in the US system. Unfortunately not a small assumption these days.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 year ago
[–] bender223 32 points 1 year ago

He's right, cuz he had his fingers crossed while he was being sworn in. 🤞

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Look at that fucking baboon. Look at that orange shit on his face. It’s gonna be hilarious to see this traitor cunt without his makeup. His pallid countenance contrasting sharply with his prison jumpsuit.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not just without his makeup... Also without his hair piece, Adderall, weird combover, weird oversized suit to hide his diapers, ridiculous long tie, girdle, Adderall, spanx, shoes with high heels and lifts inside, Adderall, teleprompter, ozempic, carefully prescribed camera angles to not show his gut/baldspot/chin vulva, Adderall, doctor to lie about his weight/health and his regular mcfishy deluxe diet.

And he also won't have anymore Adderall.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Trump screeching the quiet part out loud

[–] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

Wow, what a patriot!

/s just in case

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Well, ya know who does have a duty to support the constitution? Literally everyone in the military.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. - Oath of Enlistment

I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. - Oath of Commissioned Officers

Notice that they both specify "all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Every service member that's had the opportunity to engage Trump the same way they do any other enemy to US, and chosen not to do so, has violated their oath.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is like cops saying they no obligation to serve and protect.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is actually nothing like that.

Besides what @0110010001100010@lemmy.world pointed out, "To Protect and to Serve" is just a motto, specifically the LAPD's (and other forces have also adopted this). Police aren't public protectors, their job is just to enforce the law (and a lot struggle with that).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] notintonsfw@lemmynsfw.com 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And 50% of Americans approve! Bravo!

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's around 32-34% of registered voters. We have a real voter suppression issue here in the states that has been caused, and exacerbated by one of the only two parties we are allowed to have, unless about 80% of the voters decide to change the system.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›