▲ 729 ▼ Donald Trump says he never swore oath "to support the Constitution" (www.newsweek.com) submitted 2 years ago by CantaloupeLifestyle@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 47 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not sure how support doesn't fall under "preserve, protect and defend" in every way that's meaningful permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 29 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago Textualism at it's finest permalink fedilink source parent [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean, a Colorado court just decided that he did engage in an insurrection, and the phrase "office of the president" appears all over all sorts of documentation, but the guy who holds the office of the president is not an officer, so he's allowed to commit treason and still run for president permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Pretty much. Exploiting the loopholes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago not even a loophole. they're just pretending the law is different than it is because they want it to be permalink fedilink source parent
[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not sure how support doesn't fall under "preserve, protect and defend" in every way that's meaningful permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 29 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago Textualism at it's finest permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 29 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago Textualism at it's finest permalink fedilink source parent
[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago Textualism at it's finest permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean, a Colorado court just decided that he did engage in an insurrection, and the phrase "office of the president" appears all over all sorts of documentation, but the guy who holds the office of the president is not an officer, so he's allowed to commit treason and still run for president permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Pretty much. Exploiting the loopholes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago not even a loophole. they're just pretending the law is different than it is because they want it to be permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Pretty much. Exploiting the loopholes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago not even a loophole. they're just pretending the law is different than it is because they want it to be permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago not even a loophole. they're just pretending the law is different than it is because they want it to be permalink fedilink source parent