729
Donald Trump says he never swore oath "to support the Constitution" (www.newsweek.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

This may seem like splitting hairs, but I honestly don't think it is:

Military and police are groups that defend/protect their country, it's laws and it's fundamental principles, which they most likely support. Just like your previous argument: Police can defend and support the right to protest, without supporting the content of the protest. This extends to pretty much anything.

Doctors and lawyers can support a universal right to life, good health, and a just trial, and by supporting those things, it makes sense to help, defend and protect a patient / client regardless of their background, practices or actions.

In both cases, we could make an exemption for police / military / doctors / lawyers that are there just for the cash. At that point, it's basically, "I'm defending / protecting because I support me getting paid." and the whole argument is kind of moot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Respectfully disagree. You're talking about institutions that, frankly, a good chunk of these professions just do not support. Like there is a solid contingent of lawyers that fundamentally disagree with just outcomes since anything can be spun. You'll find doctors everywhere that don't support a universal right to life. Police, to be blunt, frequently and demonstrably do not give a shit about the laws they purport to uphold. Military have some brainwashing issues you have to take into account, but frequently their personal beliefs clash with their training.

    In all of these, the professional is legally required to defend certain principles that they might not personally support. I guess they professionally have to support them too, but at that point we've gone full circle

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I see your point, which is kind of what I meant about the exception for people that are "just there for the gig". And I agree that when we take those into account, we have people who are legally required to defend/protect things they don't personally support. I also think taking those people into account is a different kind of discussion, because then we're talking about people taking an oath to uphold institutions they don't believe in for self-serving reasons. Whether or not someone can faithfully do that is an interesting discussion in itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    My point, ultimately, is it's entirely possible to defend something you don't personally support, which in turn would depend on the definition of support. I think it's stupid and dangerous to entertain such alternative definitions in the broader context of the presidential oath of office. But it's not inherently silly for a defense attorney to make the argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent