Reply With Quote
My mistake, i didn't see the actual ruling. Yeah, i don't think president not being officer of the United states is a sensible decision.
Trump was president at the time, but the argument seems to be that the US president isn't an officer within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
My mistake, i didn't see the actual ruling. Yeah, i don't think president not being officer of the United states is a sensible decision.
It's contrary to common sense, but there does seem to be a legal leg to stand on. The basic thrust is that state officials, state legislators and members of Congress are named in 14A, but the president is not, therefore legal challenges to Trump under 14A fail the jurisdictional test, even if --as in this case -- the president is found to have participated in an insurrection.
Section 3’s jurisdictional element applies to exactly four defined categories of state and federal positions. President Trump clearly does not fit into three of these categories. Trump never swore an oath as a “member of Congress,” “a member of any state legislature,” or an “executive or judicial officer of any state.” Indeed, Trump was the only President in American history to have never held prior state or federal, civilian or military, public office. Therefore, the only way for Section 3’s jurisdictional element to cover President Trump would be if he falls into the fourth category: he took an oath to support the Cons ution as an “officer of the United States.” Trump only swore one cons utional oath: as President of the United States. In short, for President Trump to be subject to Section 3 disqualification, he must have violated the offense element and fit within the jurisdictional element. And in order to fit within the jurisdictional element, the President must be an “officer of the United States” for purposes of Section 3.https://www.nyujll.com/home/blog-pos...lc-btrht-lkg3wThis article will proceed in six parts. Part I will contend that the phrases “officer of the United States” and “office . . . under the United States” in Section 3 refer to different categories of positions. Part II will analyze the phrase “officer of the United States,” which is used in the Cons ution of 1788 and in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Part III will show that the meaning of the phrase “officer of the United States” did not drift from 1788 through 1868. In both eras, there is substantial evidence that the President was not considered an “officer of the United States.” Part IV will recount longstanding Executive Branch opinions, which affirmed that elected officials like the President are not “officers of the United States.”
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-18-2023 at 01:55 AM.
In other words...THEY SOLD OUT.
tee, hee.
Take it, because that's all there is gonna be out of CO..
"I was a sailor..."
"They say that I got killed."
The parsing in the body of the article is highly academic legalese, but it can hardly be argued that legal phrasing does not matter when inspecting the law.
I'd be interested to see legal responses to this gloss.
"I was a sailor..."
"They say that I got killed."
It would just be great to see this case get to the SCOTUS just to watch Alito and Uncle Thomas do their mental gymnastics on how the 14A is uncons utional because the US didn't have a tradition of vetoing insurrectionists.
...or, common assassins.It would just be great to see this case get to the SCOTUS just to watch Alito and Uncle Thomas do their mental gymnastics on how the 14A is uncons utional because the US didn't have a tradition of vetoing insurrectionists.
"I was a sailor..."
"They say that I got killed."
"I was a sailor..."
"They say that I got killed."
And watch them do a 180 turn with three twists if Ole Joe did the same thingIt would just be great to see this case get to the SCOTUS just to watch Alito and Uncle Thomas do their mental gymnastics on how the 14A is uncons utional because the US didn't have a tradition of vetoing insurrectionists.
"The cons ution is uncons utional" will be when we reach the ultimate stage in the evolution of cons utional scholarship.It would just be great to see this case get to the SCOTUS just to watch Alito and Uncle Thomas do their mental gymnastics on how the 14A is uncons utional because the US didn't have a tradition of vetoing insurrectionists.
It basically made a mockery of the us cons ution…and is bull semantics which should not stand up to appeal…but who knows…
an “officer” swears to SUPPORT AND DEFEND
while
a president swears to PRESERVE/PROTECT/DEFEND the cons ution…
so this judge choked on the words up above to find another way to twist herself into a pretzel just for the traitor …as every other scared official has done for years
twist themselves into pretzels because they are terrified to step on any of trumps rights
while allowing the rest of the entire democracy/country/citizens to get butt- ed in many ways- solely to protect one man….
just utter cowardice in upholding THEIR OATHS and their DUTY to this democracy
The minute you didn't let Trump be President was the minute Democracy died once and for all in this country. Never to return.
You did this, Homer. You and your foul bunch.
"I was a sailor..."
"They say that I got killed."
"I was a sailor..."
"They say that I got killed."
He was never a sailor.
No one said he got killed.
Then why'd you threaten to blow him, his wife, and their child up in the White House?He was never a sailor.
No one said he got killed.
Why did you threaten to behead him?
Why did you threaten to shoot him to death numerous time?
The answer:::He made President. uva Democracy, Dumper.
"I was a sailor..."
"They say that I got killed."
Yam s loves the poorly educated because he can't dazzle them with brilliance, so he easily baffles them with bull .He was never a sailor.
No one said he got killed.
"I was a sailor..."
"They say that I got killed."
^^^^^
terrified by women talking
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
