There are various opinions among scholars, but apparently you’re smarter than them
This is the dumbest argument of all time
Fun fact. Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado, and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
Lmao any scholar who makes that argument needs a swift slap in the face
It’s because when interpreting Constitutional Law, one way to do it is to read the words plainly. Here, the Appointments clause of the Constitution states that all officers are commissioned by the President. If the President commissions all officers, and because the President doesn’t commission himself, he is, therefore, not an officer.
Lmao any scholar who makes that argument needs a swift slap in the face
Does he take an oath to the constitution? Is it on video?
It’s because when interpreting Constitutional Law, one way to do it is to read the words plainly. Here, the Appointments clause of the Constitution states that all officers are commissioned by the President. If the President commissions all officers, and because the President doesn’t commission himself, he is, therefore, not an officer.
Well yes, but you see, some just like to read constitutional words “plainly” from time to time, when convenient. And ignore other technicalities, like this pledge to the constitution you speak of.
So it’s possible only the president is exempt from the 14th amendment cuz when you’re trying to prevent insurrection, why not let the ex-president leader of an insurrection, run for office again???
Hope the /s isn’t needed.
I was just trying to be nice and save you the googling by briefly explaining the reasoning and why it’s not stupid.
Yes, the President takes an oath, but if it really were that simple then the case would be open and shut. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t say any officer is someone who’s taken an oath of office. It says all officers are those commissioned by the President.
Section 3 states:
“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 States…”
That explicitly omits mention of a President and people will use that to argue that it doesn’t apply.
Does he take an oath to the constitution? Is it on video?
I was just trying to be nice and save you the googling by briefly explaining the reasoning and why it’s not stupid.
Yes, the President takes an oath, but if it really were that simple then the case would be open and shut. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t say any officer is someone who’s taken an oath of office. It says all officers are those commissioned by the President.
Section 3 states:
“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 States…”
That explicitly omits mention of a President and people will use that to argue that it doesn’t apply.
I’ve read about these arguments and one thing I keep coming back to is this; The 14th amendment mentions members of congress, state legislatures, and a few other types of positions. Why would this clause pertain to all of those, but not the president?
Engaging in an insurrection bars you from ever holding the office of president if you were a Congressman or Senator, but if you were a President that engaged in an insurrection it’s perfectly fine? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Some scholars have said it refers only to appointed officials
The argument isn’t about being appointed, as it is textually clear that it applies to all congress critters. The distinction is between officers sworn in under Article 6 and the president who is sworn in under Article 2.
Trump doesn’t want to be an elector.
Regardless, the amendment is about people who have been “officer of the United States”, and it’s under debate whether that applies to the President. Some scholars have said it refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones, and that the president is not an ‘officer of the United States’ for purposes of Section 3. So the SC should rule about that specific wording.
No, but Electors were the ones on the ballot on 1868, and States are the ones that vote for President. So it’s weird that if the President is technically just now a stand-in on the ballot for an elector that is bound to vote for him, were he to win, that a state can’t take the presidential candidate off the ballot the same way they would otherwise take an elector off the ballot if it were 1868.
I am no legal expert at all so I am only using my past knowledge here.
Military members take orders from “Officers”. Whether that is an actual officer or “non-commissioned officer” or NCO.
The President is the head of the Military and all members must take orders from him. Unless it is unlawful but that’s not the point here.
If all military members take orders from “officers” and the President is the highest position in the military, would that not make him an “officer”?
The 2nd amendment specifically refers to the “Office of President” and “holds his office”.
The 14th amendment says “hold any office”.
No-one, including you, honestly believes that when the US Constitution says “hold any office” it doesn’t actually mean “any office” but instead by “any office” the US Constitution somehow secretly means “only some offices” and secretly excludes specific offices which it then completely fails to specify.
Any supposed debate about the US Constitution excluding some offices from the definition of “hold any office” is entirely the result of wishful thinking, self-deception and/or lying. Not the contents of the US Constitution itself which goes out of the way to make clear the prohibition is all-encompassing and says absolutely nothing about any purported exception.
Fun fact. Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado, and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that Trump incited the January 6 crowd.