• brown567@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    271
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          If interpreting laws is going to just turn into how much money a wealthy individual (or anyone wealthy enough to foot the bill) can argue the semantics of anything … what good and what use is any law?

          • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            We are long past the point where power and wealth buys better legal outcomes as evidenced by how few rich and powerful people over the last half century have spent any time in prison for their crimes compared to people with neither wealth nor power.

        • vortic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They also like using history to support their decisions. If it can be shown that the presidential oath is intended to go beyond “support” I would see the court being persuaded that “support” is implied by “protect, preserve, and defend”. It depends on whether the textualists or the pseudo-historians win the day.

          • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The five conservative “justices” are conservatives first and “justices” second. They will always rule however the standard, bigoted, Fox-News-loving white nationalist will rule. They do this by using wordplay and bad-faith semantics.

            Every word uttered by a conservative is either deception or manipulation. Every word.

    • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • time_lord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can preserve, protect, and defend something you don’t support. Debate 101 at even a high school level is learning how to argue the side of an argument that you don’t support.

        So while in office, he preserved/protected/defended something he didn’t support. He then lead some form of rebellion against it, causing him to be in violation of the spirit of the 14th but not the letter as it’s written, so he should still be qualified to serve.

        The Supreme Court would love this wordplay, except, if they actually accept it, they’re not just invalidating the spirit of the 14th, but undermining it completely as it would never ever ever be relevant to anyone, ever again. And wouldn’t that also be against their oaths to uphold the constitution?

        So most likely Trump will be eligible for re-election because I have no doubt that if they can get away with the Citizens United ruling, they can and will do whatever the hell they want.

        • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Did he really preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution on January 6th though? (Spoiler alert: he didn’t). Perhaps that is the better question here than this semantics argument.

        • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you can make an argument that if you preserve and protect something, you’re supporting it.

          But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. If the presidential oath isn’t an example of supporting it, then Article Ii makes no sense at all - why would it even be there?

          • IamRoot@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

          • time_lord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. If the presidential oath isn’t an example of supporting it, then Article Ii makes no sense at all - why would it even be there?

            I’m sure the righter part of the SC will find a reason :|

          • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I think the difference here is outcomes vs intentions (consequentialism vs virtue theory, if you want to be exact about ethics). Trump could support the constitution through his actions, but communicate his intentions otherwise: and vice versa.

            • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, I had no clue that the military oath included “support.”

              Would be a stretch to say that article II of the Constitution was only intended to apply to the military.

              • IamRoot@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Here is what you said with confidence:

                “But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. “

                Then you ignored several people who pointed out that you were wrong.

                Then you responded that you had no clue.

      • brown567@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’d be my defense!

        Like, I can understand thinking my ability exceeds my performance, but I think that might just be a simple overestimation of my ability

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve taken a couple oaths to the US government…

      I dont remember any of them saying “support the constitution”

      So by their logic, this effects no one.

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Maybe he’ll argue that it just means the physical written constitution itself.
      “The constitution is a piece of paper in a box, okay? I defended it”