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

    The language is unfortunately not simple enough. It uses the phrase “officer of the United States”, which some argue does not include the President. Why? Because elsewhere the Constitution refers to “officers of the United States” in a way that may exclude the President. Please note that I don’t agree with that argument.

    • noneya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      hold any office, civil or military

      Doesn’t seem vague to me, at all.

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

        Yes, that part is easy. Everyone agrees this includes the presidency. But your quote describes the consequences: No person shall hold any office, civil or military, if certain conditions apply.

        The question is not whether the presidency is at stake. It is. The question is whether the conditions apply. Note that it does not say “if they previously held any office, civil or military …” I wish it were that simple.

        • noneya@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But that speaks to his eligibility. Sure he can run, but he is not eligible to hold office. None of these traitors should hold office, but let’s go for the head first.

          The fourteenth amendment is clear as day and I don’t understand why it’s even a court decision. Nowhere does it say the amendment should be decided by the court. The remedy is up to two-thirds of the Congress. Plain and simple.

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

            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 State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

            The phrasing is kind of backwards. But what this means for Trump is:

            If he:

            1. Took an oath
            2. As an officer of the United States, and
            3. Engaged in insurrection

            then he cannot be president or hold any other office.

            I’ve italicized the parts that can be summarized as 1-3.

            This judge found that 1 and 3 were true, but 2 was not true because Trump was not “an officer of the United States”. That’s what I meant by hair-splitting.