Occupy Democrats

We all know that he didn't anyway, despite his oath.

  

WASHINGTONPRESS.COM

OATH: His lawyers argue that Trump had no duty to “support” the Constitution

by JASON MICIAK

There are times in law when we must be 100% precise in the meaning of words used, but the argument that Donald Trump’s lawyers made on Wednesday — the notion that a President has no duty to support the Constitution — is not one of those times.

It is stunning that such an argument was made.

The assertion arose in the Colorado case where Trump is being sued by a group arguing that Trump is disqualified from the presidential election because he violated the 14th Amendment by giving aid and comfort to the insurrection.

The 14th Amendment reads, in pertinent part:

“No person [shall] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States… 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 Presidential Oath set out in the Constitution — which was written way before the 14th Amendment — reads:

“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.”

And today, Trump’s lawyers argued that he wasn’t an executive charged with the duty to support the Constitution — and thus is immune to the clause. The filing states:

“The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution.

“Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to ‘support’ the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President.”

Yeah. Or maybe they just figured no one would ever be stupid enough to argue that the president doesn’t have a duty to support the Constitution.

The Google definition of “support” in this instance means:

Enable to function or act.

It would seem that enabling the Constitution to function or “act” encompasses preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution.

Again, in contract law and administrative law, we do pay attention to the exact words used and often will only act on the exact words.

There is one exception firmly embedded in case law. It is literally called the “Absurdity Doctrine,” and Google sets it out perfectly:

In situations… the absurdity doctrine permits the court to disregard the plain language of the statute to avoid an absurd and unjust outcome.

Given that it is patently absurd to think that the duty to “protect and preserve” the Constitution doesn’t encompass “supporting” the Constitution, this would seem like the most perfect example of the doctrine at work in history.

I particularly “love” (with extreme condescension) that, by using “support,” Trump’s lawyer argued that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment meant to leave out the president because they knew the oath and wrote it without the Presidential Oath.

To which I point out (condescendingly) that they also knew how to write, “This clause shall not apply to the President of the United States.” And if that was the intention of those writing Section Three of the 14th Amendment, you would think they’d make that pretty damned clear.

Only Trump. I mean only Trump.

https://washingtonpress.com/2023/10/11/oath-his-lawyers-argue-that-trump-had-no-duty-to-support-the-constitution/