“The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 ‘through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.’ But she also found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump.
‘The Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the Presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification’”
The President is an officer of the United States — all this haggling that he is not is pure bullshit.
“As David Barron and Martin Lederman’s definitive academic study of the Clause explains, ‘the textual designation of the President as the Commander in Chief was intended to ensure that that officer, and no other, would be ultimately responsible for performing that role, whatever it was to entail.’”
Yes. He is an officer.
That’s not me saying it, it’s Constitutional lawyers saying it.
This attempt to argue that Trump isn’t an officer is rubbish — Presidents are not Kings.
Article regarding the President as an officer.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-ii/clauses/345
Final thoughts on the President as an officer: the Constitution makes quite clear that the President is an officer of the United States. We don’t have a king. No one is above the law.
The 14th Amendment did not carve out the ability for the President to institute an insurrection. This is a bogus argument.
The intent is and always has been that NO ONE WHO TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE would be a federal official.
Splitting hairs is dangerous. We need to stop playing games with illegal behavior.
EXACTLY!
This is what frustrates me about current “judicial review” is it ISN’T about the letter of the law, but about DODGING the letter of the law.
No one gave the President the carve out to instigate an insurrection.
To believe this is to believe stupidity.
Now, as far as the Primary is concerned, that’s a party issue — I don’t care about it.
But as far as the General Election is concerned Trump cannot run. The Constitution does not allow him to.
Any reading that says otherwise is incorrect and is arguing that the writers of the 14th carved out the right of the President to lead an insurrection — which is stupid.
@feloneouscat agreed! It violates the spirit and the letter of the law.
@feloneouscat 💯 to interpret the constitution in a way that elevates or insulates the president from the law is to not only ignore the whole point of not having a king, but to ignore the Magna Carta.