• stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    11 months ago

    The sophistry here is that the presidential oath doesn’t contain the word “support”. It’s complete bullshit but you never know with this SCOTUS.

    • neclimdul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not sure how support doesn’t fall under “preserve, protect and defend” in every way that’s meaningful

      • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        11 months ago

        That is the sophistry part. It clearly was intended to be a higher level of oath that included the lower one. Watch: SCOTUS will say that the president actually doesn’t have to support the Constitution.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean, a Colorado court just decided that he did engage in an insurrection, and the phrase “office of the president” appears all over all sorts of documentation, but the guy who holds the office of the president is not an officer, so he’s allowed to commit treason and still run for president