• time_lord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    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
      9
      ·
      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
      4
      ·
      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?

        • 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.