• @Saganaki
    link
    8
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s not quite that simple. To be clear, the argument being proposed by his lawyers is that he is not an “officer of the United States” so it doesn’t apply to him.

    Basically, there’s legal precedent that elected officials aren’t officers of the US because they are elected and not hired. Add to that the sheer number of commas, “and”s, and “or”s, that it can get legally murky.

    NB: Not a lawyer. Read about the above on Mastadon from a legal scholar. Will see if I can find the link.

    • @samsepi0l@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      Doesn’t the “No person shall be a … elector of President and Vice President” just outright say that the statement obviously includes elected officials? Specifically the POTUS and VPOTUS?

      • BOMBS
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        I think it directly implies POTUS, especially this part:

        or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,

        But also, they don’t have to be legally correct or in-keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Under my assumption that a few of the Supreme Court Justices are surely psychopaths, they just need an interpretation that’s plausible enough to avoid consequences to themselves.

      • @Saganaki
        link
        31 year ago

        The argument I’ve seen is that the condition part of the clause (insurrection) by language only applies to the bit after “who, having previously…”

        Basically, the argument goes “It says you can’t be President or Vice President if you did insurrection while an officer of the US”—but it doesn’t say you can’t be President if you did insurrection while president of the US.

        To be clear: I think it’s fucking idiotic and against the spirit of the law—but I’m no lawyer/legal expert.