- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.org
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.org
- news@lemmy.world
Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.
Oh, by all means. You see the President has to take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, and the Framers thought that nobody in their right minds could be stupid enough to think that the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t apply to the Office of the President, or the person holding that Office, because the Fourteenth Amendment applies to whether people who break their Oaths of Public Office get to hold Public Office. To wit, they do not. Not unless a quorum of the sitting government says they can with a vote to that effect, anyway.
As such, it was obvious to the Framers that this would also bar someone from the Presidency. As it says in the context I asked you to read.
You’re not arguing why one and not the other, but why it should apply to the POTUS even though it doesn’t say POTUS.
I’m not saying I disagree, but the same argument could be made for senator or representative as well. So why call out these specifically and not the other?
If you’re resting your hat on “well it obviously applies to senator but not POTUS” when I would think, without specific clarification, that it would obviously apply to both … Well then I think they justified her ruling as reasonable.
Everyone who takes an oath of office is covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. Why?
THEY ALL TAKE OATHS OF OFFICE
That’s it. That’s the answer to your question. If you want to know why the Fourteenth Amendment was written, that’s also in the paper I linked. Your weaponised ignorance disguised as well-meaning debate only works as long as you aren’t being obviously disingenuous.
No, it isn’t. This is even a shift from your previous argument. But, again, it’s just why you think the POTUS is included, but not why they explicitly call out senators but not the POTUS.
It’s fair to say you don’t know, which is basically what I’m saying here, but claiming that I’m weaponizing my ignorance when I’m asking you to explain, while you’re claiming a conclusion is clear despite yours… Well that seems incredibly backwards.
What I am stating hasn’t shifted at all. Your “argument” is that because the President isn’t explicitly listed in the text, then “we can’t know if they’re covered”. Do you think every list everywhere has to be exhaustive, even when criteria and examples are listed? You know what the text does state?
Section Three states:
I’ll bold and italicise the really important bits, and delete the bits that aren’t relevant, because you seem to have trouble with the word “or” in lists:
The ONLY argument that “this doesn’t cover the Presidency” is that “The Presidency is not an Office of the United States, and the person who holds the Presidency is not an Officer of the United States”. This is obviously wrong as the actual, explicit text is “any office, civil or military”, and the actual requirement is “having previously taken an oath of office, then engaging in insurrection against that office”.
YOU are obviously wrong, because “any office” is pretty fucking explicit - the Presidency is an Office of the US, as laid out in that 55 page paper you refuse to fucking read. “Civil or military” - the President is both. “Previously having taken an oath as an officer of the United States” - check, taking the Presidency does indeed require an oath beforehand. “Having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same” - yep, he did that too. That’s all the requirements, so are you still going to come back with “but president not listed 🤔” as though it’s at all valid?
Edit: Fuck this, I’ve made my point very clearly, and there is no point in engaging further with you because either you get it or you’re a concern troll - maybe both. Good day.
Incorrect. To be very clear, my argument is that it’s a very conspicuous omission from a list that explicitly calls out some high importance positions, but does not call out the most important position. And due to that, I have a hard time finding it unreasonable when someone interprets the law to not include that conspicuously omitted position.
You act like I’ve denied it says “any office.” I have not. I’ve asked you why it calls out a high importance position, but does not call out the most important high importance position. It’s a question that you don’t have any answer for, so you just keep repeating your point. Or, now, making up my position so you can attack a strawman.
Incorrect. By definition, the way you are interpreting it, it would implicitly include the POTUS. And this is where my issue lies. It does explicitly call out some high importance positions, but not the presidency. Those high importance positions would also be included under any office. So why explicitly call out some, but not others, if “any office” covers all of them? You’ve completely failed to answer this question. Again, it’s fair to admit you don’t have an answer but you don’t think it matters anyway. It’s just then we would have to “agree to disagree” that it’s reasonable to consider the parts other than “any office” and ask ourselves what the intent was.
You’re inability to answer the question is not my fault, but your own. Why are you trying to blame me? The parting shot is incredibly childish.
Nope, I have answered the question multiple times. I am now taking care of my mental health because you are arguing in bad faith. For the benefit of the community though, here we go:
So when I asked
The answer is “yes”, apparently. Does the text list every office of government covered in Section 3? I’ll save you the answer: no it does not. If it did, that would be impressive, because most of them didn’t exist at the time, for example any ranking position of the Marine Corps. The Framers knew they couldn’t name every office that might ever be created, so they didn’t try. They listed some examples, and the criteria for triggering the disqualification.
Did you know this exact question came up at the time? I couldn’t find the source at the time but I didn’t think it was important because, you know, the text covers it with the “oathbreaker” requirement as has already been discussed. But, here it is: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569
Specifically:
I’ll highlight that last bit again:
That is from this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639
Which you can view in the browser. Do try to read these ones, they do prove that I have answered your question already and you are without question wrong about Section 3 not covering the Office of the President. You can press “ctrl + f” on a Windows keyboard or “command + f” on a Mac, if you’re having trouble reading all those words and just want to skip to the relevant bits instead of arguing with me that your question has not been answered.
It’s amazing because I’ve never made this argument. I’ve asked why you think they didn’t specify the POTUS, and that by not doing so the interpretation that the position was not included is reasonable.
I appreciate the actual attempt to answer my question now, and I will read that piece. Thanks. That seems pretty damning to the ruling by the judge, and I wonder why it wasn’t brought up. I assume if this is appealed to the SCOTUS, it will be.
I’m not sure why you had to read the same thing as I have been saying all along from a dude who lived two hundred years ago, but okay I guess - it says a lot about your reading comprehension, and I’m gonna stand by that since you are continuing to insist that your question wasn’t answered until just now when it very clearly was. In addition you’ve never once said why the “or any office” text from the actual Amendment didn’t answer that question for you from the get-go, and I would like an explanation for that because it makes no sense to me, at all.
Fine. You are without question wrong about *there being any question as to whether Section 3 covers the Office of the President, or any other Office not explicitly listed in the text, because of that damning “or any office” text you have been so loathe to acknowledge.
I have been thinking about this myself, since I learned exactly what it means that the judge “found as a basis of fact” that the Big Orange engaged in an insurrection. That is being hailed as huge and I can see why. Maybe it’s a tactic, and admittedly the Amendment doesn’t say he must be struck from the ballot. It just says he’s disqualified from taking the office. Theoretically if that “finding as a basis of fact” ruling can stand the whole way, even if he wins he won’t be allowed to take the job and there’ll be a runoff election. That’d be a first.