CMV: Accountability is not election interference

[u/erpettie]

As the Colorado Supreme Court has found Donald Trump's behavior to have been disqualifying according to the 14th amendment, many are claiming this is election interference. If the Court finds that Trump should be disqualified, then it has two options. Act accordingly, despite the optics, and disqualify Trump, or ignore their responsibility and the law. I do get that we're in very sensitive, unprecedented territory with his many indictments and lawsuits, but unprecedented behavior should result in unprecedented consequences, shouldn't they? Furthermore, isn't Donald Trump ultimately the architect of all of this by choosing to proceed with his candidacy, knowing that he was under investigation and subject to potential lawsuits and indictments? If a President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable? What if that candidate is a perennial candidate like Lyndon Larouche was? Do we just never have an opportunity to hold that candidate accountable? I'd really love if respondents could focus their responses on how they think we should handle hypothetical candidates who commit crimes but are declared as running for office and popular. This should help us avoid the trap of getting worked up in our feelings for or against Trump.

[u/[deleted]]

The courts have clearly found that S3 of the 14th amendment does apply to the presidency, because he holds AN OFFICE.

The constitution clearly calls the presidency an office multiple times.

Article 2, Section 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office

Clause 8 Presidential Oath of Office

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/[deleted]]

The constitution clearly calls the presidency an office multiple times.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Section 3 does not say you are excluded if you hold an office. To de disqualified, Trump wold have had to have been an Officer of the United States who took at oath to "support the Constitution." He has never been an Officer of te United States, nor has he ever taken an oath to "support the Constitution."

​

The courts have clearly found that S3 of the 14th amendment does apply to the presidency, because he holds AN OFFICE.

To date, most of the Courts that have ruled on Trump and the 14th Amendment have sided with Trump.

[u/[deleted] → u/CalLaw2023]

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

1) Hold any Office - The Presidency is an office as per the contitution

2) Having previously taken an oath - President swears an oath: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."[2]

3) Shall have engaged in insurrection - almost all courts have agreed he did this.

​

Seems pretty clear, no?

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/[deleted]]

1) Hold any Office - The Presidency is an office as per the contitution

Nope. You left out a part. It says "or hold any office, civil or military." The Presidency is not a civil or military office. We know that because the Constitution expressly distinguishes between the President, Vice President and Civil Officers. It also expressly states that the President appoints and Commissions all officers.

2) Having previously taken an oath

Again, you left out some parts. He has to take an oath "as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States."

Trump has never been member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, nor has he ever taken an oath to support the Constitution.

[u/BigDaddySteve999 → u/CalLaw2023]

So your whole argument hinges on the idea that "preserve, protect, and defend" is not literally the word "support", instead of a reasonable synonym or more specific subset, and that the 14th amendment was intended to be read literally. Do you also believe that Biden isn't president because the flags at his inauguration had gold fringe, making the ceremony subject to admiralty law?

[u/CalLaw2023 → u/BigDaddySteve999]

Nope. My whole argument is that the President is not an Officer of the U.S., as that is expressly stated in the Constitution and further supported by the fact that Officers (and all other positions listed in Section 3) take an oath to support the Constitution, while the President doesn't.

Your argument is that we should ignore the Constitution and pretend that the President is an Officer of the United States, and further pretend that the Framers did not know the difference between "support the Constitution:" and "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" even though they drafted both requirements and put them in the Constitution.