Donald Trump States he never swore Oath to the Constitution - MSM

That is the headline. It amazes me how the MSM continues to try to do things like this. The statement is tied to them battling the fact multiple states are trying to keep him off the ballot based on the 14th Amendment. He never said this but again the MSM will promote it.

I have stated this in a previous thread and posted multiple times. The 14th Amendment does NOT apply to the president. It was written that way and done on purpose to protect the POTUS. The law was created post Civil War to keep people from Congress or other officer positions from creating issues post war.

Now, since his lawyers are claiming it does not apply, the new course of action is to promote that he never swore to support the Constitution but to protect it. I mean, those are his words and any POTUS when they are inaugurated.

This is headed to the Colorado SC so it will be interesting to hear what they say also.

Link

Geoffrey Blue, a Colorado-based attorney for Trump, previously used the same argument as to why the 14th Amendment cannot be cited to stop Trump from the presidency again in an October 9 filing to try to have the lawsuit thrown out. "Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President," Blue wrote.

"If they wanted to include the President in the reach of Section Three, they could have done so by expanding the language of which type of oath would bring an 'officer under the strictures of Section Three. They did not do so, and no number of semantic arguments will change this simple fact. As such, Section Three does not apply to President Trump."

What he is saying is completely correct but you know how the MSM likes to twist those words.

Social Media Thoughts both ways....

Reality...

Former federal and state prosecutor Eric Lisann posted: "Crazy as it sounds Trump made that exact same argument to the Colorado trial judge and somehow it is the only argument the judge agreed with him on."

and Fantasy....

"Wow in a legal proceeding Trump is now arguing he didn't violate the 14th Amendment by inciting the Jan 6 insurrection because he 'never took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.' This treacherous criminal is head of the Republican Party," Democratic New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell posted on X, formerly Twitter.

That treacherous criminal has my vote....

a reply to: matafuchs

Most excellent!

I've heard this argument used prior to when it was used in regards to President Trump and to me even though I just straight up don't like the dude, the wording could go either way depending on how one looks at it. But to my best knowledge it does not directly say the POTUS can be a target.
Sooo ya good argument and I look forward to reading responses on this.
I don't really have much else to add.....2024 is going to be a wild year man! I am not really looking forward to it but I will be extremely busy hopefully too busy to pay much attention to politics.

a reply to: Allaroundya4k

Sorry...updated.

"THEY" were nervous in 2016. "THEY" are truly terrified now. "THEY" live.

a reply to: matafuchs

All the high-profile trump haters have better understand the future they are building for themselves.

They are bashing the man who will be the most powerful individual on the planet in 14 months.

These idiots had better let that sink in, if they care about their future at all.

a reply to: matafuchs

Seems to me that "preserving, protecting, and defending" the Constitution (which is what Presidents take an oath to do) IS a particular example of "supporting" the Constitution. In other words, "supporting" the Constitution is the larger category of actions which contains "preserving, protecting, and defending" as a subset so that "preserving, protecting, and defending" is automatically an example of "supporting".

In a Venn diagram, "supporting" the Constitution would be a large circle and "preserving, protecting, and defending" the Constitution would be a smaller circle entirely contained in the larger one.

I'm sure that will be an argument, at least, when the case gets to the Colorado Supreme Court.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: matafuchs

All the high-profile trump haters have better understand the future they are building for themselves.

They are bashing the man who will be the most powerful individual on the planet in 14 months.

These idiots had better let that sink in, if they care about their future at all.

That's what truly concerns me.
People like you that want to citizens arrest journalists and politicians that challenge Trump. And also Trump himself saying he will go forward and use his second term for retribution.
That should scare the sh1t out of you. Because that is not the job of the POTUS. That is some authoritarian shiz.
Not cool man

Every president absolutely takes an oath to the Constitution. Here it is:

"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."

That would make any violation of the oath to the Constitution a removable offense. Also would make one not eligible to try to take that oath again. Why take an oath the second time if you couldn't keep your word the first time around?

The integrity of the Constitution and our highest offices is written into the oath. It's common sense.

I understand Trump's lawyers are trying to make it seem like the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President, but it applies to everyone. Especially those that took an oath.

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.

Is Commander-in-Chief a real position? Is that real or just in our heads? Is that civilian or military? Can the Commander-in-Chief give orders to our military, or start a war?

Then this seems pretty common sense, doesn't it?

Still patiently waiting for this to get to the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: matafuchs

All the high-profile trump haters have better understand the future they are building for themselves.

They are bashing the man who will be the most powerful individual on the planet in 14 months.

These idiots had better let that sink in, if they care about their future at all.

That's what truly concerns me.
People like you that want to citizens arrest journalists and politicians that challenge Trump. And also Trump himself saying he will go forward and use his second term for retribution.
That should scare the sh1t out of you. Because that is not the job of the POTUS. That is some authoritarian shiz.
Not cool man

Is the left not trying to *Actually* arrest and imprison someone they don't like because they don't like him? All of the lies and fabrications and stretches to try and attain the goal set by their feelings? Using authoritarian political arms and weaponizing alphabet agencies to get their way?

A second term for retribution, and it not being the job of the POTUS......

It wasn't congress's job to spend millions of dollars in media manipulation, funding sources for cases they knew were fraudulent (as they crafted them themselves), going on public tangents and tirades, trying to drag an entire country down into flames over THEIR OWN retribution over their feelings and lost election subsequent attempts to silence and drown out political adversary either.

Isn't all of the above mentioned contained within the literal definition of terrorism?

But here we are.

a reply to: Allaroundya4k

You know that it started under Obama. He used the Espionage Act to protect himself and cabinet members and had journalists arrested. Not theory actually did it.

It did not apply when Trump was in office. They leaked everything and anything and made things up that were never retracted.

The MSM right now is not news. It is propaganda. Another Obama initiative.

a reply to: matafuchs



Starting at 40 seconds in...

“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.”

That's in no way an oath to upon the constitution.

People will believe anything about someone they don't like.

I don't like him either, but an oath he did take.

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: matafuchs

Seems to me that "preserving, protecting, and defending" the Constitution (which is what Presidents take an oath to do) IS a particular example of "supporting" the Constitution. In other words, "supporting" the Constitution is the larger category of actions which contains "preserving, protecting, and defending" as a subset so that "preserving, protecting, and defending" is automatically an example of "supporting".

In a Venn diagram, "supporting" the Constitution would be a large circle and "preserving, protecting, and defending" the Constitution would be a smaller circle entirely contained in the larger one.

I'm sure that will be an argument, at least, when the case gets to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Words have specific meanings. Especially in legal circumstances.

Communists always attempt to twist the meaning of words to suit their goals, as we see here.

originally posted by: Mahogani
Every president absolutely takes an oath to the Constitution. Here it is:

"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."

That would make any violation of the oath to the Constitution a removable offense. Also would make one not eligible to try to take that oath again. Why take an oath the second time if you couldn't keep your word the first time around?

The integrity of the Constitution and our highest offices is written into the oath. It's common sense.

I understand Trump's lawyers are trying to make it seem like the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President, but it applies to everyone. Especially those that took an oath.

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.

Is Commander-in-Chief a real position? Is that real or just in our heads? Is that civilian or military? Can the Commander-in-Chief give orders to our military, or start a war?

Then this seems pretty common sense, doesn't it?

Still patiently waiting for this to get to the Supreme Court.

As written, no, the award for interpretation would go to the federal judge.

Comparing the language in the 14th amendment to several other clauses and articles in the Constitution, there is a blatant and obvious differentiation between an Officer of the United States and the Presidency, including but not limited to, the absence of the title within the text.

Further stated in a SCOTUS decision in 2010, Officers are appointed and not elected; the President would not qualify as an Officer, however, the Vice-President would be (notice how the 14th amendment cites the Vice President but NOT the President).

Either way, a protest isn't an insurrection. If that were the case and the 14th was held to even standard, half of congress would be ejected.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

Edit to Add:

a reply to: watchitburn

Words are everything in legal circumstances; I've personally witnessed cases be won and lost in front of me over the placement of an Oxford Comma within statutes.

a reply to: matafuchs

The deranged Leftist cult will attempt anything to keep Trump from office. ANYTHING.

Nobody the Dems trot out there can beat Trump in a fair and square election.

They will lie, cheat, steal to keep it from happening.

originally posted by: Mahogani
Every president absolutely takes an oath to the Constitution. Here it is:

"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."

That would make any violation of the oath to the Constitution a removable offense. Also would make one not eligible to try to take that oath again. Why take an oath the second time if you couldn't keep your word the first time around?

The integrity of the Constitution and our highest offices is written into the oath. It's common sense.

I’m so glad you acknowledge this… that being said what should be done to someone that knowingly circumvents the Constitution like Nancy Pelosi did when she signed the nominating paperwork for Barry Soetoro (Codename: Barack Hussein Obama II) and had the wording “and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States of America” removed from the notified and stamped submitted paperwork… 🤔

a reply to: matafuchs

Clearly as several of his executive orders were quashed for their unconstitutionality, and presented a direct contradiction to the US 'Con', he did not fulfil the letter of his Presidential oath.

An Exit Survey of Trump’s Constitutional Misdeeds - Cato Institute

originally posted by: SwissMarked

originally posted by: Mahogani
Every president absolutely takes an oath to the Constitution. Here it is:

"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."

That would make any violation of the oath to the Constitution a removable offense. Also would make one not eligible to try to take that oath again. Why take an oath the second time if you couldn't keep your word the first time around?

The integrity of the Constitution and our highest offices is written into the oath. It's common sense.

I’m so glad you acknowledge this… that being said what should be done to someone that knowingly circumvents the Constitution like Nancy Pelosi did when she signed the nominating paperwork for Barry Soetoro (Codename: Barack Hussein Obama II) and had the wording “and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States of America” removed from the notified and stamped submitted paperwork… 🤔

Barrack Obama was born in the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu and is a natural born citizen of the United States.

Sotero is the surname of his step-father, who married Obama's mother after the death of Obamas biological father.

Having used an alias is not grounds for legal exclusion from the Presidency.

a reply to: dothedew

Regarding whether the Presidency is an Office:

Article II Section 1
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.

Also "Preserve Protect and Defend", but not "Support?"
Sounds like a Chinese car warranty!

]originally posted by: BustedBoomer
a reply to: dothedew


That's correct.

Officers are appointed. The President is Elected.

Also note that the 14th includes unusually precise language going so far as to include an elector of the President, yet not the President themselves.

a reply to: chr0naut

So there is proof that he was an Indonesian citizen… where is the proof he ever reaquired United States citizenship since Indonesia requires you to renounce any other citizenship and doesn’t allow for dual citizenship… 🤔

You also didn’t answer why Nancy Pelosi deliberately had that wording removed from the nomination paperwork…