On 28 Nov 2023, William Baude <law.school.prof@uchicago.edu> posted some
news:lcp9N.96159$Wzw6.67540@fx13.iad:

> On 11/28/2023 8:59 AM, Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>> Donald Trump Says He Never Swore
>> Oath 'to Support the Constitution'
>> Nov 28, 2023
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> In their appeal against the
>> Colorado lawsuit, Trump's lawyers
>> reiterated that the wording of
>> Section Three does not apply to
>> people running for president and
>> that Trump technically did not
>> swear an oath to "support" the
>> Constitution. Instead, during
>> his January 2017 inauguration,
>> Trump swore to "preserve,
>> protect and defend" the
>> Constitution during his role as
>> president.
>
> This is patently absurd semantic quibbling. To preserve, protect and
> defend the Constitution *is* to support it. In fact, it goes *beyond*
> supporting it. I "support" the Constitution, in the sense that we have
> one and, until it is amended or replaced, we necessarily have to
> follow it. But I have never sworn an oath to take active steps,
> legally and/or militarily, to preserve, protect and defend it. Trump

You were never in the military, Rudy. You were too chicken.

Or what it because you tried, but were too short and showed up wearing a
dress with peanut butter oozing out your ass?

> did take such an oath, and of course he violated it...and not only on
> 01/06/2021.

Oh? How did he do that exactly on the 6th?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB8kjR4nYzk

Jan 6, 2021
Donald Trump has told supporters to go home and to respect the job of law
enforcement.

"I know your pain, I know you're hurt, we had an election stolen from us,
but you have to go home now. We have to have in peace," the president said
outside the White House.

"We have to respect our great people in law and order."

> The Colorado judge, Sarah Wallace, may be on stronger legal ground in
> holding that 14.3 doesn't apply to the presidency because it is not an
> office covered by the amendment. In her ruling, Judge Wallace writes:
>
> 301. The Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding
> whether the Presidency is one of the positions subject to
> disqualification. The disqualified offices enumerated are
> presented in descending order starting with the highest levels of
> the federal government and descending downwards. It starts with
> “Senator or Representatives in Congress,” then lists
> “electors of President and Vice President,” and then ends with
> the catchall phrase of “any office, civil or military, under the
> United States, or under any State.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §
> 3.
>
> 302. To lump the Presidency in with any other civil or military
> office is odd indeed and very troubling to the Court because as
> Intervenors point out, Section Three explicitly lists all federal
> elected positions except the President and Vice President. Under
> traditional rules of statutory construction, when a list includes
> specific positions but then fails to include others, courts assume
> the exclusion was intentional. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v.
> MacLean, 574 U.S. 383, 391 (2015) (finding that Congress intended
> to exclude rules or regulations when it included only the word
> “law” versus elsewhere where it used the phrase “laws, rule
> or regulation”).
>
> 303. Finally, the Intervenors point out that an earlier version of
> the Amendment read “No person shall be qualified or shall hold
> the office of President or vice president of the United States,
> Senator or Representative in the national congress….” Kurt
> Lash, The Meaning and Ambiguity of Section Three of the Fourteenth
> Amendment, 10 (Oct. 28, 2023) (unpublished draft) (on file with
> the Social Science Research Network). This fact certainly suggests
> that the drafters intended to omit the office of the Presidency
> from the offices to be disqualified.18
>
> 304. The Court holds that it is unpersuaded that the drafters
> intended to include the highest office in the Country in the
> catchall phrase “office... under the United States.”
>
> I think she's wrong, and so do the *majority* of legal scholars who
> have weighed on on this, but that's for a higher court to decide.

Leftist "scholar" opinions are worth used asswipe.
>>
>> "The framers excluded the office
>> of President from Section Three
>> purposefully," Trump's legal
>> team wrote. "Section Three does
>> not apply, because the presidency
>> is not an office 'under the
>> United States,' the president is
>> not an 'officer of the United
>> States,' and President Trump did
>> not take an oath 'to support the
>> Constitution of the United States.'"
>>
>> https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-oath-support-constitution-colora
>> do -insurrection-1847482

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The Oath of Office (for officers):
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military
Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I
will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I
am about to enter; So help me God."

POTUS

"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."