‘The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,’ read a filing from the former president’s attorneys
Maybe, but this goes much further. This is a president of the United States literally declaring himself not to be duty-bound to the constitution, the one document that limits their power.
Lord Varys : Power is a curious thing, my lord. Are you fond of riddles?
Tyrion Lannister : Why? Am I about to hear one?
Lord Varys : Three great men sit in a room: a king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a common sellsword. Each great man bids the sellsword kill the other two. Who lives, who dies?
Tyrion Lannister : Depends on the sellsword.
Lord Varys : Does it? He has neither crown, nor gold, nor favor with the gods.
Tyrion Lannister : He has a sword, the power of life and death.
Lord Varys : But if it’s swordsmen who rule, why do we pretend kings hold all the power? When Ned Stark lost his head, who was truly responsible? Joffrey? The executioner? Or something else?
Tyrion Lannister : I’ve decided I don’t like riddles.
[pause]
Lord Varys : Power resides where men believe it resides. It’s a trick. A shadow on the wall. And a very small man can cast a very large shadow.
I love game of thrones because of this but hate it bcoz of grr
yeah, these exchanges were some of the absolute highlights
Isn’t it the document that gives them their power?
That is a meaningless distinction in this case, unless you think that it somehow means he doesn’t have any power if he goes against the constitution.
Did he? Because that’s not what the article said. Where did he declare himself not duty bound by the constitution, aside from it being his layers words and not his, thats not even the nitpick being made. Did you actually read it?
Are you seriously trying to argue “it was just his lawyers arguing this point, he didn’t say it himself”?
That’s not what he’s saying, and I’m not a Trumpet but the article’s pretty clear: Trump’s argument is that he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” but that elsewhere the constitution defines officers as people who swear to “support” so he’s not an “officer”.
It’s stupid and nitpicky but not as clickbaity as the headline.
I’m not “arguing” anything. Thats what the linked article says.
You do understand that as his legal representation, they are arguing for him, which makes their argument legally literally his argument?
No actually, thats not how lawyers work, you tell them your part, and they say itn how it needs to be said to work for you, hence the part of hiring them, its almost never verbatim.
So again, his lawyers words, not his. Can you quote HIM saying it, yes or no?
Why are you complaining to me, while the Independent must have made the same mistake in your eyes?
LOL! I’m not, unless by “complaining” you mean not misquoting the article. I’ll take you not answering a simple yes/no question as a no. So now on top of you misquoting the article, now you’ve doubled down and now saying the author is wrong as well…priceless!
The article is titled: “Donald Trump tells court he had no duty to ‘support’ the US Constitution”. You are claiming that this is incorrect, since Trump didn’t tell the court this. Why are you not complaining to the Independent?