Definitely not. Look, Pedes there is going to be a lot of hand-waving like this on various SM platforms, as well as GAW, but the amendment specifically states 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States'. Not county clerk, not President. Elected or not.
It would make zero sense for those writing this amendment to say 'no traitors can hold office, expect president, we're fine with that'.
This is simply going to come down to the fact that he has not been convicted of anything that would invoke the 14th. We will see whether SCOTUS will make that argument and toss the case, or be spineless and kick it back down to lower courts for "reasons".
You can quote irrelevant parts all you like, but that is not the part of disqualification.
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.
The role of President is not an officer. An officer implies a greater position above them. There is no greater position above President.
In fact, that is a point that they could catch Biden, Kamala, Hillary, Obama all on. They all took oaths as a member of Congress and, in Hillary's case, as an officer. Therefore Obama would still be subject as well, because before President he had taken an oath for Congress.
The only thing being decided in the next Appellate court is whether they can invoke the 14th without a conviction - fuck I just realized it's not even that: without a CHARGE even. Not whether the 14th applies to/includes the office of the President.
That's one read on it. And yet, before the Colorado Supreme Court shenanigans, you would find many legal discussions about how, in fact, the President is not considered an officer of the United States.
To further cement that point, what are members of Congress? Holders of office. Why are they specified if there is no distinction?
actually you're probably right. if that amendment was written about army officers there is no reason to assume the president or any civilians are included
Definitely not. Look, Pedes there is going to be a lot of hand-waving like this on various SM platforms, as well as GAW, but the amendment specifically states 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States'. Not county clerk, not President. Elected or not.
It would make zero sense for those writing this amendment to say 'no traitors can hold office, expect president, we're fine with that'.
This is simply going to come down to the fact that he has not been convicted of anything that would invoke the 14th. We will see whether SCOTUS will make that argument and toss the case, or be spineless and kick it back down to lower courts for "reasons".
You can quote irrelevant parts all you like, but that is not the part of disqualification.
The role of President is not an officer. An officer implies a greater position above them. There is no greater position above President.
In fact, that is a point that they could catch Biden, Kamala, Hillary, Obama all on. They all took oaths as a member of Congress and, in Hillary's case, as an officer. Therefore Obama would still be subject as well, because before President he had taken an oath for Congress.
Is he literally the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch?
This is a bad read my guy. An officer is ‘one who holds an office’, but there is zero reason for us to keep arguing about this,
Well, I guess we are taking it to court then aren't we?
The only thing being decided in the next Appellate court is whether they can invoke the 14th without a conviction - fuck I just realized it's not even that: without a CHARGE even. Not whether the 14th applies to/includes the office of the President.
officer in this context refers to an official office holder. the president is one of these. dumbass.
That's one read on it. And yet, before the Colorado Supreme Court shenanigans, you would find many legal discussions about how, in fact, the President is not considered an officer of the United States.
To further cement that point, what are members of Congress? Holders of office. Why are they specified if there is no distinction?
actually you're probably right. if that amendment was written about army officers there is no reason to assume the president or any civilians are included
this is dumb and a waste of time. holders of office are officers
Turns out the the ruling is a giant nothing burger. Stayed.