Extremely thoughtful response, a portion of which I expect entirely matches the appeal ath will go to the Court. I simply don’t understand how it can remain an open question if one orchestrated a pen insurrection. Thank you so much, Z Jim. Also, I never thanked you for your comments a fortnight ago about Thailand. I want discuss with you further.
As those in Washington D.C. are so fond of saying... "this is a 3rd rail issue" meaning it's fully electrified and has the potential to kill you. Well, kill you may be an overstatement, but it certainly is dividing the country from the top to even casual conversation between neighbors and family. It does make for spirited talk over Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings I'm sure...and has probably caused quite a few Facebook unfriending actions as well. Emotions are raw.
Words matter. And seems to me, this is what it's coming down to...the strict interpretation of the words of the Amendment.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President... Trump isn't running for any of those.
"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,"
Well Trump has held a civil "office" under the U.S. and he did take an Oath. The Presidential Oath reads: "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." This Oath does indicate faithful execution of "the Office" so that's again, pretty solid. "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" seems pretty straight forward as well. Unlike the miliary oath of office which includes "against all enemies foreign and domestic..." that's not specified in the Presidential Oath which is more of a generalized statement.
Who does the Amendment apply to? "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," I suppose the argument here is whether or not the President is "an officer of the United States"... if not, it seems this would not apply to the President.
Finally, it sets the condition of "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." So that goes back to whether or not Trump's actions were determined to be insurrectionist. However, if you go by the fruit-of-the-poison-tree doctrine, the first elements would have to be satisfied before you get to the insurrectionist aspects. If it's determined the Amendment doesn't apply to the office of the President, then whether he's an insurrectionist or not would seem to be moot. I assume this is what the Colorado Supreme Court and most likely the U.S. Supreme Court will be considering as well.
In August of 1998 we had a similar lesson in "words matter" by another President. When questioned by a grand jury regarding Bennett's knowledge of Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky...the question ended with "Is that correct?" President Clinton's immortalized reply was "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
There is no doubt that our litigious society will never be satisfied by solving things through discourse. Sadly, it seems to be even more rampant in recent years with many political races being decided by lawyers and courts vs. the voice of the people. The real concern here is what all of this does to erode our faith in a fair, objective, democratic elective system.
Extremely thoughtful response, a portion of which I expect entirely matches the appeal ath will go to the Court. I simply don’t understand how it can remain an open question if one orchestrated a pen insurrection. Thank you so much, Z Jim. Also, I never thanked you for your comments a fortnight ago about Thailand. I want discuss with you further.
As those in Washington D.C. are so fond of saying... "this is a 3rd rail issue" meaning it's fully electrified and has the potential to kill you. Well, kill you may be an overstatement, but it certainly is dividing the country from the top to even casual conversation between neighbors and family. It does make for spirited talk over Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings I'm sure...and has probably caused quite a few Facebook unfriending actions as well. Emotions are raw.
Words matter. And seems to me, this is what it's coming down to...the strict interpretation of the words of the Amendment.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President... Trump isn't running for any of those.
"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,"
Well Trump has held a civil "office" under the U.S. and he did take an Oath. The Presidential Oath reads: "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." This Oath does indicate faithful execution of "the Office" so that's again, pretty solid. "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" seems pretty straight forward as well. Unlike the miliary oath of office which includes "against all enemies foreign and domestic..." that's not specified in the Presidential Oath which is more of a generalized statement.
Who does the Amendment apply to? "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," I suppose the argument here is whether or not the President is "an officer of the United States"... if not, it seems this would not apply to the President.
Finally, it sets the condition of "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." So that goes back to whether or not Trump's actions were determined to be insurrectionist. However, if you go by the fruit-of-the-poison-tree doctrine, the first elements would have to be satisfied before you get to the insurrectionist aspects. If it's determined the Amendment doesn't apply to the office of the President, then whether he's an insurrectionist or not would seem to be moot. I assume this is what the Colorado Supreme Court and most likely the U.S. Supreme Court will be considering as well.
In August of 1998 we had a similar lesson in "words matter" by another President. When questioned by a grand jury regarding Bennett's knowledge of Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky...the question ended with "Is that correct?" President Clinton's immortalized reply was "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
There is no doubt that our litigious society will never be satisfied by solving things through discourse. Sadly, it seems to be even more rampant in recent years with many political races being decided by lawyers and courts vs. the voice of the people. The real concern here is what all of this does to erode our faith in a fair, objective, democratic elective system.