Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president

[frigidweirdo]

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.

The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the amendment prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office without unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve.

But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in...

www.rawstory.com

This is totally bizarre! If the President of the United States isn't required to support the Constitution - then who is? What do you think?

This should automatically disqualify anyone for running for President.

Literally, the Democrats should use this EVERY DAY for the next year, telling everyone this is what Trump said.

Trump’s Call for ‘Termination’ of Constitution Draws Rebukes

Republicans were still cautious — or silent entirely — about shunning the former president-turned-2024 candidate.

www.nytimes.com

Also not the first time:

"Trump’s Call for ‘Termination’ of Constitution Draws Rebukes"

This from December 2022

"“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote in a post on Saturday on his social network, Truth Social."

 

[Lakhota]

Any lie to stop Trump.

Russia collusion.
Stormy daniels
Hunters laptop is a fake
GLOBAL WARMING...for the love of God GLOBAL WARMING.
Top secret documents
Trump falsified the value of mara lago to get a loan

When will they ever learn?..when willllll they eeeeever learn?

In other words - ya got nothin'. Thanks for playing...

 

[Thunk]

he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president,

Seriously? Rawstory dot com?

You'd find a more credible source with the jew hating WhatReallyHappened dot com

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.

The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the amendment prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office without unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve.

But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in...

www.rawstory.com

This is totally bizarre! If the President of the United States isn't required to support the Constitution - then who is? What do you think?

What’s bizarre is a party so fucking into democracy and how it’s going to die is keeping anyone they don’t want you to vote for off of the ballot. You fucking people are pathetic.

 

[konradv]

Seriously? Rawstory dot com?

You'd find a more credible source with the jew hating WhatReallyHappened dot com

Is that a Trump website?

 

[White 6]

In looking for the story from another source, I found an inteview with the Colorodo Secretary of state talking about the citizen civil lawsuit to keep trump off the ballot in Colorado, on the proposed arguement, he participated in an insurrection. She did not speak much to the merrits, but mainly the concept and right of the six to file the lawsuit. She did not repeat the claim, that supposedly his lawyers wanted to argue, he had no duty to follow and support the constitution.
In another article from Associated Press, dated Sept. 22, a judge in Colorodo ruled trump could not threaten or intimidate witness or participants that might be in the trial. The only other article, I found was from Courthouse News, today, in Colorado, Second Judicial District Judge Sarah Wallace ruled against Trump's Sept 22nd, motion to dismiss.

In the motion to dismiss, team trump was arguing 1. That all he did and said was protected speech. 2. This should be decided in Congress, not state court.

It should be noted, by me, that the states run the elections, not Congress, so Colorado is within its rights to hear the case.

The judge ruled the case would go forward and be heard, with a date set for Oct 30.

Again, no mention of Trump, through his lawyers, arguing he had no duty to support and defend the constitution.

Denver judge SLAPPs down Trump motion to dismiss ballot challenge

Polls put former President Donald Trump as a front-runner in the 2024 GOP primary, but a group of party members question whether he's eligible for office while facing criminal charges in several courts.

www.courthousenews.com

For the moment, I have to call bullshit on Trump lawyers arguing for Trump, he had no duty to follow and support the constitution. Something like that would have been Big News, no matter who was being bombed and terrorized.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Mah demahcracy! Is at riiiisk! And in order to save it you can’t vote for anyone I don’t approve of.

Go back to the bar you drunk ass Indian.

 

[Thunk]

Is that a Trump website?

Go check it out and see for yourself.

As terrible as it is...it's better than OP's source.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ok, I found the article she referred to, and the text of the court case, if you want to read it

Trump claims the insurrection clause 'does not apply' to the president

Trump's latest argument seeks to stake out new territory as to what, exactly the insurrection clause demands in a broader constitutional context, as well as who it demands such things from.

lawandcrime.com

So, the material being presented and the filing of dismissal doesn’t say that trump ever said he “has no duty to support the constitution”. The argument was being made about section 3 of 14A, about who the disqualifying nature of insurrection applied to. They were trying to make a case about what oath the president takes, vs what oaths other people take, such as members of congress, officers, state executive members etc. They are trying to make the argument about wording, that the presidents oath says he will “preserve, protect, and defend”, with the other oaths, for members of congress etc say they will “support the constitution…”. They say the same wording as used in the oaths is also used in section 3 of 14A, and that that is on purpose. They are trying to make the argument that S3 of 14A does not apply to the president because of that wording, which they claim was intentional by the framers.

Read for yourself, it starts on section. 4, page 13 of the document they link to. I can see how one would think they are trying to say the president doesn’t have to support the constitution, but if you read it, it’s probably talking about the wording of the oaths take.

Judge for yourself.

 

[ThisIsMe]

In looking for the story from another source, I found an inteview with the Colorodo Secretary of state talking about the citizen civil lawsuit to keep trump off the ballot in Colorado, on the proposed arguement, he participated in an insurrection. She did not speak much to the merrits, but mainly the concept and right of the six to file the lawsuit. She did not repeat the claim, that supposedly his lawyers wanted to argue, he had no duty to follow and support the constitution.
In another article from Associated Press, dated Sept. 22, a judge in Colorodo ruled trump could not threaten or intimidate witness or participants that might be in the trial. The only other article, I found was from Courthouse News, today, in Colorado, Second Judicial District Judge Sarah Wallace ruled against Trump's Sept 22nd, motion to dismiss.

In the motion to dismiss, team trump was arguing 1. That all he did and said was protected speech. 2. This should be decided in Congress, not state court.

It should be noted, by me, that the states run the elections, not Congress, so Colorado is within its rights to hear the case.

The judge ruled the case would go forward and be heard, with a date set for Oct 30.

Again, no mention of Trump, through his lawyers, arguing he had no duty to support and defend the constitution.

Denver judge SLAPPs down Trump motion to dismiss ballot challenge

Polls put former President Donald Trump as a front-runner in the 2024 GOP primary, but a group of party members question whether he's eligible for office while facing criminal charges in several courts.

www.courthousenews.com

For the moment, I have to call bullshit on Trump lawyers arguing for Trump, he had no duty to follow and support the constitution. Something like that would have been Big News, no matter who was being bombed and terrorized.

Read my post 29. I’ve linked an article to the law and crime website. In it, they have a link to the Colorado state website that has the full text of the filing.

The relevant section starts on page 13, section 4.

I’d be curious if your analysis of it was the same as mine.

Or I’ll just post the link.

It’s from a courts.state.co website. I believe this is the Colorado courts website.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/Cases%20of%20Interest/9_29_2023%20Respondent%20Donald%20J%20Trump's%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf

Also In that law and crime article, they provide a link to a document cloud pdf which is the same petition that Buchanan lady Twitter post quotes. I won’t link it here since it’s a document cloud and not a normal website, but you read through the law and crime article the phrase about a “26 page motion” is highlighted in case you want to read it. I’m not sure what the difference between the two documents are.

 

[White 6]

Read my post 29. I’ve linked an article to the law and crime website. In it, they have a link to the Colorado state website that has the full text of the filing.

The relevant section starts on page 13, section 4.

I’d be curious if your analysis of it was the same as mine.

Thanks, I'll check it.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.

The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the amendment prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office without unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve.

But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in...

www.rawstory.com

This is totally bizarre! If the President of the United States isn't required to support the Constitution - then who is? What do you think?

Certain matter of an oath he swears...

 

[White 6]

Thanks, I'll check it.

Got. Well that is pretty, weak and ineffectual and basically totally bullshit, but not as bad as the Raw Story, though I have known Trump to be a sleazebag sonovabitch for years, and he has done nothing but make me more convinced by his actions, inactions and words over the years, especially since election night 2020.

Looks like it did not impress the judge, either. I guess we can follow the trial starting Oct 30.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Got. Well that is pretty, weak and ineffectual and basically totally bullshit, but not as bad as the Raw Story, though I have known Trump to be a sleazebag sonovabitch for years, and he has done nothing but make me more convinced by his actions, inactions and words over the years, especially since election night 2020.

Looks like it did not impress the judge, either. I guess we can follow the trial starting Oct 30.

Did you read the actual petitions? I linked in my previous post. Also the other reply that was linked in the Twitter of the link that the OP made is in that article too

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It sounds like another democrat lie.

Trump is a treasonous enemy of the Constitution and unfit to hold any public office.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

With his hand on the Bible, Trump swore the following oath:

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.

Trump began his ‘presidency’ lying under oath.

 

[Care4all]

Ok, I found the article she referred to, and the text of the court case, if you want to read it

Trump claims the insurrection clause 'does not apply' to the president

Trump's latest argument seeks to stake out new territory as to what, exactly the insurrection clause demands in a broader constitutional context, as well as who it demands such things from.

lawandcrime.com

So, the material being presented and the filing of dismissal doesn’t say that trump ever said he “has no duty to support the constitution”. The argument was being made about section 3 of 14A, about who the disqualifying nature of insurrection applied to. They were trying to make a case about what oath the president takes, vs what oaths other people take, such as members of congress, officers, state executive members etc. They are trying to make the argument about wording, that the presidents oath says he will “preserve, protect, and defend”, with the other oaths, for members of congress etc say they will “support the constitution…”. They say the same wording as used in the oaths is also used in section 3 of 14A, and that that is on purpose. They are trying to make the argument that S3 of 14A does not apply to the president because of that wording, which they claim was intentional by the framers.

Read for yourself, it starts on section. 4, page 13 of the document they link to. I can see how one would think they are trying to say the president doesn’t have to support the constitution, but if you read it, it’s probably talking about the wording of the oaths take.

Judge for yourself.

So the Trump lawyers are not arguing that Trump didn't aid or participate, or incite, or plan the Jan 6th "insurrection", but are arguing that the 14th amendment clause on anyone participating in an insurrection or aids the enemy, who has taken an oath to support the Constitution previous to the act, is disqualified for running for any office again....because of that wording??

WOW! That's pretty good lawyering.... I guess it is their only shot....

I think they will lose, but still good lawyering to come up with it.....

It also makes it appear that the lawyers believe Trump did participate, (from the sidelines) in the insurrection, and that it was an insurrection!?!???

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump is a treasonous enemy of the Constitution and unfit to hold any public office.

If he wasn't treasonous he would be a Chinese loyalist. You know, like democrats.

 

[theHawk]

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.

The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the amendment prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office without unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve.

But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in...

www.rawstory.com

This is totally bizarre! If the President of the United States isn't required to support the Constitution - then who is? What do you think?

Paywall Fake News.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Semantics indeed. What's the point of having someone run for an office who is Constitutionally precluded from holding that office? The Golden Rule says what again? Ethics anyone? There's definitely never been as sore a loser as Trump, though Kari Lake has sure made a fine spectacle of herself.