Omar Bennett
Former US President Donald Trump's lawyers have argued that he never swore an oath 'to support the Constitution' and therefore cannot be disqualified from office under the 14th Amendment. This argument has been made in response to attempts to prevent him from running for office again, citing his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and his refusal to concede the 2020 election. While Trump's legal team claims that the wording of the insurrection clause does not apply to him, others argue that his actions constitute a betrayal of his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The debate centers around the interpretation of Section Three of the 14th Amendment, with Trump's eligibility for the 2024 presidential race at stake.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Trump's argument | He never swore an oath to "support" the Constitution |
| Trump's oath | To "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution |
| Section Three of the 14th Amendment | States that a person who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" after taking an oath of office to support the Constitution should be barred from running for office again |
| Trump's lawyers' argument | The wording of Section Three does not apply to people running for president |
| Colorado Supreme Court's decision | To hear an appeal on a lawsuit filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) |
| CREW's argument | The 14th Amendment's disqualification clause extends to the President and the Presidency |
| Judge Sarah Wallace's ruling | Trump had "engaged in insurrection" but should remain on Colorado's primary ballot |
| Judge James Redford's ruling | The request to keep Trump off the ballot is a "political question" and not a question for the courts |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Trump's lawyers argue he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not support it
- The 14th Amendment's insurrection clause should apply to Trump, say legal experts
- Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment
- Trump's eligibility for the 2024 election is being challenged in multiple states
- Trump's legal arguments have been described as absurd and treacherous
Trump's lawyers argue he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not support it
During his January 2017 inauguration, former US President Donald Trump swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution during his role as president. However, this has not stopped people from accusing him of betraying his oath to the Constitution, particularly in relation to the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021.
In response to these accusations, Trump's lawyers have argued that he never swore to "support" the Constitution. They hinge this argument on the specific wording of the US Constitution's insurrection clause, also known as Section Three of the 14th Amendment. Section Three states that a person who ""engaged in insurrection or rebellion" after taking an oath of office to support the Constitution should be barred from running for office again.
Trump's legal team, including Colorado-based attorney Geoffrey Blue, has asserted that Trump's oath did not include the word "support," and therefore Section Three does not apply to him. They argue that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intentionally excluded the president from Section Three, as the presidency is not an office 'under the United States,' and the president is not an 'officer of the United States.'
This legal argument has been criticized by some, including Democratic New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell, who called it a "treacherous" interpretation of the law. Despite the criticism, Trump's legal team continues to assert that he is eligible to run for office again in 2024, as he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, not support it.
US Constitution Principles: Do Schools Reflect Them?
You may want to see also
The 14th Amendment's insurrection clause should apply to Trump, say legal experts
The 14th Amendment's insurrection clause, also known as the disqualification clause, has been a source of debate regarding former President Donald Trump's eligibility for future office. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that individuals who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" after taking an oath to support the Constitution are prohibited from holding public office. This clause was initially intended to prevent former Confederates from holding government positions following the Civil War.
Legal experts and scholars are divided on the applicability of the insurrection clause to Trump. Some argue that his actions, including pressuring former Vice President Mike Pence and delivering an ""incendiary" speech on January 6, 2021, qualify as "engaging in insurrection." J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal judge, and Laurence Tribe, a liberal constitutional law professor, agree with this interpretation. They believe that Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the subsequent attack on the Capitol disqualify him from serving as president again.
On the other hand, Trump's lawyers have presented several arguments against his disqualification. They claim that the president is not an "officer under the United States" as referred to in the clause and that the January 6 incident was not an insurrection but a riot. Additionally, they assert that Trump did not "engage" in any insurrectionary acts and that his actions are protected by the First Amendment. Trump himself has denied any wrongdoing and dismissed attempts to prevent his future candidacy as a "trick."
The Colorado Supreme Court initially barred Trump from the state's ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that only Congress could enforce the disqualification clause under Section 5. The eligibility of Trump for future office remains a contentious issue, with legal experts offering differing interpretations of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause.
The US Constitution: A Founding Document's Name and Legacy
You may want to see also
Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment
On January 6, 2021, a mob of former President Donald Trump's supporters stormed the United States Capitol, resulting in several deaths and numerous injuries. The attack was a direct response to Trump's false claims of election fraud and his subsequent efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. This incident, known as the "Capitol Riot", has raised questions about whether Trump's actions on that day violated his oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, specifically regarding Section Three of the 14th Amendment.
Section Three of the 14th Amendment states that those who have previously taken an oath as an "officer of the United States" to support the Constitution and subsequently engage in "insurrection or rebellion" against it shall be barred from serving in Congress or holding any federal or state office. Trump's critics argue that his actions on January 6, 2021, constitute incitement of insurrection and, therefore, fall under the purview of this amendment.
Trump and his legal team have denied any wrongdoing and put forth several arguments against the application of the 14th Amendment in this context. Firstly, they claim that Trump, as the President, did not take an oath to "support" the Constitution but rather to "'preserve, protect and defend' it, distinguishing between the specific wording of the oaths. Additionally, they argue that the presidency is not an "office under the United States" and that the President is not an "officer of the United States," as mentioned in Section Three.
Despite these arguments, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December 2023 that Section Three of the 14th Amendment applied to Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, and disqualified him from running in the state's 2024 primary election. This ruling set a precedent, and other states, such as Maine, followed suit, citing the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Trump v. Anderson to determine if Colorado's exclusion of Trump from the ballot was justified.
In conclusion, while Trump's legal team presents technical arguments about the wording of his oath and the interpretation of Section Three, the courts, including the Colorado Supreme Court, have found that his actions on January 6, 2021, violated the 14th Amendment. The upcoming Supreme Court decision will have significant implications for Trump's political future and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment in relation to the presidency.
Military Officers: Swearing Allegiance to the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's eligibility for the 2024 election is being challenged in multiple states
Former US President Donald Trump's eligibility for the 2024 presidential election is being challenged in multiple states, including Colorado, Illinois, and Maine. The argument is centred around Trump's alleged violation of Section Three of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that those who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" after taking an oath of office to support the Constitution should be barred from holding office again.
Trump's lawyers have argued that he never swore an oath to "support" the Constitution, but rather to "preserve, protect and defend" it, and that Section Three does not apply to the president or the office of the president. This legal argument has been criticised by many, including lawyers and politicians, as absurd and counterintuitive. Despite this, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal on a lawsuit filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) watchdog group and Republican figures, who argue that Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, violated the 14th Amendment.
In a previous ruling, lower court judge Sarah B. Wallace stated that Trump had ""engaged in insurrection" on January 6, 2021, the day of the Capitol riot, but that he should remain on Colorado's primary ballot as the wording of the 14th Amendment does not specifically apply to the president. The Colorado Supreme Court, a state Circuit Court in Illinois, and the Secretary of State of Maine ruled that Trump was ineligible to hold office under Section Three of the 14th Amendment due to his role in the January 6 Capitol attack. However, on March 4, 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Anderson that states cannot determine eligibility for a national election under Section Three, and that only Congress has the authority to disqualify candidates.
Trump has faced further legal challenges and setbacks in the lead-up to the 2024 election. A federal judge blocked a portion of Trump's executive order on election integrity, which included provisions requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. Additionally, Trump's attempts to restrict voting and prepare legally dubious" challenges against the certification process in case of a loss have been criticised as undemocratic. Despite these challenges, Trump accepted the nomination from the Republican National Convention to become the Republican presidential nominee for the third consecutive time on July 18, 2024.
Celebrating the Constitution: Fourth of July's True Meaning
You may want to see also
Trump's legal arguments have been described as absurd and treacherous
Trump's legal arguments regarding his oath of office have been described as absurd and treacherous. The argument centres on the wording of the oath, which states that a person who "'engaged in insurrection or rebellion' after taking an oath of office to "support" the Constitution should be barred from running for office again. Trump's lawyers argue that he swore to "'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, not to "support" it, and therefore the 14th Amendment does not apply to him. This argument has been criticised as a level of hairsplitting that seems absurd.
Trump's legal team has suggested that the wording of the U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause does not apply to him in a Colorado case. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal on a lawsuit filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) watchdog group and Republican figures, who argue that Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment. They claim that Trump's involvement in the Capitol riot should disqualify him from running for office again.
Trump's lawyers have reiterated that Section Three does not apply to people running for president and that Trump did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution. They argue that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment purposefully excluded the office of President from Section Three. They claim that the presidency is not an office "under the United States" and that the President is not an "officer of the United States".
Legal experts and scholars have noted that the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist clause should apply to Trump based on his involvement in the January 6 attack and his attempts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. Laurence Tribe, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, stated that it is Trump's admission of attempting to stay in power after losing the election that defines "insurrection against the Constitution of the United States".
Trump's legal arguments have faced criticism on social media, with some describing them as treacherous and absurd. Democratic New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell posted, "Wow in a legal proceeding Trump is now arguing he didn't violate the 14th Amendment by inciting the Jan 6 insurrection because he 'never took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.' This treacherous criminal is head of the Republican Party." Tristan Snell, a lawyer and former assistant attorney general for New York state, wrote, "Donald Trump is arguing that the president is not an 'officer of the United States' — and so he can't be disqualified from office under the 14th Amendment for his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. Yes, you read that correctly. This is how bad his legal arguments are."
Religious Freedom: Constitutional Limits on Religion in America
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The oath of office comes directly from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. This is the full text: "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's lawyers have argued that he never swore an oath to "support" the Constitution. Instead, during his inauguration in 2017, he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution during his role as president. They argue that the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment, which bars those who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" after taking an oath of office, does not apply to Trump.
The argument has been criticised on social media, with some calling it "treacherous". Legal experts and scholars have noted that the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist clause should apply to Trump, given his role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal on a lawsuit filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) watchdog group, arguing that Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, violated the 14th Amendment. A lower court judge, Sarah B. Wallace, ruled that Trump had "engaged in insurrection" but should remain on Colorado's primary ballot as the wording of the 14th Amendment does not specifically apply.
![Alvin and the Chipmunks - Trick Or Treason [DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61JHHG5KTDL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
