Big Ed MagussonOct 11, 2023
Brandi Buchman
Over in Colorado, where voters are petitioning to have Trump removed from the ballot under Sect 3 14A for his insurrectionist activities, Trump's lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss with a few ..interesting.. theories around whether POTUS supports VS protects Constitution. 😕
Oct 11, 2023 at 8:59pmWeb
Show threadBrandi BuchmanOct 11, 2023
The bit above was part of Trumps reply supporting his motion to dismiss the CREW petition in CO on grounds that it violates his 1A rights. The crux of his anti-SLAPP argument below and lots of additional context in my earlier feature linked here: https://lawandcrime.com/trump/trumps-fight-to-stay-on-2024-election-ballot-threatens-to-turn-constitutions-insurrection-clause-into-historical-ornament-experts-say/
The language of insurrection: Legal bids to remove Trump from 2024 ballot barrel forward

Two years after the tradition of America’s peaceful transfer of presidential power was broken, the question of whether Donald Trump should remain on the ballot in 2024 looms large.

Law & Crime
Show threadBrandi BuchmanOct 11, 2023
As for unpacking Trumps latest arguments in CO, my colleague at Law&Crime, Colin Kalmbacher will have the report.
As for me, I'll have a feature next week, so stay tuned!
Show threadBrandi BuchmanOct 12, 2023
https://lawandcrime.com/trump/trump-claims-the-insurrection-clause-does-not-apply-to-the-president-or-prohibit-someone-from-running-for-office/
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.

Law & Crime
Show threadSpockoOct 12, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman .
I imagine Trump's lawyers' brainstorming session.
"Okay, no bad ideas! Come on people! THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!"
Scott: How about we say the Presidential oath doesn't requires the President to swear ‘to support’ the Constitution?
Geoffrey: YES! AND let's say he never was an OFFICER, of the United States.
Joanna: Look, I'm just a paralegal, but these are TERRIBLE ideas.
Scott: You're right.
Joanna: I am?
Scott: Yes, you're just a paralegal. Now type it up or we don't get paid.
Show threadDavid PeningtonOct 12, 2023
@spocko
I like the idea "I may be ineligible to be president but I should still be able to stand for president" - either his lawyers are wrong or the election law is badly written.
Show threadSpockoOct 12, 2023
@DavidPenington my Quatloos are on his lawyers are wrong, they are pushing this BS idea so it will go to the Supreme Court on a Constitutional issue. That is the play.
Show threadKennethOct 12, 2023
@spocko @DavidPenington Ginning up a constitutional crisis is a novel defense strategy (and an even weirder theory of the case).
Show threadSpockoOct 12, 2023
@DavidPenington by the way, Scott & Geoffrey are the names of Trump's lawyers on this brief, and I pulled those ideas right from the brief. Also, Joanne actually IS their Paralegal.
We know how Trump has his lawyers file crap in order to delay & hope he gets to one of his appointees.
Show threadKennethOct 12, 2023
@DavidPenington @spocko Oh, don't worry about that. The House will soon... Oh wait...
Show threadKennethOct 12, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman This argument hurts my brain: If the president is not an officer of the United States, the insurrection clause does not apply to that office as per its wording. And in any case you can run for office even if you can't be installed in office. Peachy.
Show threadGary GOct 12, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman - nice shout-out on today's Daily Beans!
Show threadRealGravitas -Citizen SaboteurOct 13, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman Somebody put a cat’s cradle on that guy’s hands!
Show threadMOct 11, 2023

@Brandi_Buchman 🙄🙄🙄

I suppose they’re holding the argument that Donald didn’t swear to uphold the *contents* of the Constitution — and look! the parchment still exists in the National Archives! — as their next “Hail Mary” filing.

Show threadi. celeste aurora    [witchzard]Oct 11, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman @mycotropic Alt Text, both images together contain the following text:

The September 29th Motion to Dismiss also explains how Section Three does not apply to all officers of the United States, but only those who take an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States." As explained there, 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. Both oaths put a weighty burden on an oath-taker. However, because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to "support" the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President. If they wanted to include the President in the reach of Section Three, they could have done so by expanding the language of which type of oath would bring an "officer" under the strictures of Section Three. They did not do so, and no number of semantical arguments will change this simple fact. As such, Section Three does not apply to President Trump.
Show threadJoe Hill 🇵🇸🇺🇦Oct 11, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman
Show threadArmy GirlOct 11, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman that is interesting. In the military we swear "to support AND defend" the Constitution.
Show threadKennethOct 12, 2023

@ArmyGirl
Now that we're spelunking that rabbit hole... there are 50 #GubernatorialOaths...

@Brandi_Buchman

Show threadMartha LemertOct 11, 2023

@Brandi_Buchman

Neither Trump nor his attorneys have any idea what any of these words mean. Support, protect, defend, preserve or oath. Protecting, preserving and defending are all forms of support.

Show threadcui bono, baby.Oct 11, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman
Yet another example of the idiocy textualist originalism as a school of interpretation has led us to.
Show threadjustpeachyOct 11, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman semantics. Thesaurus.com, support will lead you to uphold, uphold will lead to defend, and defend will lead to both preserve and protect. They are all synonyms.
Show threadDavid J. AtkinsonOct 11, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman OMG this makes me want to scream.
Show threadJon WilsonOct 12, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman
As the author of many scientific papers, I can attest to just how difficult it is to make certain that technical language is used with perfect consistency even in a document that is *not* written by a committee. It is altogether too easy to have accidental inconsistencies of language even when an identical meaning is intended.
Show threadStarkRGOct 12, 2023
@Brandi_Buchman It must take some intense mental gymnastics to be a lawyer for Trump. Not least of all to believe you'll be one of the first lawyers he actually pays.