LAWoman
George Takei 
🏳️🌈🖖🏽When he tried to get his case transferred out of Georgia state court to federal court, Trump argued he was entitled to do that because he was a federal officer performing his official duties. But now that he’s facing removal from state ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which forbids officers of the U.S. who have taken an oath to support the Constitution but engaged in insurrection from holding federal public office, he’s claiming he’s not an officer of the U.S. He can’t have it both ways.
Artemesia@georgetakei ah yes, the good ol that-was-then-this-is-now defense.
SlightlyCyberpunk@georgetakei Fake News! Trump never made that argument in the Georgia case. There was a lot of *speculation* about him trying to get it moved to federal court, but that didn't actually happen:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-move-georgia-case-federal-court-after-judge-103581654
...He did, however, make that argument in the *New York* case ;)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23798502-trump-filing-to-move-ny-case-to-federal-court
(Section IV, particularly parts 15 and 17 if anyone else is checking. But I'm not seeing any technicalities here, that and the 14th amendment and 28 U.S. Code § 1442 all use the exact phrase "officer of the United States")
Stu Duerson, machina exo deusGood point! Judicial estoppel would bar him, or his representatives, from making that particular argument in the second case.
PeachMcDI'm just waiting for the states to all realize that this decision clears the way to get rid of #MTG #Boebert #MattGaetz #JoshHawley & the entire #Insurrection Caucus, since they're all on record supporting the attempted coup & giving aid & comfort to people convicted of participating
#14thAmendment time for ALL OF THEM
yunchtimethis is the key observation! he cannot define himself as an officer and not an officer. my personal irony: during my academic career I was literally defined as "ex officio" which meant I had no claim to any position if my external funding ran out. that was NOT the case for the POTUS!
2labz@georgetakei "He can’t have it both ways." Well, of *course* he can. He's The Donald.
AskPippa🇨🇦@georgetakei Most of the crazy frustrates me, but this actually made me <lol>!
Arena Cops 🇺🇦✌@georgetakei No way for Trump to have it both ways.
As the (ex-)"chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch" of the United States Donald J. Trump is naturally subject to constitutional Amendments, incl. the Fourteenth Amendment's Section 3.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S. Ct. 2690, 73 L. Ed. 2d 349, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 42
457 U.S. 731 (1982)
No. 79-1738.
★★★Supreme Court of United States★★★:
"...
The President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme. Article II, § 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States . . . ." This grant of authority establishes the President as the [***]chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch[***], entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. These include the enforcement of federal law it is the President who is charged constitutionally to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed";
..."
#RuleOfLaw #AccountabilityMatters #JusticeMatters #Insurrection #Rebellion #Overthrow #14thAmendmentSection3 #18USCSection2383 #ChiefOfficer
M.S. Bellows, Jr.@georgetakei He can, though, because "officer" is defined differently in the two laws (one a statute, the other in the Constitution).
I wish it were otherwise.
cowvin@msbellows @georgetakei Is the Colorado ruling correct that the president is not an officer?
@cowvin @georgetakei Reluctantly, I think it probably is. Here are the actual words of Amendment 14, Section 3:
"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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
@msbellows @georgetakei Yeah, to a non lawyer like me, it sounds like it would apply to the president because colloquially we consider that to be "holding office."
I mean it's also illogical to forbid insurrectionists from everything except the most important position in the government, don't you think? Like why would anyone explicitly allow insurrectionists to be the head of the entire executive branch?
@cowvin @georgetakei And here's the legal doctrine of ejusdem generis:
"Ejusdem generis (ee-joose-dem gen-ris) is a Latin phrase that means 'of the same kind.'The statutory and constitutional construction principle of 'ejusdem generis' states that where general words or phrases follow a number of specific words or phrases, the general words are specifically construed as limited and apply only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those expressly mentioned. For example, if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles, a court might use ejusdem generis to hold that such vehicles would not include airplanes, because the list included only land-based transportation." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ejusdem_generis#:~:text=Ejusdem%20generis%20(ee%2Djoose%2D,construed%20as%20limited%20and%20apply
@msbellows @georgetakei Oh wow, that's fascinating. Thank you for that explanation!
But how do they decide what is included in that kind? Like that example list you mentioned includes only wheeled vehicles, so it wouldn't apply to a motor powered land walker?
Sesame Street: One of These Things
@msbellows @georgetakei LOL I love it because you could come up with an argument for the shapes being the odd one out as well as by color.
@cowvin @georgetakei EXACTLY!!! NOW YOU UNDERSTAND SCOTUS!!!
@msbellows @georgetakei Haha, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I really appreciate it!
@cowvin @georgetakei Is it the balloon's color? Its shape? It's size? http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
@cowvin @georgetakei So the 14th Amendment lists executive officers of the states, and then it lists examples of federal officers, with the highest ones on the list being electors and Congresscritters and NOT "executive officers."
It seems picky a.f., but this literally is how the common law has interpreted statutes and constitutions for centuries, and the authors of the 14th Amendment knew how it worked when they drafted that language.
There is, however, a chance that actual history around the adoption of that amendment, especially the public debates that took place at the time, made it clear that the president WAS included. I hope that's how it is!
William B Peckham@msbellows @cowvin @georgetakei As "Commander In Chief" of the armed forces I would expect that to constitute qualification as a military officer. But.....
@wbpeckham @cowvin @georgetakei Except the president's status as a civilian is clear. Civilian control of the military is a hallmark of U.S. democracy.
Keep trying, though! I'm on your side!
Joe Beam@msbellows @georgetakei
Doesn’t the president take an “oath of office” when he or she is sworn in? The president sits in the highest office in the land? And so on . .
Doesn’t the president take an “oath of office” when he or she is sworn in? The president sits in the highest office in the land? And so on . .
"Mediocre Bunny" Evelyn@msbellows @georgetakei Thank you. That makes it make (sort of*) sense.
*I hate it when The Law behaves like this. I want to put it, the abstract overarching concept of The Law, into Time Out; or make it write "I will not let slimy shitweasels off on arcane technicalities" one hundred times on the blackboard.
AngrySexagenarian@georgetakei
He's always had it both ways. This is why he's become the despicable dickflop that he is.
He's always had it both ways. This is why he's become the despicable dickflop that he is.
Mirishuli@georgetakei Yes, he can have it both ways. Constitutional lawyers can say he is not an officer as defined by section 3 of the 14th amendment and one by other sections. This isn’t hard for white men.
Jake Wood@georgetakei I don't think that anyone is surprised
Toadman628@georgetakei Trump always seeks to delay or distract. Hope the courts expedite and move it up.
Likely Suspects@georgetakei
Yes he can, and has over and over etc.
Yes he can, and has over and over etc.
Stuart Celarier ❌👑@georgetakei How is the Commander in Chief not a federal officer?
NancyAnn@VisualStuart @georgetakei
I wonder, could the founders not even conceive of such a criminal being elected president in the first place? Was it a failure of imagination?
I wonder, could the founders not even conceive of such a criminal being elected president in the first place? Was it a failure of imagination?
@nancyann @georgetakei I think you are on to something there.
@VisualStuart
They certainly could not have meant for a president to be above the law after waging a revolution against a king.
They certainly could not have meant for a president to be above the law after waging a revolution against a king.
Alun Jones@nancyann @VisualStuart Generations of immigrants, myself included, have had to answer questions to ensure we understand the basic foundation of the country, prior to becoming naturalised citizens.
"What is 'The Rule of Law'" was one of the ones I was asked. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.txt#:~:text=12.%20What%20is%20the%20%22rule%20of%20law%22%3F
I sometimes feel like it should be possible for an incoming citizen to battle an existing citizen, in a Civics Bee, with citizenship on the line. Get some people educated, perhaps.
"What is 'The Rule of Law'" was one of the ones I was asked. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.txt#:~:text=12.%20What%20is%20the%20%22rule%20of%20law%22%3F
I sometimes feel like it should be possible for an incoming citizen to battle an existing citizen, in a Civics Bee, with citizenship on the line. Get some people educated, perhaps.
TisTree@ftp_alun @nancyann @VisualStuart Or better yet, require that presidential candidates pass the citizenship test before they run for office.
@VisualStuart @ftp_alun @nancyann And it wouldn’t be a bad idea to require passing the citizenship test as a prerequisite for high school graduation.
@TisTree You have my vote.
lolonurse@nancyann @VisualStuart @georgetakei
There were FAR fewer people, in a much smaller land. Law & order was much more simple & straightforward. Society was tighter, and an "outlaw" wasn't tolerated for long. The Founding Fathers could never have imagined such a hedonistic, sloppy, willfully ignorant society.
There were FAR fewer people, in a much smaller land. Law & order was much more simple & straightforward. Society was tighter, and an "outlaw" wasn't tolerated for long. The Founding Fathers could never have imagined such a hedonistic, sloppy, willfully ignorant society.
@lolonurse
And the failure is ours.
And the failure is ours.
@nancyann
We've grown so large, & our people have become SO lazy in terms of being civically involved. Most of the "reporters on the street" who ask random people who their congressman is, or state senator, have no clue. It makes me sick.
We've grown so large, & our people have become SO lazy in terms of being civically involved. Most of the "reporters on the street" who ask random people who their congressman is, or state senator, have no clue. It makes me sick.
molly in missouri@nancyann @VisualStuart @georgetakei the founders were slave owners, so clearly not entirely opposed to some authoritarianism.