Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 66,985
The SCOTUS has already weighed in on the subject. If you had relied on a little personal scholarship instead of CNN or MSNBC you might have already discovered that the language in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment didn't contemplate the President of the United States as an "officer of the United States."
The SCOTUS has determined the following in regard to who is defined as an "officer of the United States:"
"What is necessary to constitute a person an officer of the United States in any of the various branches of its service has been very fully considered by this Court in United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508. In that case, it was distinctly pointed out that under the Constitution of the United States, all its officers were appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, or by a court of law or the head of a department, and the heads of the departments were defined in that opinion to be what are now called the members of the cabinet. Unless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an "appointment" by the President or of one of the courts of justice or heads of departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States."
United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303 (1888)
However, Section 3 does not explicitly mention the President or the Vice President, nor does it specify the process or criteria for determining whether someone has engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Therefore, one could argue that section 3 is not applicable to the President, or that it requires a judicial determination or a congressional vote to invoke it.
One could also argue that section 3 was intended to apply only to those who participated in the Civil War, and not to any future cases of alleged insurrection or rebellion. Such an argument could be based on the historical context and purpose of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and to prevent the former Confederate states from rejoining the Union without complying with certain conditions. Section 3 was designed to prevent the former Confederate officials from regaining political power and undermining the Reconstruction efforts of the established government. Therefore, one could claim that section 3 is outdated and irrelevant to the modern context of the presidency. There are a lot of holes in the legal arguments being advanced by insanely radical Democrats against Donald Trump.
Last edited:
My 'widdle feelers' stopped getting hurt after I returned from Vietnam. I could give a rat's ass about you or your Trumpish-like belittling remarks. Mark Twain probably said it best, "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
