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 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. "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," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. "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." The former president has already tried to remove the 14th Amendment case to federal court, but this motion was denied. Other lawsuits are trying to disqualify Trump on the same grounds in other states, including Minnesota. However, these cases face obstacles, chiefly that the 14th Amendment doesn't lay out a clear enforcement mechanism, according to experts. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-wont-support-constitution/
"I preserved the Constitution, made sure it was in a pretty frame. The best frame. Gold plated. People come to me all the time, with tears in their eyes, 'Sir, that is the best frame.' And the protect? It's in a museum, not a great museum like Mar A Largo, but still some museum in DC. DC, the crime capital of the world. Horrible people there, just horrible. Full of ANTIFA. And the defend part? I was just telling Putin, we have the prettiest Constitution, the color of the paper almost matches the color of my face. So I will defend it if anyone says our Constitution is ugly. But read it? Follow it? Obey it? I don't have to do any of that."
Ah yes the “police don’t actually have to protect or serve the citizens” legal argument. This one might work actually…
Interestingly, Article VI states: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. The president's oath is spelled out in Article II, and then the oath for all other officers is listed in Article VI. As much as it sucks, I think his lawyers have a legitimate argument. Necessity is the mother of circumvention.
But it opens a kettle of fish....because Biden can do an executive order wiping out student loans with this defense.,
