14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot

[Slim Cognito]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just asking a question cuz I've never worked in the professional world, at least not in an upper management position, but would a company president and VP of whatev be considered officers of that company? I've been a treasurer on the board of a very small nonprofit and I was considered an officer. If I'd screwed up, say, sales tax one quarter, it would have been my butt in the sling.

[bob]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just asking a question cuz I've never worked in the professional world, at least not in an upper management position, but would a company president and VP of whatev be considered officers of that company? I've been a treasurer on the board of a very small nonprofit and I was considered an officer. If I'd screwed up, say, sales tax one quarter, it would have been my butt in the sling.

It would depend on what the articles of incorporation say. But most articles expressly list the officers, and those lists typically include a president and vice president.

[roadscholar]

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative… or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States… who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same…”

It says “having previously taken an oath.” Obviously the Apricot Idiot did so when sworn in. It doesn’t say the insurrection has to occur while acting as an officer. So to my non-lawyer thinking, that ruling makes no sense.

Are they saying a President is not an “officer of the United States?” That seems ridiculous too, because the text seems to be saying that anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution, and later participated in insurrection, is disqualified from holding office (unless 2/3 of Congress votes to qualify him or her).

What am I missing?

[bob]

What am I missing? Are they saying a President is not an “officer of the United States?”

This is exactly what the Colorado court ruled. Because the 14th Amendment lists every federal officer but the president and vice president, their exclusion was intentional. (So said the court.)

[roadscholar]

What am I missing? Are they saying a President is not an “officer of the United States?”

This is exactly what the Colorado court ruled. Because the 14th Amendment lists every federal officer but the president and vice president, their exclusion was intentional. (So said the court.)

That’s metaphorically absurd, man! How could they possibly have meant that an insurrectionist can’t be a Senator, or a Congressman, but can be POTUS?

[raison de arizona]

What am I missing? Are they saying a President is not an “officer of the United States?”

This is exactly what the Colorado court ruled. Because the 14th Amendment lists every federal officer but the president and vice president, their exclusion was intentional. (So said the court.)

That’s metaphorically absurd, man! How could they possibly have meant that an insurrectionist can’t be a Senator, or a Congressman, but can be POTUS?

If they had intended it to include the president, they would have so specified.
/bullshit

[Frater I*I]

That’s metaphorically absurd, man! How could they possibly have meant that an insurrectionist can’t be a Senator, or a Congressman, but can be POTUS?

I shall call you El Duderino because I'm not into the whole brevity thing...


I'll come in again...

[keith]

That’s metaphorically absurd, man! How could they possibly have meant that an insurrectionist can’t be a Senator, or a Congressman, but can be POTUS?

I shall call you El Duderino because I'm not into the whole brevity thing...


I'll come in again...

He's Mr. Lebowski. I'm The Dude.

And I'm not shy about the word "Vagina" either.

[raison de arizona]

Colorado SoS

“The idea that any official who would engage in insurrection would be barred from taking office except the Presidency is incredibly surprising…It basically means that the Presidency is a get out of jail free card for insurrection”
-CO Sec of State

[Slim Cognito]

The very person who needs to be held the most accountable. We in the Upside Down, indeed.

[raison de arizona]

And the appeals are in...
Plaintiff: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... f_redacted
tfg: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ded-review

Roger Parloff's cheat sheet:

[raison de arizona]

https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1726995648665591968?s=20

Here’s the bulletproof appellate brief challenging the CO trial court’s “preposterous” (the court’s own word!) holding exempting Presidents and the Presidential Oath from the vital constitutional safeguard of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
https://citizensforethics.org/wp-conten ... dacted.pdf

[bob]

I wish Tribe (and others) would lay off the hyperbole.

Many things are bulletproof these days.

But, more importantly, assuming a majority of (this) SCOTUS will agree is far from certain.

[raison de arizona]

Tribe points out that under this interpretation, the emoluments clause, which I suppose has proven unenforceable anyway, doesn't apply to the President.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The president is not a officer, yes?
https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1727036564843192788?s=20

[bob]

The president is not a officer, yes?

That misses the mark, somewhat. The Colorado court ruled the presidency is not an office enumerated in the 14th Amendment.

The Colorado court also noted the five instances in the U.S. Constitution that suggest the president isn't an officer:

The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4.

The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3.

n the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he 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.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.

Article VI provides further support for distinguishing the President from “Officers of the United States” because the oath taken by the President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 is not the same as the oath prescribed for officers of the United States under Article VI, Clause 3.

[raison de arizona]

Interesting, thanks bob!

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Tribe points out that under this interpretation, the emoluments clause, which I suppose has proven unenforceable anyway, doesn't apply to the President.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The president is not a officer, yes?
https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1727036564843192788?s=20

That is in fact the context in which most of the discussion over the past 200 years re: "Is PotUS an Officer of the United States" has taken place, with the instances Bob referenced taking center stage.

[raison de arizona]

It's almost like he doesn't have any ethics, and simply takes whatever position he feels like, even contradicting himself at times...

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.

https://x.com/GeorgeTakei/status/172707 ... 76942?s=20

Choose death.

► Show Spoiler

[p0rtia]

Popping the complete text of Section 3 in for handy reference:

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.

[Greatgrey]

[keith]

Popping the complete text of Section 3 in for handy reference:

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.

Just sayin'.

Is the Presidency not an office?

[much ado]

Popping the complete text of Section 3 in for handy reference:

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.

Just sayin'.

Is the Presidency not an office?

From the U.S. Constitution, the Presidential Oath:

"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."

[Reddog]

Article 2 section 1:

7. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "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."

While it doesn’t explicitly say “support”, I would think one definition of support would be to “preserve, protect and defend”

It does explicitly say “office of President”

IANAL, but it seems to me that one definition of officer is someone who holds an office.

One who holds an office of authority or trust in an organization, such as a corporation or government.

On another subject, I thought that state voters do not actually vote for president/vice-president, instead they vote for electors.
This is where I get confused on the ballot issue. Any thoughts?

[Ben-Prime]

Popping the complete text of Section 3 in for handy reference:

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.

Just sayin'.

Is the Presidency not an office?

I believe the argument is about this point as highlighted above, however. They are arguing whether he met the requirements of office-holding while committing an offense, not whether he meets the requirements of seeking a current office.

[keith]

The president is not a officer, yes?

That misses the mark, somewhat. The Colorado court ruled the presidency is not an office enumerated in the 14th Amendment.

The Colorado court also noted the five instances in the U.S. Constitution that suggest the president isn't an officer:

The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

The President is not enumerated in the list of officers appointed by the President because it is the President that is appointing the officers to serve under him and he does not appoint himself, though I suppose that there is nothing stopping him from taking on a cabinet portfolio if he wanted to, is there? In any event it is silent on whether the President is an 'officer'.

The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4.

Exactly the opposite: the President and Vice President are here EXPLICITLY INCLUDED in the class of officers that are subject to impeachment. I accept that it would have been clearer had they said 'and all OTHER civil Officers..., but what is explicitly excluded is Military Officers.

The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3.

Again, this is describing the powers and authority of the President HIMSELF. In what world does it make sense for the President to be included in a class of officers he is authorized to appoint? The authors of the Constitution would have no reason what-so-ever to suspect that someone would ever try to make such an argument. This is frivolous beyond measure.

n the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he 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.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.

The President's oath is defined separately. This clause doesn't imply that the President is not an officer, only that any and all officers must take an oath. The President is first of all executive officers and is the only Executive position defined in the Constitution - the President's oath is 'special' in that way. All other executive positions are established by law and appointed by the President. That doesn't make the President not an officer, it makes the Constitutional clause general enough to apply to any future executive officer configuration.


Article VI provides further support for distinguishing the President from “Officers of the United States” because the oath taken by the President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 is not the same as the oath prescribed for officers of the United States under Article VI, Clause 3.

Again, this is because the President is the President, and subordinates are subordinates. Also Article VI section 3 prescribes an oath, but not the form of the oath. The constitutional duties of the Congress are different from the Constitutional duties of the President and the oath will therefore be different - even to the point of Congress legislating the wording of the oath, or perhaps each officer winging it and making up their own oath.

I judge the arguments put forth above and criticised by me in red to be trite and childish and a total waste of brain power.

Of course IANAL, let alone a Constitutional Scholar. But there is just so much violence that can be tolerated when interpreting plain English and logical associations.