1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Jan 20, 2021.

  1. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    If a 14th Amendment case emerged involving Biden or Obama or Clinton, states would have laws on the books quicker than you can say Grover Norquist.
     
  2. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    The gall of these people

    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."
     
  3. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    Israel always confused me geographically as a kid. I would look in an atlas and see the West Bank was on the east and think east was west and west was east.
     
  4. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

    Add that to the pile of unfitunfitunfitunfit
     
  5. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    No kidding. I'd say preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution are just more specific, more descriptive, more formalized definitions of "supporting" it -- which would all be befitting someone who is the President, or who is about to be sworn in to job. Just how much of a purposely obtuse pretzel does a lawyer have to be twisted into to make their "case"?
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2023
    HanSenSE likes this.
  6. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    It's all completely a delay tactic. When this spectacularly gets swatted into the rafters, they'll file another suit saying Trump doesn't have to "grok" the Constitution. They will keep plowing deep into the thesaurus for a chink in the armor.
     
    Neutral Corner and HanSenSE like this.
  7. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    Wait til you go to New Orleans.
     
  8. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    The measure to vote for a speaker has to be initiated by the acting speaker, correct?

    Even if another person has the 218 votes, the acting speaker could prevent a vote from happening, right?
     
  9. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Triumphant Impunity.

    Just because the presidential oath of office specifically states the POTUS must "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," Fatfuck has no obligation to "support" the Constitution.
     
  10. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

  11. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

  12. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    FIFY :D
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page