• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Based on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.

    Congressional oath of office:
    https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/oath-of-office.htm

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”

    Presidential oath of office:
    https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/

    “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.”

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s not really about the word “support”.

      The argument (which I don’t agree with) is that the Constitution says that all officers of the United States must take a particular oath. It also says that the President must take a different oath. This implies that the President is not an officer of the United States (if he were, then logically he would take the first oath).