this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
942 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19006 readers
4855 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 110 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Ok, now pass one requiring the President to support and defend the Constitution, and to not be such an utter shithead.

I realize that second one is delusional when it comes to Trump.

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends 51 points 9 months ago (3 children)

My favorite part was how that was implied and held true by every fucking president.

And now we have to make shit explicit.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I mean, the President-elect must take the Oath of Office as stated in Article II, Section I , Clause 8 of the Constitution:

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.”.

So it is on there. But it’s really just a pinky promise between you and a higher power. Whether that be a deity, the government, society/the social contract, or whatever.

There are two problems with this:

1, president Trump did not believe in a higher power than himself. He may present as Christian or even a twice-a-year Christian, but make no doubts, he saw himself as the highest power, answerable to no one

2, the president shouldn’t be answerable to no one. But the system of checks and balances is broken by a party-before-country half of Congress and a stacked and obviously biased and hyper-political Supreme Court (that has at least one seat stolen depending on how consistent you are in your beliefs. More if you think back to Bush v Gore…which is also why I hate people spouting for third parties. If half of the Florida Nader voters held their nose and voted for Gore, there wouldn’t have even been a question. Were their virtues worth the result that came of them? I say the same for the Bernie Bros who couldn’t hold their nose for HRC).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Democrats go after civil rights constantly and with impunity. Their presidents included

[–] [email protected] 28 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Next, remove the presidential pardon power.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Keep the pardon power, but, require approval from the senate on those selected to be pardoned.

[–] stevehobbes 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Is there a legal argument being made that the oath of office is not a binding agreement?

I feel like that would lose in court….

[–] misophist 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Trump is arguing that he swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution, not to "support" it.

[–] SCB 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Which is hilarious since those words describe the act of supporting it

His entire existence is a fucking meme

[–] stevehobbes 1 points 9 months ago

Bon chance with that argument….

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] stevehobbes 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

oof, finally good news on that front!

Let’s see how long it lasts. Hopefully that’s the end of the Colorado battle but you never know. The best thing that could happen is him appealing to the US Supreme Court and they affirm it, making it a national decision.

Still absurd that it was even an argument in the first place. The attorneys should be penalized for wasting time with stupidity.

[–] stevehobbes 2 points 9 months ago

True enough. Wish I had confidence in the Supreme Court.

[–] SCB 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Oaths are generally not legally binding. For instance, you can not swear to tell the truth in court and perjury is still a thing. The swearing in is just a formality.

Oaths are, as always, dependent upon the character of the person taking them and social consequences about breaking them.

[–] stevehobbes 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is there case law on that? I’m not aware of anyone that testifies before a court without being sworn in?

[–] SCB 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

What I'm saying is not that you can opt not to swear in, but that there are ways to commit perjury even if you have not.

In my experience, anyone who takes the stand is sworn in, it's just a formality that is not the reason for perjury.

Sort of an "all dogs have 4 legs but not everything with 4 legs is a dog" thing.

I should hold off on posting until I make more sense

Edit: actually I'm full of shit, and you generally get charged with something lesser than perjury if you're not under oath.

If you give a false statement but you are not under oath or make false claims without knowledge or malice, your statement will likely not reach the level of perjury charges

Well that's it for me for a while lol

[–] stevehobbes 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This site disagrees with you:

Only witnesses who make false statements under oath can be convicted of perjury, and they must also have intentionally misled the court. If you give a false statement but you are not under oath or make false claims without knowledge or malice, your statement will likely not reach the level of perjury charges.

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/the-truth-about-perjury.html#:~:text=Only%20witnesses%20who%20make%20false,the%20level%20of%20perjury%20charges.

[–] SCB 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah I edited that in. Did not realize it was a lesser charge. Time to sit the next few plays out.

[–] jaybone 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hadn’t thought about this. If you refuse to swear an oath in court, can they find you in contempt? Or they just like ok, well we tried, let’s move on.

[–] SCB 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure refusal would result in a contempt charge, because it turns out it is a major factor in actually charging you with perjury

[–] jaybone 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So then not what you said earlier?

[–] SCB 0 points 9 months ago

Yes, hence my edit.