Fogbow

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 5:00 pm 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.

roadscholar wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:17 pm What am I missing? Are they saying a President is not an “officer of the United States?”

bob wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:27 pm

roadscholar wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:17 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:33 pm

bob wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:27 pm

roadscholar wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:17 pm 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?

roadscholar wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:33 pm

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?

Frater I*I wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:41 pm

roadscholar wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:33 pm

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...

Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump wrote: “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

Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ @tribelaw wrote: 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

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.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 2:56 pmThe president is not a officer, yes?

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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 2:56 pm 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

George Takei @GeorgeTakei wrote: 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.

► Show Spoiler

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.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 12:19 pm 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.

keith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:10 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 12:19 pm 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 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."

keith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:10 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 12:19 pm 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?

bob wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 3:00 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 2:56 pmThe 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.