Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


The questionable part of Trump’s Supreme Court ballot brief

via CBS News
This article was originally published at Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak, UltimateNewswire and others. To learn more about syndication opportunities, visit About Us.

Donald Trump’s new Supreme Court brief presents various arguments in an attempt to secure his eligibility to become president again.

One particularly questionable claim is that he never swore to “support” the Constitution, thus arguing he isn’t subject to disqualification for violating sworn support.

His lawyers argue that the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 doesn’t apply to him because presidents swear to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, not specifically to “support” it.

Trump’s lawyers wrote, “The specific language of the presidential oath does not make it anything other than an oath to support the Constitution.”

“President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three,” the brief continued.

However, legal experts find this claim absurd, and while its weakness doesn’t guarantee Trump’s loss, he only needs to win one of the issues at play.

The outcome remains uncertain, with responses due by Jan. 31 and an oral argument scheduled for Feb. 8.

Read Also:

Photo of Jim Carrey’s Birthday Goes Viral, You’ll Immediately Spot Why

World Champion Dead at 29 From ‘Medical Complications’

You May Also Like