[ “president is not an "officer of the United States” ] 59 page court document.


No. 23-719
In the Supreme Court of the United States

DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER V.
NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO

QUESTION PRESENTED

The Supreme Court of Colorado held that President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President because he "engaged in insurrection" against the Constitution of the United States— and that he did so after taking an oath "as an officer of the United States" to "support" the Constitution.

The state supreme court ruled that the Colorado Secretary of State should not list President Trump's name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot or count any write-in votes cast for him.

The question presented is:

Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?

SOURCE : https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298125/ [login to see] 1750343_Trump%20v%20Anderson%20Petitioner%20Brief%20on%20the%20Merits.pdf

V1 : VSP : https://youtu.be/j0WBjUQwKNQ?si=4dvTSYv-thfgTKC3

1.) Trump legal news brief: Trump’s lawyers say he did not take an oath ‘to support the Constitution’

Yahoo News' succinct daily update on the criminal and civil cases against the 45th president of the United States.

In a filing made to the Colorado Supreme Court, lawyers for former President Donald Trump say that he never took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States’’ and should therefore not be banned from the state’s presidential ballots in 2024 based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In the New York financial fraud civil trial, an executive with Deutsche Bank testifies about the favorable loan rates the bank gave Trump and the decision to part ways with one of its most famous clients. Here are the latest developments in the legal cases involving the man looking to return to the White House.

Jan. 6 election interference

Trump’s lawyers say he never took oath ‘to support the Constitution’

Key players: Colorado Supreme Court, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace

* Filings submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court this week from lawyers for Trump and CREW presented opposing views on whether Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol violated his oath of office and, under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, made him ineligible to run again, Truthout reported.

* Section 3 bars those found to have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” and who had previously taken an oath “to support the Constitution” from holding elected office again. But Trump’s attorneys argued it was not applicable due to the stature of the presidency and the wording of the oath.

* “Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office ‘under the United States,’ the president is not an ‘officer of the United States,’ and President Trump did not take an oath ‘to support the Constitution of the United States,'” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

* Instead, the attorneys noted, Trump swore “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

* CREW, which is representing six Colorado voters appealing Wallace’s ruling that Trump’s name could remain on state ballots, argued Trump’s argument was merely semantic.

* “The Constitution" CREW stated in its brief to the court, "explicitly tells us, over and over, that the Presidency is an ‘office.’ The natural meaning of ‘officer of the United States’ is anyone who holds a federal ‘office.’ And the natural reading of ‘oath to support the Constitution’ includes the stronger Presidential oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.’”

* The court has scheduled a hearing to hear arguments in the matter on Dec. 6.

Why it matters: Whatever the Colorado Supreme Court decides, its ruling will likely be appealed and the case will likely make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the heart of the case is the question of what limits the Constitution puts on presidential power.

SOURCE : https://news.yahoo.com/trump-legal-news-brief-trumps-lawyers-say-he-did-not-take-an-oath-to-support-the-constitution-201628633.html



2.) NEWS | POLITICS & ELECTIONS

Trump’s Latest Legal Defense: He Didn’t Take Oath to “Support” the Constitution
The Colorado Supreme Court is weighing whether to bar Trump from appearing on the state ballot next year.

By Chris Walker , TRUTHOUT
Published
November 28, 2023

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a brief with the Colorado state Supreme Court this week arguing that a constitutional provision that would disallow him from being able to run for the presidency again in 2024 should be ignored because, as they put it, he never made an oath, as president, to “support” the Constitution.

The argument is one of semantics, as the president of the United States is sworn in through a different oath than members of Congress or other government officials.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires presidents-elect to read an oath promising to “preserve, protect and defend” the document as they are being sworn into office.

Six residents in Colorado sued to have Trump barred from being able to appear on the state ballot next year as a candidate for president, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — sometimes known as the insurrectionist clause — as their basis for doing so. That provision states that no person can be elected to any office within the United States if they have served in a position where they “previously [took] an oath … to support the Constitution” while subsequently engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” or giving aid or comfort to those who have engaged in such activities.

Because the language of the amendment says “support” rather than any of the words used in the presidential oath of office, Trump’s lawyers contend the provision doesn’t apply to him. The former president’s lawyers claim this difference in the language was “purposefully” created by the authors of the amendment.

SOURCE : https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-latest-legal-defense-he-didnt-take-oath-to-support-the-constitution/


***
***

NEWS | POLITICS & ELECTIONS
Colorado Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 14th Amendment Case to Disqualify Trump

A district court judge last week ruled Trump was an insurrectionist but could still run for president.

November 22, 2023

Colorado’s state Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of a recently decided case involving former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president again under a constitutional provision that forbids former lawmakers and government officials who engaged in insurrection from seeking public office of any kind.
The state’s highest court issued its order approving the writ of certiorari on Tuesday. Both sides in the matter are now required to appear before the court on December 6 to present arguments defending their positions.

If the court rules in favor of plaintiffs, Trump’s name would not appear on either the primary election ballot, nor the general election ballot, in next year’s presidential race. Colorado is not necessarily a swing state — Trump lost to President Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election by more than 13 points — but the outcome of the case, if Trump is indeed removed, could inspire other states to take similar actions against the former president.

SOURCE : https://truthout.org/articles/colorado-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-14th-amendment-case-to-disqualify-trump/

It’s chess … pay attention :

By stating he NEVER took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, it could be argued as a technicality that allows an loophole [ TO INTENTIONAL INTERPED TO ALLOW DICTATORSHIP ] by the Supreme Court that allows him to not be elected, but seated as a dictator by proxy of law.

CPL LaForest Gray There are no checks and balances if Congress and the Supreme Court are corrupt.

SrA John Monette you've got that right...

Don't think I'll ever understand how they can do that... they blame it on POTUS Biden... but that's B.S...
How can anyone support a wannabe Dictator.

SGT (Join to see) I really wish there was a logical explanation

https://youtu.be/yKbnzsS0FBU

The officiant in such ceremonies often points out to the honoree and to those in attendance that the U.S. military oath of office stands apart from others around the world in that we swear an oath, not to a monarch, nor to a head of state, but to the Constitution.

SOURCE : https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/oath-of-office/amp/


U.S. Soldiers :

1.) 10 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART II - PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 31 - ENLISTMENTS
Sec. 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://www.gpo.gov

§502. Enlistment oath: who may administer
(a) Enlistment Oath.—Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

SOURCE : https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap31-sec502.htm


2.) Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

A.) ENLISTED :

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).


B.) OFFICERS :

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

(DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

SOURCE : https://history.army.mil/faq/oaths.html



3.) Oath of Enlistment

SOURCE : https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html


BONUS :

Around noon, the president-elect recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"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."

ArtII.S1.C8.1 Oath of Office for the Presidency

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:
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.”

SOURCE : https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/


The Presidential Oath of 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.

— The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1

SOURCE : https://ourwhitehouse.org/the-presidential-oath-of-office/

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel good morning Chip!

The MAGA MINIONS ARE CIRCLING...