Apparently the oath that military folks take actually has the word “support” in it, but the one the president takes says “preserve, protect and defend.”
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.
So that one specifically says “support.”
The 14th amendment says:
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.
He’s trying to argue that since the presidential oath doesn’t use that word, and that word is specifically used in the 14th amendment, it didn’t apply to him.
Apparently the oath that military folks take actually has the word “support” in it, but the one the president takes says “preserve, protect and defend.”
Aren’t they specific types of support?
The military one is:
So that one specifically says “support.”
The 14th amendment says:
He’s trying to argue that since the presidential oath doesn’t use that word, and that word is specifically used in the 14th amendment, it didn’t apply to him.
They are different according to them. They’re trying to find loopholes.