02/15/2024
The Republican National Committee actually argued that the President's oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution is
not the same as the oath to support the Constitution. They hung their hat on the difference between the word "support" versus the duty to "preserve, protect and defend" it. Really!!! Isn't the duty to "preserve, protect and defend" the same as "support"? In fact, it's a higher duty for the Commander in Chief. What a joke this argument is.
Below is a direct quote from the Republican National Committee's brief to the US Supreme Court:
Presidents take a different oath prescribed by Article II. See U.S. Const. art. II, §1; see also Am. Commc’ns Ass’n, C.I.O. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 415 (1950) (“For the President, a specific oath was set forth in the Constitution itself. Art. II, §1.”). In that oath, they do not swear to “support” the Constitution, as Section Three requires. They swear to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” See U.S. Const.
art. II, §1 (“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.”). Former President Trump has never taken
the Article VI oath “to support” the Constitution as used in Section Three, but only the Article II oath. He thus falls outside Section Three’s coverage. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed because
in its view, the presidential oath to “‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution’ … is consistent with the plain meaning of the word ‘support.’
This argument is unpersuasive and embarrassing to the intelligence of the citizens of this great country.
