Arch Support

Arch -- adj, characteristic of those who treat others with condescension.

​​Whether one thinks Trump should be removed from presidential ballots because of the 14th Amendment or not, it’s hard not to be flabbergasted -- even by Trump standards -- at the legal argument his team is making in Colorado court, where a 14th Amendment challenge to his eligibility has been filed.

Okay, you have to sit down for this.

Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the 14th Amendment does not apply to him, but it states in Section 3 that it only concerns an officer of the United States who has “previously taken an oath…to support the Constitution of the United States.”  And when Trump took his oath, it was only to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.  Not to support it.

Yes, really.  That is Trump’s argument.  That he didn’t swear an oath to support the U.S. Constitution.  Only to “preserve, protect and defend” it. 

The thing is, since this is Trump’s argument why the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to him, it follows that he not only believes the Constitution is written in a way that it doesn’t pertain to him, but more to the point, that he himself doesn’t believe he swore an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, nor was it his obligation to support the Constitution, and – importantly – that he didn’t support.

It should be noted that the oath which U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressman swear to does say “support.”

In their filing, Trump’s attorneys wrote:  "The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution — not to 'support' the Constitution. "Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President."

Honestly, I have a hard time envisioning even an 8-year-old making this argument.  "I swear on my parents' life I will preserve, protect and defend you when we meet up with the school bully."  And then after stepping aside as the thug pounded his friend into a pulp explained later in the hospital, "Hey, I said I'd preserve, protect and defend you, I didn't say I would support you." And think that let him off the hook.

That said, this isn't a legal argument, just a human understanding of reality.  And this is, after all, a legal case.  However, not being a Constitutional scholar myself, and just a writer (though no longer on strike, so I can dive in on this now), all I can speak to is from the vocabulary and language standpoint.  And since this is an argument specifically about a word, I think that it's fair as a writer to chime in.  And sitting at my keyboard, when one is swearing to “preserve, protect and defend” something, you are not only supporting it, but offering all the support for it in every way you possibly can.

But since we writerfolk use dictionaries and thesauruses, let’s go to the reference books, just to be sure --

Preserve: “Keep or maintain in unaltered condition; cause to remain or last.”

Protect: Shield from danger, injury, destruction, or damage.

Defend:  Protect against a challenge or attack.

Support: Give moral or psychological aid, or courage to.  Speak in defense of.  To sustain under trial or affliction. To maintain (a person or institution) by supplying with things necessary to existence.

Oh.  “To maintain.”  See -- Preserve.

Oh, wait. “To sustain under affliction.”  See – Protect.

Oh, okay.  “In defense of.”  See – well, defend.

But again, I’m just a writer, where words matter what they mean.

Is it surprising that the Framers didn’t say “support” in the presidential oath?  Yes, a little.  But it’s also understandable when considering that they knew it is the Chief Executive's responsibility solely to execute and enforce laws– and not Congress’s – and therefore specified the president and no one else to “preserve, protect and defend” those laws.  And further, it’s understandable that they knew “preserve, protect and defend” means support and covers support, and adding the word would be utterly redundant.

Is it possible that the Colorado court could actually  rule a president doesn't swear to support the U.S. Constitution, and that it would be backed up on appeal?  In this world of Trump-appointed judges, who knows?  But just imagine the precedent that would set for future presidents...

But more than that – far more than that – putting all of this above aside, and leaving legal arguments to the lawyers -- what kind of person who is in the process of asking people to vote for him to be President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of U.S. armed forces, the most powerful man in the world, wants to make an argument in court that he’s not required to support the U.S. Constitution???!!

Well…okay, yes, there you have it.  What kind of person wants to make a legal argument he doesn’t have to swear he supports the U.S.  Constitution?  A fascist.  A malignant narcissist.  A person who doesn’t believe he has to support the Constitution.

Trump.