• AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think you can make an argument that if you preserve and protect something, you’re supporting it.

    But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. If the presidential oath isn’t an example of supporting it, then Article Ii makes no sense at all - why would it even be there?

    • IamRoot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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).

    • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I think the difference here is outcomes vs intentions (consequentialism vs virtue theory, if you want to be exact about ethics). Trump could support the constitution through his actions, but communicate his intentions otherwise: and vice versa.

    • time_lord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. If the presidential oath isn’t an example of supporting it, then Article Ii makes no sense at all - why would it even be there?

      I’m sure the righter part of the SC will find a reason :|

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, I had no clue that the military oath included “support.”

        Would be a stretch to say that article II of the Constitution was only intended to apply to the military.

        • IamRoot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Here is what you said with confidence:

          “But the real issue, to me, is that no one takes an oath specifically to “support” the constitution. “

          Then you ignored several people who pointed out that you were wrong.

          Then you responded that you had no clue.