Nobody really knows what is meant by "officer of the government." It might include the president. It might not. A president occupies a unique position under the Constitution.
Basically what the judge did was punt the issue to the appellate court.
The judge found that Trump incited an insurrection (a finding of fact) but didn't find that he was an officer of the federal government (a matter of law).
If an issue that goes to an appellate court is an issue of law, the appellate court reviews de novo, which means that no deference is given to the lower court.
Welcome to the world of constitutional and statutory interpretation.
Basically, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter and the Constitution is stuffed full of phrases and words that can be interpreted in different ways.
An interpretation of the word "reasonable" in the Fourth Amendment has literally filled books.
The Third Section of the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War to keep former Confederates out of the government.
The idea was to prevent backsliding.
It didn't work because, by the late 1890s, the government and Supreme Court were stuffed full of Confederate sympathizers who rolled back the advances made during Reconstruction and gave us racial segregation.
You can keep out the insurrectionists but not the insurrection sympathizers.
@SummerDay@Teri_Kanefield if a court rules that the Commander in Chief of the armed forces doesn’t hold a military office, I’ll join you in saying things are illogical. 🖖🏼
Add comment