Officers of the United States: Neither the President nor Vice President are Officers of the United States

[JAL]

There was no insurrection. That should be the SCOTUS ruling. End of debate.

My take on it:
This would be much muddier, a subjective evaluation, and therefore much more divisive. A decision based on objective facts is much, much cleaner with less interpretation, and that's where the court decisions and their dicta I've read will invariably go if possible, then mooting all the claims that would be subjective.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Tl;Dr

Is it time yet?

 

[Tombs]

You'd think it would be obvious that the president of the United States can not rebel against the United States, because he represents the United States.

But some people are "differently abled."

 

[KG1]

The proper remedy for removal of a POTUS and disqualification is thru an impeachment and trial conviction. That's what the Dems tried to do with their "insurrection" impeachment. Thier ultimate goal in doing so was to disqualify Trump from being able to hold office again. Once that attempt failed it should have been the end of it. The disqualification efforts afoot now corelates with alleged acts of "insurrection" when Trump was POTUS and the failure to convict in an impeachment trial should nullify it.

If there was a conviction in the impeachment the remedy is removal from office and disqualification. The Dems missed their chance to do so because there was no conviction.

Now going forward after that attempt failed pay particular attention to the last part of Article 1 Section 3. and how it relates to the current attempt to prevent Trump from holding office again.

it suggests that you need a conviction for the party to be liable and subject to further indictment, trial, judgement and punishment. Without that conviction it closes the door from taking further action. That's my take anyway and what my argument would be.

Article I, Section 3

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

 

[Shadow01]

None of this make any difference. The swamp will do what the swamp does and many will cry, whimper, scream, but physically do nothing. Enjoy the continued walk to the left.

 

[KG1]

Well, some might try to say in rebuttal to my previous argument that "insurrection" in terms of disqualification based on the 14th amendment, Section 3 is self-event therefore you don't need an indictment, trial and conviction.

I say to that argument it is wide is open to subjectivity without an indictment, trial and conviction and is a violation of the 5th amendment right to due process protection. With an aforementioned trial by due process, at least it would be objectively the remedy for subjectivity. The three dissenting justices on the Colo Supreme Court have said as much in their opinion. So it's not just my opinion.

Now again some might say to that, but the four justice majority decision says different. and I would say to that their decision that Trump committed a disqualifying offense though "insurrection" is overly broad also based on subjectivity. The three dissenting justice's opinion is built on the foundation of objectivity.

 

[KLB]

You'd think it would be obvious that the president of the United States can not rebel against the United States, because he represents the United States.

But some people are "differently abled."

A former President could when not in office after their first term.

 

[KG1]

A former President could when not in office after their first term.

But the alleged offense took place while Trump was still officially POTUS.

 

[KLB]

But the alleged offense took place while Trump was still officially POTUS.

I was not speaking of Trump. I was speaking generally.

 

[jamil]

It's just like opinions on Ingo. Give an opinion first without reading beyond a headline or waiting until the whole story develops.

Because we all know that the article is exactly what the heading says it is.

 

[jamil]

Officer of the United States:
Why neither the President nor Vice President are “Officers of the United States”
What is one and how does a person become one? There is an immense amount of misinformation and disinformation about this as it falls under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment covering disqualification from holding elected or appointed offices in the United States. The lies claiming the President is an "Officer of the United States" have become endless, twisting legal and constitutional definitions into entangled spaghetti bowls of convoluted, alleged logic to justify their predetermined conclusions.

The United States is a Sovereign State with all the internationally recognized powers and responsibilities of a Sovereign State. As a Sovereign State, it is not subject to rule or governance by any other Sovereign State. It is its own entity, entitled to make its own decisions and to act on its own as it sees fit to do so. Should it do something dastardly, such as commit War Crimes, its leadership and those involved in such acts can eventually be held accountable by international standards. As a Sovereign State the United States actually has Dual Sovereignty. Each state within the United States has its own, albeit limited, Sovereignty and Sovereign powers. Primarily under the 10th Amendment, as now limited by Equal Protections portions of the 14th Amendment, those Sovereign Powers not retained by the U.S. Constitution for the Federal Government are Sovereign Powers of each state. Beyond stating that a person can be tried for the same crime in both a Federal and a State Court (big surprise to some defendants) I won’t dive into the Dual Sovereignty further. It's not relevant here.

As a Sovereign State, it has two Sovereigns, a President and a Vice President, with their Sovereign Powers enumerated in Article II of the Constitution. The President, in Section 1, Clause 1, is vested with powers of being the Executive. In other words, the President is the nation’s Head of State. The President’s Oath of Office is specifically enumerated in Section 1, Clause 8, and it is unique. Other Oaths of Office may have some similarity, but they are distinctly different and they are not enumerated in the Constitution.

Article II, Section 2 enumerates their powers. Clause 2 empowers the President to make appointments to various Offices within the Executive Branch and to the Article III Courts, with the Advice and Consent of the U.S. Senate approving them. After enumerating specific Federal Offices, the clause continues with:
“ . . . and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law . . .”

The President appoints “Officers of the United States”, with confirmation of such appointments made by the Senate. This is in keeping with the generally recognized international concept of someone being an “Officer of [fill in name of Sovereign State]”. The Sovereign delegates a portion of his Sovereign Powers to a person appointed to carry them out on his behalf. That delegation is nearly always embodied in a Commission from the Sovereign, or an equivalent document. In addition, that individual is limited to exercising only those Sovereign Powers specifically delegated. Section 3 specifically requires the President to Commission all "Officers of the United States" with a Commission document. This requirement is so there is no confusion or ambiguity as to whether a person is or is not an "Officer of the United States". This is a Magisterial Duty, not a Discretionary one. It is required to be executed. The President and Vice President do not appoint themselves, delegate Sovereign Powers to themselves, or Commission themselves with Sovereign Powers that they already possess as Sovereigns per the Constitution. It would be incongruous, illogical and ludicrous for a Sovereign President to delegate his own Sovereign Powers to himself self-referentially, and issue a Commission to himself as constitutionally required, and taking an additional Commissioning Oath, to act on his own behalf, with the Senate having to confirm it. Thus, neither the President, nor the Vice President are “Officers of the United States” by the definition of what constitutes one in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, and how one becomes an Officer of the United States by Presidential Appointment with “Advice and Consent” of the Senate (i.e. Senate Confirmation). An Officer of the United States attempting to overstep the Sovereign Powers delegated to them is patently illegal, and an excellent way under some circumstances to end up in prison. Both the President and Vice President are "Sovereigns" with "Sovereign Powers" as enumerated, and are not "Officers of the United States".

I am an “Officer of the United States” and will be to the day I die. A Retired Commissioned Officer retains the duties and responsibilities of an Officer of the United States for life, and continues to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for life. Charges under the UCMJ are exceptionally rare. They’re usually pursued by a Federal Prosecutor in a Federal Court, but a few have been charged and tried under the UCMJ over the years. I repeatedly had the knife and fork training about what is and is not an “Officer of the United States” and the limits of the Sovereign Powers delegated to me by the President to act on his behalf within the Armed Forces (deriving from the President’s Sovereign Power as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces). It was required content in every service school I attended over the years. Warrant Officers (W-1 Grade), Non-Commissioned Officers, and Enlisted Personnel do not have those delegated powers as outlined (primarily) in Title 10 of the United States Code. My Commission delegating those Sovereign Powers to me was issued and signed by the President of the United States. My appointment to each rank was confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

One need not consider whether or not January 6th 2021 was a riot or an insurrection, or whether the President incited it, or whether the 14th Amendment is "Self Executing" absent a Congressional Act or a Federal Judicial Judgement. Application of the 14th Amendment to a former President or Vice President fails and is completely mooted by the fact the President and Vice President are Sovereigns, not "Officers of the United States" or any other appointed or elected individual enumerated within the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment. Note that Joe Biden was a U.S. Senator for many years. As such, he is subject to the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment. One could argue endlessly about whether he's disqualified from office, and I won't do that here. It would not be fruitful to the purpose of this posting.

I was following along nodding my head at times until I got to this, and it's a solid nope. If the US is a Republic, the leader of the executive branch is not a 'sovereign'. We call the head of the executive branch an office. The president is the chief executive and does not hold absolute authority over all government. He is only in charge of the executive branch.

Trump is running for the office of President of the United States. An office holder could be thought of as an officer. But I think whether the POTUS is an officer or not is a matter of semantics used to decide either way and it shouldn't be.

The pertinent question is, does the 14th amendment apply to POTUS/VPOTUS? I don't think the intent of that section is to include the POTUS, but not because of a semantic argument about whether the president an "office holder" or not. He is an office holder, but IMO, not included as those subject to this restriction.

We all know the history, the purpose was to prevent the South from putting people in government who participated in the rebellion. I don't think the authors of the bill even thought about the president when writing it.

---

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.

---

It mentioned Senators and Representatives, POTUS/VPOTUS electors, office holders "under the United States". The offices it intends, at least how I read the language, is just another way of saying everyone else under the US government. POTUS is the chief executive--not sovereign, not a king that has absolute authority. THAT office is supposed to be accountable to the people. That's what makes the US a Republic and not a Monarchy.

 

[Hawkeye]

Officer of the United States:
Why neither the President nor Vice President are “Officers of the United States”
What is one and how does a person become one? There is an immense amount of misinformation and disinformation about this as it falls under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment covering disqualification from holding elected or appointed offices in the United States. The lies claiming the President is an "Officer of the United States" have become endless, twisting legal and constitutional definitions into entangled spaghetti bowls of convoluted, alleged logic to justify their predetermined conclusions.

The United States is a Sovereign State with all the internationally recognized powers and responsibilities of a Sovereign State. As a Sovereign State, it is not subject to rule or governance by any other Sovereign State. It is its own entity, entitled to make its own decisions and to act on its own as it sees fit to do so. Should it do something dastardly, such as commit War Crimes, its leadership and those involved in such acts can eventually be held accountable by international standards. As a Sovereign State the United States actually has Dual Sovereignty. Each state within the United States has its own, albeit limited, Sovereignty and Sovereign powers. Primarily under the 10th Amendment, as now limited by Equal Protections portions of the 14th Amendment, those Sovereign Powers not retained by the U.S. Constitution for the Federal Government are Sovereign Powers of each state. Beyond stating that a person can be tried for the same crime in both a Federal and a State Court (big surprise to some defendants) I won’t dive into the Dual Sovereignty further. It's not relevant here.

As a Sovereign State, it has two Sovereigns, a President and a Vice President, with their Sovereign Powers enumerated in Article II of the Constitution. The President, in Section 1, Clause 1, is vested with powers of being the Executive. In other words, the President is the nation’s Head of State. The President’s Oath of Office is specifically enumerated in Section 1, Clause 8, and it is unique. Other Oaths of Office may have some similarity, but they are distinctly different and they are not enumerated in the Constitution.

Article II, Section 2 enumerates their powers. Clause 2 empowers the President to make appointments to various Offices within the Executive Branch and to the Article III Courts, with the Advice and Consent of the U.S. Senate approving them. After enumerating specific Federal Offices, the clause continues with:
“ . . . and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law . . .”

The President appoints “Officers of the United States”, with confirmation of such appointments made by the Senate. This is in keeping with the generally recognized international concept of someone being an “Officer of [fill in name of Sovereign State]”. The Sovereign delegates a portion of his Sovereign Powers to a person appointed to carry them out on his behalf. That delegation is nearly always embodied in a Commission from the Sovereign, or an equivalent document. In addition, that individual is limited to exercising only those Sovereign Powers specifically delegated. Section 3 specifically requires the President to Commission all "Officers of the United States" with a Commission document. This requirement is so there is no confusion or ambiguity as to whether a person is or is not an "Officer of the United States". This is a Magisterial Duty, not a Discretionary one. It is required to be executed. The President and Vice President do not appoint themselves, delegate Sovereign Powers to themselves, or Commission themselves with Sovereign Powers that they already possess as Sovereigns per the Constitution. It would be incongruous, illogical and ludicrous for a Sovereign President to delegate his own Sovereign Powers to himself self-referentially, and issue a Commission to himself as constitutionally required, and taking an additional Commissioning Oath, to act on his own behalf, with the Senate having to confirm it. Thus, neither the President, nor the Vice President are “Officers of the United States” by the definition of what constitutes one in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, and how one becomes an Officer of the United States by Presidential Appointment with “Advice and Consent” of the Senate (i.e. Senate Confirmation). An Officer of the United States attempting to overstep the Sovereign Powers delegated to them is patently illegal, and an excellent way under some circumstances to end up in prison. Both the President and Vice President are "Sovereigns" with "Sovereign Powers" as enumerated, and are not "Officers of the United States".

I am an “Officer of the United States” and will be to the day I die. A Retired Commissioned Officer retains the duties and responsibilities of an Officer of the United States for life, and continues to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for life. Charges under the UCMJ are exceptionally rare. They’re usually pursued by a Federal Prosecutor in a Federal Court, but a few have been charged and tried under the UCMJ over the years. I repeatedly had the knife and fork training about what is and is not an “Officer of the United States” and the limits of the Sovereign Powers delegated to me by the President to act on his behalf within the Armed Forces (deriving from the President’s Sovereign Power as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces). It was required content in every service school I attended over the years. Warrant Officers (W-1 Grade), Non-Commissioned Officers, and Enlisted Personnel do not have those delegated powers as outlined (primarily) in Title 10 of the United States Code. My Commission delegating those Sovereign Powers to me was issued and signed by the President of the United States. My appointment to each rank was confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

One need not consider whether or not January 6th 2021 was a riot or an insurrection, or whether the President incited it, or whether the 14th Amendment is "Self Executing" absent a Congressional Act or a Federal Judicial Judgement. Application of the 14th Amendment to a former President or Vice President fails and is completely mooted by the fact the President and Vice President are Sovereigns, not "Officers of the United States" or any other appointed or elected individual enumerated within the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment. Note that Joe Biden was a U.S. Senator for many years. As such, he is subject to the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment. One could argue endlessly about whether he's disqualified from office, and I won't do that here. It would not be fruitful to the purpose of this posting.

Long but interesting read,

 

[jamil]

One other thing to add to the conversation. Though I do not think the 14th amendment applies to the POTUS, I think it should. But. The definition of the crimes that should prevent a candidate from running should not be so broad that partisans can easily apply it to any event they want to use to prevent a strong political rival from running.

Make the definition narrow. J6 is called an insurrection because political opponents of DJT need it to be. And there is no other reason.

 

[KG1]

I was following along nodding my head at times until I got to this, and it's a solid nope. If the US is a Republic, the leader of the executive branch is not a 'sovereign'. We call the head of the executive branch an office. The president is the chief executive and does not hold absolute authority over all government. He is only in charge of the executive branch.

He holds absolute authority over all government documents though to do as he wishes. ( IM) I worked it in again for you.

 

[JAL]

Well, some might try to say in rebuttal to my previous argument that "insurrection" in terms of disqualification based on the 14th amendment, Section 3 is self-event therefore you don't need an indictment, trial and conviction.
. . .

That is the argument that the Amendment is "Self Executing". Section 5 specifically requires the Congress enact laws to enforce the 14th Amendment. Federal Law has Treason, Insurrection and Sedition statutes. Thus Congress has enacted laws that would be used to enforce Section 3. A conviction of Insurrection would then invoke Section 3 if the individual holds or had held one of the enumerated offices. Absent that, the 14th wouldn't apply to them, but that wouldn't prevent serving a prison sentence.

Nobody associated with the Jan 6th 2021 Capitol Riot has been charged with Insurrection. All the charges (right or wrong) I'm aware of have been Obstructing Official Proceedings, Criminal Trespass, etc. There is no doubt it delayed certification of the Electoral College balloting, and like it or not, the Electoral College ballots were going to be certified. That ship had sailed.

 

[chipbennett]

Those who were appointed by a previous POTUS can and usually are fired on day one. Those employees in/under Civil Service System are a different matter. There is an Executive Level within the Civil Service, versus the "GS" levels, and those individuals are more easily dispensed with. One of Trump's major blunders early on was not cleaning house. Then he brought in some questionable individuals as advisers very early on who quickly turned out to be worse than worthless. He quickly adjusted to that, but never did clean house in the manner he should have.

This is the number one reason that I am not enamored with a second Trump presidency.

 

[chipbennett]

My take on it:
This would be much muddier, a subjective evaluation, and therefore much more divisive. A decision based on objective facts is much, much cleaner with less interpretation, and that's where the court decisions and their dicta I've read will invariably go if possible, then mooting all the claims that would be subjective.

Who has ability/authority to declare that an insurrection occurred? Absent that formal declaration, no insurrection occurred.

 

[KG1]

That is the argument that the Amendment is "Self Executing". Section 5 specifically requires the Congress enact laws to enforce the 14th Amendment. Federal Law has Treason, Insurrection and Sedition statutes. Thus Congress has enacted laws that would be used to enforce Section 3. A conviction of Insurrection would then invoke Section 3 if the individual holds or had held one of the enumerated offices. Absent that, the 14th wouldn't apply to them, but that wouldn't prevent serving a prison sentence.

Nobody associated with the Jan 6th 2021 Capitol Riot has been charged with Insurrection. All the charges (right or wrong) I'm aware of have been Obstructing Official Proceedings, Criminal Trespass, etc. There is no doubt it delayed certification of the Electoral College balloting, and like it or not, the Electoral College ballots were going to be certified. That ship had sailed.

You are correct. I meant to say "Self Executing"

 

[chipbennett]

One other thing to add to the conversation. Though I do not think the 14th amendment applies to the POTUS, I think it should. But. The definition of the crimes that should prevent a candidate from running should not be so broad that partisans can easily apply it to any event they want to use to prevent a strong political rival from running.

Make the definition narrow. J6 is called an insurrection because political opponents of DJT need it to be. And there is no other reason.

You mean, like 18 USC 2383?

 

[chipbennett]

You are correct. I meant to say "Self Executing"

If Section 3 is "self-executing" then what was the purpose of Section 5?