The debate over 'officer' in section 3 of the 14th now settled; it DOES include the President

Or rather, I'm fairly confident it is settled. Let's read on, there is history to this amendment and how it came about. But, we are zeroing in on section 3, given it's significance in the Colorado Ruling.

This was brought up by MSNBC Host Alex Wagner, link to clip below:

Background info: The 14th amendment was drafted by Senators Jacob Howard, and John Bingham. Senator's Lot Merrill and Reverdy Johnson participated only insofar as debating it on the floor of the Senate, and we have the record of their colloquy. Wagner gets the story slightly wrong in that she gives us the impression that the amendment was drafted by Merrill and Johnson. My research indicates this is wrong. she appears to say she is getting this story from the court ruling, but if the Colorado Supreme court states that Merrill and Johnson were the authors, I believe that is wrong (I'll have to study the ruling) But the salient point is correct, which is that 'officer' is inclusive of the VP and presidency.

Clearly Senator Morrill, in directing Senator Johnson's attention to the words 'hold any office, civil or military' to address Johnson's concern, it is clear that the term 'office' is inclusive of the office of the President. Now, I should think this is obvious but the question comes up because of their omitting of the Presidency and Vice president, in a list of items within the language, gives the impression they were excluding it intentionally (hence Johnson's concern), but, in fact, Sen. Merrill was not.

see:
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-...g-the-fourteenth-amendment-to-the-senate-1866

(offered under the Fair Use provision of title 17 of US Copyright Law)




Lest their be any doubt to the above I have this confirmed with some more detail, from Reason.com:

That confirms Wagner's story and the only thing she got wrong was the assumption that Merrill and Johnson were the authors, they were just on the floor debating it.

I think that is settled, however, reason.com article suggests that others disagree, so, study it and your mileage may vary. I'm satisfied.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/2...-on-the-legislative-history-of-section-three/

 

Just more fake news by a fake news site... it does not include the president.

 

The oath the POTUS swears, references his "office" no??
"Oath or Affirmation: – “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.”"

Makes him an office holder, hence, officer.

 

If you ignore context (the usage of the term prior to 1868 ) than you could isolate the wording of the amendment and argue it doesn’t include the President. Disingenuous but unfortunately well within the bounds of partisanship.

 

How do you KNOW that for a fact?? The meaning of the word seems to fit both VP and POTUS.. appropriately. So much of this is trying to interpret the language as it was meant at the time and if it fit s now.
The word "officer" would apply to both. The authors would have been concerned about a rogue president. They had remarkable foresight. ( and understanding of human nature)

 

Well stated , Hey Now !! It makes sense

 

The argument is pretty ridiculous. And even THIS activist Supreme Court would have a hard time using it. Because what do they do with all the mentions of Office of the President in the Constitution. Who, if not the President, is the "officer" who executes that "office"? The implications would be numerous and unpredictable.

They're not going to use it anyway.

 

Yes. That's the ONLY argument one needs. It's one thing if a lower court uses that idiotic argument. SCOTUS using it would have enormous implications that I don't think even THIS activist court would want to take part in just to allow a criminal to be President.

They'll probably just issue a ruling in favor of whoever has the biggest yacht (pure coincidence) and not give ANY explanation. This court has done that before.

 

LOL. Will you be saying the same thing of it being settled when the US Supreme Court overrules this ridiculous ruling?

 

I don't think they will reject the 'officer' argument, though they might reject the 'insurrection' argument. If they do, I'll just disagree with them.

 

Geeeeeeeeee, imagine that. You'd disagree with the Supreme Court. Thanks for telling me or I would have never guessed.