Trump tells court he had no duty to ‘support’ the US Constitution in bizarre legal defence

‘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,’ read a filing from the former president’s attorneys

Donald Trump has sought to have a lawsuit filed against him in the state of Colorado dismissed, by arguing that, as president, he was not required to “support” the US Constitution.

The bizarre legal defence, put forward by the former president’s attorneys, comes in response to a suit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which seeks to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment.

A clause of the amendment, which passed into the Constitution in 1868, bans those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate.

Mr Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the phrasing of the clause – section three – does not apply to all officers of the United States, “but only those who take an oath ‘to support the US Constitution’”.

“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," said the filing, obtained by news outlet Law and Crime.

"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.

“If they wanted to include in the reach of Section Three, they could have done so by expanding the language of which type of oath would bring an ‘officer’ under the strictures of Section Three.

“They did not do so, and no number of semantical arguments will change this simple fact. As such, Section Three does not apply to President Trump.”

It is not the first time the former president has challenged the US Constitution, having previously called for parts of the hallowed document to be “terminated” following his defeat in the 2020 election.

Writing on his platform TruthSocial in December, Mr Trump said that the result of the election – which he described as “a massive fraud” – should allow for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

Donald Trump has challenged the contents of the US Constitution previously (Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

“Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!” he wrote.

The remarks earned him a rebuke from other members of the Senate and within his own party, with New York representative Mike Lawler saying that it was time to stop focusing on the “grievances of prior elections.”

“The Constitution is set for a reason, to protect the rights of every American,” Lawler said. “I think the former president would be well-advised to focus on the future, if he is going to run for president again.”

Mr Trump is also noted for having questioned the 22nd Amendment – which mandates that a person only be permitted to serve two presidential terms. While in office he is reported to have “joked” about extending his time in office beyond the stipulated timeframe.

According to CNN, in March 2018 at a closed-door speech at Mar-a-Lago, he gave a speech to Republican donors in which he praised Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

“He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” he reportedly said.