File under: Sorosive

The other question I did not hear was “is the President an Officer of the United States”? and again, the answer is NO! He is the President who nominates said officers, but he is not himself subject to the criteria of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for removal from office. He also does not take an oath to “support” the Constitution [Article VI] but instead to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…” [Article II, Section 1 (last paragraph)].

It is clear that if he is to be removed from office, he is already subject to removal via impeachment and conviction should the Congress become so inclined. Of course in doing so, they are going against the previous national will of the people who elected him (via the electoral college process).

Abraxas:

I get that.

But in the case of Obamacare, Roberts wrote what I consider a dishonest opinion in order to protect Obamacare and spare the Court charges of politicization.

Which given the Court’s supreme mandate, if you will, to rule on issues of constitutionality, amounts to yielding to politicization.

I’m inclined to see the Supremes coming down hard on this case, for substantive reasons I’m sure, but deep down this is a threat to the Supremes’ power.

It’s one thing for the Supremes to decide on insurrection or who becomes POTUS. But not some pipsqueaks in Colorado.

Ever since John Roberts weaseled his dishonest way to pass ObamaCare because he was concerned, not about the merits, but the meta-issues of the Court’s image as an institution, I see the Supremes largely as a political entity concerned with its own power and agenda.

From that vantage the Colorado case is an Insurrection!

The answer is, “NO!”

Then Colorado’s argument for keeping him off the ballot has no basis in fact. Case closed. The rest is just puffery.