Agnostic.com

2 1

I'm no lawyer, but I'm missing something here. why would the constitutional language address the validity or illegitimacy of a former officeholder candidate guilty of sedition and not provide language about that officeholder's immunity from wrongdoing. because there is none perhaps?

hankster 9 Jan 9
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

I don't think Article 3(14) necessarily refers to former officeholders, but rather sets a qualification for future officeholders. Supposedly immunity is granted to acts committed in furtherance of presidential duties, though such duties do not include campaigning for the next term.

0

Hm-mm, an insightful question. I think Trump’s funders hired enough lawyers to look for every loophole in every relevant law.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:742604
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.