(Originally published on Gab
https://gab.com/darulharb/posts/105716390057025126 )
Given that their "impeachment" resolution against President Trump will undoubtedly fail to reach a 2/3 majority of Senators voting to convict, the Democrats reportedly have a Plan B, which, as it turns out, is just as unconstitutional and pathetic as Plan A. The theory of their impeachment case is that President Trump planned and inspired an "insurrection against the United States" (which, at the time, curiously, he happened to be the President of), and if the impeachment fails, they'll vote to punish him anyway, under the 14th Amendment.
Specifically, Section 3, which reads:
"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."
Well, let's see, what could we use to deprive President Trump of his liberty interest in running for public office again, and deprive his voters of the ability to vote for their candidate of choice? Who does this amendment apply to? Was he a "member of Congress"? No... "a member of any State legislature"? No... "Executive or judicial officer of any state"? No... oh. Looks like I skipped one... Maybe he was an "officer of the United States."
Is the President of the United States an "officer of the United States" within the meaning of that term in the Constitution?
No. This is clearly shown in Article II, Section 2, clause 2, which reads (in relevant part):
"He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
(emphasis added)
Article II, Section 2 lists, prior to the reference to "all other Officers of the United States," and gives us examples of who the Officers of the United States are, which the President appoints (with advice and consent of the Senate):
"...Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court..."
And it also says that there are some Officers of the United States whose appointments are provided for directly in the Constitution.
The President, therefore, isn't an Officer of the United States. He appoints "Officers of the United States," he isn't himself one, and he's not appointed.
These Democrats absolutely flunked statutory interpretation. And yet, they're supposedly lawmakers... 🙄