Franklin Bryan

The Constitution was written in the 1700s — about 300 years before Google Docs, online collaboration, github revision checking, find and replace, copy and pasta. The very last lines of the Constitution of Article VII expressly acknowledge and evince the sloppy nature of the drafting pointing out interlineations, erasures, modifications. If you look at the actual parchment, there are erasures and interlineations as acknowledged in Art. VII. This was a working document, made hastily against their remit to amend the Articles of Confederation, they hastily redrafted a Constitution. There are internal inconsistencies everywhere.

There are inconsistent uses and internal inconsistencies everywhere, especially with reference to Officer, Office, Officeholder, Executive Officer, Civil Officer, holding an Office of “Profit or Trust” (Article I, Section 9, emphasis mine throughout) or “Trust or Profit” (Article II, Section 1) or “Office or Public Trust” (Article VI). See below:

As we see above quite clearly and as plainly acknowledged in Article VII, the Constitution is a mess. Office “of Profit or Trust”; Office “of Trust or Profit; “Office or public Trust”…. What we know for sure is that they weren’t creating loopholes, they were trying to limit the president to not have a king. They were trying to separate powers horizontally and vertically through legislative, executive, judicial and between the states and federal government. They were trying to create checks and balances. And, knowing that the Constitution was to be ratified BY WE THE PEOPLE who couldn’t all read very well, it was written without flourishes to be plainly evident, short, succinct.

They even acknowledged the powers of the People — from which power flows with the consent of the governed, then their representative Legislature FIRST, BEFORE the mere president.

Now, if they believed in a limited executive officer with separation of powers, federal separation of powers, lateral separation of powers, national sovereignty for the benefit of the People, not a king or emperor,… we must consider some absurdities that arise from president trump’s lawyer’s arguments in front of the Supreme Court of Colorado in Anderson vs. Griswold 23sa3000.

Firstly, in salient part, trump has argued that he is “Not an Officer of the United States” with no duty to “support” the Constitution; and secondly that “an insurrection” is not an “insurrection” as prohibited in the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

The huge problem with this argument is that if the president is NOT an “Officer” then nothing prohibits the president from collapsing the separation of powers amongst states and fed, amongst the branches, consolidating it in himself and forfeiting our national sovereignty. Nothing prohibits the president from soliciting bribes, titles of nobility, or positions in foreign governments. Nothing prohibits the president from serving as his own elector, judge, and jury — and most importantly, even if impeached, nothing compels him to leave office? Not to mention that Congress could require he not be Muslim, Mormon, Jew, or Christian?

See for example Article I, section 2 and 3 where only “officers” are prohibited from serving in either house of Congress — and no requirements for the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore to even be members of Congress. An unscrupulous non-officer president with the help of a subordinate senate or house could appoint himself Speaker of the House and President Pro Temp, could solicit a state to appoint him as their representative and/or senator (according to the varying state Constitution powers to fill vacancies)?

The President could further appoint himself as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court… and, in that capacity, would preside over his own impeachment trial, and vote wearing his hat as Senator. If the president is impeached, would he remain as President Pro Temp, Speaker of the House, elector, and Chief Justice unless he was convicted in multiple impeachments for each position?

As a Representative or Senator or Speaker or President pro temp, could he have absolute Freedom of Speech and immunity under debate clause on the floor to incite insurrections again?

In fact, ALL limitations on the president are only effective if he is an “officer.”

Is it Consistent with your understanding of prudence, temperance, public policy, and our Constitution, that president Biden could freely, openly, notoriously solicit and accept bribes (“emoluments”) from ccp red china or russia or iran, saudi? Could Biden or trump concurrently serve as putin’s prince of the russian federation? If not, what stops them?

The other side makes big import that the president is not “appointed” and therefore can’t be an officer because he didn’t appoint himself… and he is tasked with appointing all officers. But the Constitution clearly spells this out as appointing “all other officers.” If George Washington grew hemp and other plants… one clearly understands hemp is a plant. If the president appoints “other officers,” clearly he himself is an officer.

If a President is NOT an Officer, then they aren’t forbidden from coups or insurrections? There is no enforcement mechanism to protect our Constitution.

If a President isn’t an Officer, then it’s not a crime or insurrection under the insurrection act to threaten or assasinate the President?

The very first US Code, 1 USC, Section 1, Congress defined an “Officer” without any pushback from any of the previous 44 presidents or the Supreme Court as “ANY person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office.”

Clearly then, the most reasonable construction of the Constitution is that the president is an “Officer” — is limited; that there are separation of powers; that there are checks and balances; that presidents are NOT above the law. That Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Christians or Muslims can’t be forbidden from the Presidency. The President can’t install himself in the House and/or Senate and/or Supreme Court with a simple majority. The President can’t serve as his own elector, judge, and jury — or pardoner. Simply follow Article VI mandate that “all executive officers” “shall be bound” to “support” the Constitution and the extra duties in Article II oath further clarify that duty to support — including faithfully executing the Constitution (“laws”), preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 may be oft ignored and hard to find, but is dispositive: The Constitution vests its powers only in “Officers” of the United States. If one is not an Officer, then they have no power. Clause 18 doesn’t say it vests any power in a president… only “Officers” of the United States.

Similarly, if they aren’t obliged by oath (or affirmation) to “support” the Constitution under Article VI, then they aren’t an “executive Officer.” This would be absurd.

Now to turn to trump’s other arguments that “an insurrection” isn’t an “insurrection” …

qed.