DJT subpoena implications

[pcm81]

Jurisdiction

D.C.

Greetings.
I have a question about the subpoena that Congress is about to issue to DJT.
Let's say in theory he does not comply with it and gets held in contempt of congress for it.
Would that essentially establish a violation of the oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States? Regardless of whether DOJ prosecutes the case.

So, lets say he runs and wins in 2024, he would have to be sworn in as POTUS again or does the original oath still apply? I think it still applies but could be wrong.

Finally, if he is held in contempt of congress for snubbing the subpoena, regardless of if JD prosecutes him or if it is civil or criminal contempt, wouldn't it void his original oath of office and preclude him from taking a new oath of office if it is in legal record that he broke that same oath of office as the result of not complying with congressional subpoena?

It would seem to me, not a lawyer, that:
1. Not complying with subpoena (by means other than defeating it in court) breaks the oath of office, it does not expire when he leaves office.
2. Having in legal record via contempt of congress vote, regardless of DOJ actions, makes him disqualified from being able to take that oath again.
3. If he wins in 2024 any US citizen would be able to challenge in court his availability to be POTUS due to not being eligible to take oath of office due to breaking it previously.

Am I wrong here? How so?

 

[Zigner]

Greetings.
I have a question about the subpoena that Congress is about to issue to DJT.
Let's say in theory he does not comply with it and gets held in contempt of congress for it.
Would that essentially establish a violation of the oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States? Regardless of whether DOJ prosecutes the case.

Nope - he's not the POTUS.

So, lets say he runs and wins in 2024, he would have to be sworn in as POTUS again or does the original oath still apply? I think it still applies but could be wrong.

You'd be wrong. He would be sworn in again.

Finally, if he is held in contempt of congress for snubbing the subpoena, regardless of if JD prosecutes him or if it is civil or criminal contempt, wouldn't it void his original oath of office and preclude him from taking a new oath of office if it is in legal record that he broke that same oath of office as the result of not complying with congressional subpoena?

Nope - he's not the POTUS.

It would seem to me, not a lawyer, that:
1. Not complying with subpoena (by means other than defeating it in court) breaks the oath of office, it does not expire when he leaves office.

Wrong.

2. Having in legal record via contempt of congress vote, regardless of DOJ actions, makes him disqualified from being able to take that oath again.

Wrong.

3. If he wins in 2024 any US citizen would be able to challenge in court his availability to be POTUS due to not being eligible to take oath of office due to breaking it previously.

Nope.

I like your line of thinking, but it doesn't hold up.

 

[army judge]

Would that essentially establish a violation of the oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States?

A person's oath of office applies ONLY while serving in the office.

Former President Trump's term of office ended on 06 January 2021.

As to whether Congress can subpoena a former president, legal opinions differ. We'll have to wait and see if Former President Trump takes the matter to court, or responds as directed in the subpoena.

ets say he runs and wins in 2024, he would have to be sworn in as POTUS again or does the original oath still apply?

Should your scenario play out as you describe, Former President Trump would be required to take an oath of office, should he prevail in a reelection campaign.

regardless of if JD prosecutes him or if it is civil or criminal contempt, wouldn't it void his original oath of office and preclude him from taking a new oath of office if it is in legal record that he broke that same oath of office as the result of not complying with congressional subpoena?

Former President Trump's oath of office expired when President Biden became the 46th President of the United States.

. Having in legal record via contempt of congress vote, regardless of DOJ actions, makes him disqualified from being able to take that oath again.

I'm surprised you don't recall this information. It was taught to me by my parents, as well as the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. It was also revisited during my law school education.

Here are the constitutional requirements and qualifications to serve as president of the United States.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution imposes only three eligibility requirements on persons serving as president, based on the officeholder's age, time of residency in the U.S., and citizenship status:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

These QUALIFIERS HAVE only been modified twice. Once under the 12th Amendment, the same three qualifications were applied to the vice president of the United States. Then the 22nd Amendment limits presidential office holders to two terms as president.

Unlike many disqualifiers for municipal, county, or state public offices, there are no DISQUALIFIERS if a person runs for president. There are, as revealed above QUALIFIERS.

Disqualifiers would be: convicted felon, under a felony indictment, poor credit rating, illiteracy, blindness, deaf, mental incapacity, mental illness, drug addiction, alcohol abuse, etc...

 

[pcm81]

A person's oath of office applies ONLY while serving in the office.

Former President Trump's term of office ended on 06 January 2021.

As to whether Congress can subpoena a former president, legal opinions differ. We'll have to wait and see if Former President Trump takes the matter to court, or responds as directed in the subpoena.



Should your scenario play out as you describe, Former President Trump would be required to take an oath of office, should he prevail in a reelection campaign.



Former President Trump's oath of office expired when President Biden became the 46th President of the United States.



I'm surprised you don't recall this information. It was taught to me by my parents, as well as the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. It was also revisited during my law school education.

Here are the constitutional requirements and qualifications to serve as president of the United States.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution imposes only three eligibility requirements on persons serving as president, based on the officeholder's age, time of residency in the U.S., and citizenship status:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

These QUALIFIERS HAVE only been modified twice. Once under the 12th Amendment, the same three qualifications were applied to the vice president of the United States. Then the 22nd Amendment limits presidential office holders to two terms as president.

Unlike many disqualifiers for municipal, county, or state public offices, there are no DISQUALIFIERS if a person runs for president. There are, as revealed above QUALIFIERS.

Disqualifiers would be: convicted felon, under a felony indictment, poor credit rating, illiteracy, blindness, deaf, mental incapacity, mental illness, drug addiction, alcohol abuse, etc...

There are crimes which come with disqualification from holding public office, such as conviction of a crime under espionage act. May be there are others?

 

[army judge]

There are crimes which come with disqualification from holding public office, such as conviction of a crime under espionage act. May be there are others?

There are thousands of behaviors codified as crimes all across the United States.

However, our founders saw fit to create the presidency as a very unique office. Things that apply to others, don't apply to the presidency.



Lots of People Are Disqualified From Becoming President
...


...

 

[pcm81]

There are thousands of behaviors codified as crimes all across the United States.

However, our founders saw fit to create the presidency as a very unique office. Things that apply to others, don't apply to the presidency.

View attachment 4025

Lots of People Are Disqualified From Becoming President
...

View attachment 4026
...

I totally agree with you that simply being a convicted felon is not a disqualification for holding office, but if the dis qualifier is as general as "cannot hold public office" why wouldn't it apply to presidency. Presidency is public office.
Why bother give presidents the oath of office if violating it effectively has no consequence?
Option 1: violating the oath of office removes the person from office. This would make sense.
Option 2: violating oath of office does not remove the president from office, but is punishable as a felony. Sitting president cannot be indicted, hence once again he goes free. Makes no sense since then there is no consequence for violating the oath of office... Then why bother giving the oath in the first place?

 

[army judge]

I totally agree with you that simply being a convicted felon is not a disqualification for holding office,

I neither agree nor disagree.

The constitution is fundamental to the founding and continuing existence of our nation.

All I'm citing is why and how the presidency is constituted.

Its the law of the land.

It has nothing to do with my opinion.

Love it or hate it, unless our government is overthrown or we destroy it, it'll remain the law of the land.

Why bother give presidents the oath of office if violating it effectively has no consequence?

Unless and until a person is convicted after a trial, ascribing guilt means nothing more than an opinion.

Trump was impeached twice, and the impeachment was nullified by the senate voting not to remove him, twice.

Option 1: violating the oath of office removes the person from office. This would make sense

It makes no sense IF a person understands our government.

In this country one must be tried and convicted BEFORE a penalty can be applied.

Option 2: violating oath of office does not remove the president from office, but is punishable as a felony

Again, that is wrong.
The only punishment a president can suffer is removal from office.
Why?
Read the constitution.

Then why bother giving the oath in the first place?

Ceremony, mate.
Pomp and circumstance, pal.
Dog and pony show, spectacle for the masses.