Quote:
Originally Posted by RickeyM
|
The Constitution specifies the Presidential Oath of Office, in which he swears to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So are they claiming that doesn't say anything about following it? I'm pretty sure that interpretation simply spits in the face of 'original intent.'
On edit: on reading the story, I see "support" is the magic word. So they claim you can "preserve, protect and defend" and that isn't "support?" They are spitting in the face of the dictionary, and all logic and intelligence. They should be disbarred just for making that argument. Casts the legal profession in disrepute, it does.