No. of Recommendations: 3
Officers are not limited to those who are appointed.
Sorry - the context should have made clear that I was referring to "Officers....under the United States," which is what that portion of the DQ Clause appoints to. It doesn't apply to corporate officers, or the officers of another country, or any other officers other than those "under the United States.
Under the most expansive definition of "officer," Senators and Representatives would be "officers." They hold an office, they exercise power and authority, and they swear an oath. But the DQ Clause is drafted in a way that makes it clear that Senators and Representatives are not officers - they are separately enumerated from officers.
Given that the drafters of the DQ Clause listed Senators and Reps and Electors separately from "any office...under the United States," it is absolutely clear that the term "any office....under the United States" cannot refer broadly to every person who holds authority under the federal government and swears an oath. It has to refer to something narrower than that. The interpretive question is whether the President and VP fall within that narrower definition, or are excluded from it.
The Supreme Court has found the President is an officer.
Have they ever found that he is a "an officer...under the United States?" That's the relevant question.
