great point raised by aggiehawg. I think the law is going to show president is not an officer of the united states because he is not appointed.
under the original articles of the constitution, the president is definitely not an officer of the united states. for example, art. I sec. 4 says president, VP "and all Civil Officers of the United States" are removed by impeachment. if president was an Officer, it would include "other" in the phrasing.
also, article II, sec. 2 says president lists various positions appointed by president and ends with "and all other Officers of the united states" president does not appoint VP. So VP is not an Officer. how can president be if VP is not? that doesn't make sense
article II sec. 3 says president "shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." all means all. president does not commission himself or VP.
the case law also supports president not being an Officer of the united states.
buckley v valeo:Quote:
We think that the term "Officers of the United States" as used in Art. II, defined to include "all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government" in United States v. Germaine, supra, is a term intended to have substantive meaning. We think its fair import is that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an "Officer of the United States," and must, therefore, be appointed in the manner prescribed by 2, cl. 2, of that Article.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/424/1free enterprise report v public company accounting:
Quote:
The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the "Officers of the United States." Art. II, 2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the "assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-861.ZO.htmlThese all deal with the original articles of the constitution, not the 14th amendment which was written over 50 years later. did the meaning of the phrase change over time? that is certainly possible as "linguistic drift" is a thing where words meaning change over time.
but whoever is trying to use this against trump has to show why this specific language changed over time. i have not researched this, but have not seen any source saying it changed.
however, why in the world would the drafters of the 14th amendment not want the president included? by the end of civil war, I believe every state was choosing electors based on popular vote, so that level of protection no longer existed. On the other hand, what president would they even be worried about at that point?
also in 14th amendment "officers" is not capitalized, where Officer is capitalized in the original articles. was that meant to make lower case "officers" not a defined term?
then there is the removal statute, which angelflight correctly points out has consistently held it does apply to the president. and that law goes back in some version to 1815! here, officer is not capitalized and not defined. though TSA agents aren't appointed, so they aren't going to be Officers, but may be officers.
tl,dr version: president is definitely not an officer of the united states under the constitution as drafted by the founders, definitely is under the removal statute, and may be under 14th amendment, but its not clear and something we probably never get a definitive answer on.so the perfect lawyer answer "it depends"