- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:48 am
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:48 am
quote:
I mean, I know it sounds like hyperbole, but I think your opening is so correct that we are essentially, as Neil put it, one vote away from sort of the end of democracy as we know it with checks and balances. And to say it’s an imperial presidency that would be created is, it’s frankly saying it would be a king, he would be criminally immune. And that that is what is so shocking is how close we are.
He is framing this like the DOJ and state prosecutors are the check against the executive. They are not.
The people and the legislative branch are the first check against the executive in terms of presidential immunity.
In all these arguments for or against presidential immunity I never hear the legislative branch's role in checking the executive. Why is that? They have the most power to check the president and his office.
I really hope SOTUS returns with a judgment basically stating, "congress get off your arse and make the determination of what is an official act and a private act"...congress has that authority through the impeachment clause in the constitution.
I think Andrew Weissmann's frustration is that congress moves too slow or never moves to check the executive. He want's the power to check the executive coming from the DOJ.
LINK
14
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:49 am to GumboPot
His problem is he wants to be a king who subverts democracy.
Weissmann that is
Weissmann that is
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 7:50 am
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:50 am to Deuces
quote:
His problem is he wants to be a king who subverts democracy.
Andrew Weismann want's the DOJ and unelected administrative state to rule over you.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:51 am to GumboPot
quote:
In all these arguments for or against presidential immunity I never hear the legislative branch's role in checking the executive. Why is that?
In a criminal case, they have none.
Well, I guess other than writing the criminal laws, but nobody is talking about that as a check, I hope, due to the universality.
quote:
I really hope SOTUS returns with a judgment basically stating, "congress get off your arse and make the determination of what is an official act and a private act".
Not their job. That's a role courts have been in for a long time. Immunity is a judicially-created rule, so the parameters are also judicial in nature.
The President isn't the first position to have this debate.
quote:
.congress has that authority through the impeachment clause in the constitution.
No they don't.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:52 am to GumboPot
quote:
Andrew Weissmann
Is whatever scum is to scum.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:52 am to GumboPot
quote:
I really hope SOTUS returns with a judgment basically stating, "congress get off your arse and make the determination of what is an official act and a private act".
I believe that is what will occur, but SCOTUS will send back to appeals court and direct them to make that distinction (which the appeals court should've already done).
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:54 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
but SCOTUS will send back to appeals court and direct them to make that distinction (which the appeals court should've already done).
The trial court did rule on the motion, but had no precedent requiring a full hearing. The USSC will also likely need to create a test for the trial court to follow.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In a criminal case, they have none.
Of course they do. They (congress) can impeach and remove the executive or federal officer for anything, including crimes.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:56 am to GumboPot
quote:
They (congress) can impeach and remove the executive
I specified "in a criminal case".
The Constitution clearly distinguishes the impeachment-removal process from criminal process. They are not the same thing and do not overlap.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
.quote:
congress has that authority through the impeachment clause in the constitution.
No they don't.
quote:
Article I
Section 3 Senate
Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Constitution clearly distinguishes the impeachment-removal process from criminal process. They are not the same thing and do not overlap.
So congress cannot impeach and remove the executive for high crimes and misdemeanors?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:59 am to GumboPot
Weissmann is the most corrupt lawyer in America. He let people die in prison, knowing they were innocent. He is a true POS.
He wants to be King, along with other un-elected goons at DOJ.
DOJ's arguments in this case are pretty bad.
SCOTUS: How do we know you wouldn't abuse prosecution of a president for partisan purposes?
DOJ: We're great people, you can trust us.
In one of the exchanges DOJ was asked about Obama being criminally accountable for droning Americans. DOJ was like "well it was deemed legal" - of course it was, primarily because of the labels and status that Obama, as President, was able to attach to these people. He was able to write his own get out of jail free card. Greenwald destroyed the DOJ's position on that and you can rest assured that no one at the DOJ would ever try to challenge that and go after Obama, if they prevail at SCOTUS, because all of this is political.
He wants to be King, along with other un-elected goons at DOJ.
DOJ's arguments in this case are pretty bad.
SCOTUS: How do we know you wouldn't abuse prosecution of a president for partisan purposes?
DOJ: We're great people, you can trust us.
In one of the exchanges DOJ was asked about Obama being criminally accountable for droning Americans. DOJ was like "well it was deemed legal" - of course it was, primarily because of the labels and status that Obama, as President, was able to attach to these people. He was able to write his own get out of jail free card. Greenwald destroyed the DOJ's position on that and you can rest assured that no one at the DOJ would ever try to challenge that and go after Obama, if they prevail at SCOTUS, because all of this is political.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:03 am to POTUS2024
quote:
no one at the DOJ would ever try to challenge that and go after Obama
You know who can? Congress. That's right congress could impeach Obama for those drone strikes today.
But they won't. Because it is not politically palpable.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:06 am to GumboPot
quote:
So congress cannot impeach and remove the executive for high crimes and misdemeanors?
They can, but that has no relationship to a criminal proceeding.
The criminal proceeding can be brought before, during, and after that political proceeding. The result of the political proceeding has no impact on the criminal proceeding, as the Constitution clearly discusses.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
Federal judge and constitutional law scholar Jay Bybee with a very thorough essay on why SFP is wrong:
LINK
Not to mention the main author of the constitution, Alexander Hamilton:
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
LINK
Not to mention the main author of the constitution, Alexander Hamilton:
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:07 am to GumboPot
quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
This clause clearly shows that the impeachment process has nothing to do with criminal immunity, so no authority to define an official act, as criminal immunity doesn't relate to the impeachment process at all.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 8:08 am
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:11 am to Robin Masters
quote:
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
This is what I have argued in other threads independent of this Alexander Hamilton quote. It just makes logical sense.
I know deep state operatives would love to have the administrative state as a check against the executive, and many in congress would love to abdicate that power, but without congress maintaining that power the office of the president is just a Christmas tree ornament as we are ruled by unelected bureaucrats.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This clause clearly shows that the impeachment process has nothing to do with criminal immunity
Other than the fact that you are stripped of immunity for the act upon which the executive has been impeached and removed.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:13 am to GumboPot
quote:
congress has that authority through the impeachment clause in the constitution.
When are you going to stop bringing up impeachment in criminal proceedings?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:14 am to GumboPot
quote:
Other than the fact that you are stripped of immunity for the act upon which the executive has been impeached and removed.
No, you are not. The clause says absolutely nothing of the sort.
The only thing it does is make it very clear that impeachment does not have a double jeopardy effect.
Page 1 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News