- 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
re: Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
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.”
3
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 8:18 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Federal judge and constitutional law scholar Jay Bybee with a very thorough essay on why SFP is wrong:
You clearly didn't read that. First of all, that article is only about state prosecutions while the President is in office. It's inapplicable to this thread for both reasons.
quote:
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.”
Again, and? That just argues my point.
You embarrassed yourself on this point this weekend. Do you really want round 2?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:37 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.”
Right, it is up to congress to get him removed from office through impeachment and then allow for a criminal trial to take place. That is the method available to provide check and balances of a president. SFP knows this, but he wants the DOJ to be able to bring a president up on charges and trial even as a sitting president.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News