- 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 4:01 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You are arguing the POTUS can be tried while in office.
Nothing in the Constitution prevents it, except MAYBE Separation of Powers, but that would only be on the federal level.
quote:
You cited treatment of someone in the Judiciary as precedently indicative of how courts would regard a POTUS in identical circumstances.
Yes. That same portion of the Constitution applies to everyone who can be impeached and removed. It's not written specific for any branch/office.
The exact "removal following impeachment is a requirement for criminal prosecution" theory was tested, and it failed. Why would a change in office change anything in the analysis?
quote:
It seems a comparatively vacuous citing to me.
I'm only arguing what the Constitution actually says, and how every federal appellate circuit who has faced the issue has ruled.
If the President gets special treatment, in this area, the Founders forgot to include it in the Constitution.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 4:02 pm
1
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:bullshite.
I'm only arguing what the Constitution actually says
The Constitution says nothing about the elements you are addressing. Nothing whatsoever. You are simply extrapolating a SCOTUS Constitutional extrapolation applied to the Judiciary, and attempting to carry that extrapolation to the Chief Executive of our government.
Show me where in the Constitution it says a sitting POTUS could be ordered not to attend his son's graduation, or the Yalta/Potsdam Conferences, or Reykjavik Conferences with the Soviet President because some malignant, no-name, bitch of a Judge, with a profiteering daughter, simply said so. Kind of blows "3 equal branches" all to hell, doesn't it?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News