- 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 10:46 am to Robin Masters
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:46 am to Robin Masters
POTUS cannot be compelled by the Congress to appear or give testimony or documents. The executive agencies that were created by Congress and over which congress exercises oversight? Different story
The SOTU is a constitutional requirement that can be accomplished by sending congress a sticky note saying “all good” and doesn’t come from Congress anyway.
The SOTU is a constitutional requirement that can be accomplished by sending congress a sticky note saying “all good” and doesn’t come from Congress anyway.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 10:48 am
1
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:47 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Cite the case, ruling or precedent.
Quoted prior to your post.
That case involved prosecution first (acquittal), and then impeachment-removal. During the criminal case, he made the literal same argument, and was rejected (joining another appellate circuit).
quote:
It is a matter of interpretation, just not your interpretation
And every federal appellate court who has had to rule on it.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Relevance?
Can the House summon the President?
quote:Why?
I repeat
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:48 am to Indefatigable
quote:
POTUS cannot be compelled by the Congress to appear or give testimony. The SOTU is a constitutional requirement that can be accomplished by sending congress a sticky note saying “all good” and doesn’t come from Congress anyway.
But apparently they can be charged and put in jail by any po dunk DA.
Lol. You tards should take a second and listen to yourselves.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Relevance?
He's posting about Congressional contempt. If the HOR or Senate can't summon the President, contempt is not possible so his arguments are irrelevant.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Relevance?
The other poster made a statement that Congress can declare POTUS in contempt and have him prosecuted.
They can do no such thing because POTUS isn’t subject to congressional summons or subpoena, and thus cannot be in contempt thereof.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:49 am to Robin Masters
quote:
But apparently they can be charged and put in jail by any po dunk DA.
"10th Amendment, bro"
-The Founding Fathers
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:50 am to Robin Masters
quote:
But apparently they can be charged and put in jail by any po dunk DA.
I didn’t say that. And again, the entire case will come down to official acts vs non-official acts.
I don’t know why you guys have latched on to this impeachment argument. Even trump’s legal team had the sense to toss it over the side like the nonsense that it is.
There are much, much better arguments for immunity.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:50 am to Indefatigable
quote:
They can do no such thing because POTUS isn’t subject to congressional summons or subpoena
I think records can be subpoenaed.
But any punishment for violating this would likely need to be political, not criminal, due to Separation of Powers. THAT is when impeachment comes into play directly.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Cite it or link it.
Quoted prior to your post.
I'm tired of milling through treads on Easter Egg hunts for posts which you claim say something that they actually don't.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:55 am to NC_Tigah
There were no replies, so I have to just copy-quote
quote:
Here is an actual appellate court (agreeing with another one) on the issue:
quote:
In this case, appellant contends that as an active federal judge he has an absolute right not to be tried in a federal court unless and until he is impeached and convicted by Congress. Like the right secured by the speech or debate clause in Helstoski or the right secured by the double jeopardy clause in Abney, the right asserted by Hastings is the freedom from the obligation to endure a criminal trial which would be wholly deprived of meaning if he were forced to undergo trial before he could assert it. See United States v. Brizendine, 659 F.2d 215, 219 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
quote:
We find no merit in appellant's argument. Rather, we agree with the seventh circuit that this portion of section 3 was intended "to assure that after impeachment a trial on criminal charges is not foreclosed by the principle of double jeopardy." United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d at 1142.8 Read in this light, section 3 represents an attempt by the framers to anticipate and respond to questions that might arise regarding the procedural rights of the accused during the impeachment process. Like article III, § 2, cl. 3 which provides that the right to trial by jury does not extend to impeachment proceedings,9 section 3 serves to clarify the rights of civil officers accused of high crimes and misdemeanors, not to limit the jurisdiction of article III courts.
Multiple federal appellate courts agree. 0 accept your interpretation.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Though untested, Congress likely can cite a POTUS for contempt. The problem is enforcement.
contempt is not possible
Posted on 4/29/24 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Probably because your post has nothing to do with the Chief Executive.
There were no replies
Posted on 4/29/24 at 11:08 am to NC_Tigah
The impeachment judgment clause likewise makes no distinction between POTUS and other impeachable officers.
ETA: Nor does the impeachment clause itself, except to provide that the Chief Justice presides over a POTUS impeachment trial.
ETA: Nor does the impeachment clause itself, except to provide that the Chief Justice presides over a POTUS impeachment trial.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 11:09 am
Posted on 4/29/24 at 11:10 am to GumboPot
quote:
He is framing this like the DOJ and state prosecutors are the check against the executive. They are not.
The DOJ is part of the executive branch, thus not a part of his theory of "checks-and-balances." That job falls squarely on the legislative and judicial branches, the former of which has failed miserably in that task.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 11:10 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Probably because your post has nothing to do with the Chief Executive.
It's literally the same Constitutional clause and applies to everyone
Posted on 4/29/24 at 11:18 am to GumboPot
quote:
the end of democracy as we know it
When they say this, they're not meaning our Constitutional Republic where we conduct democratic elections. They mean the rigged system of the illusion of choice that the unelected and installed have developed to enrich themselves at the cost of the American taxpayer.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 11:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Does it literally designate the Chief Justice preside? What do you suppose the relevance of that little nuance is?
It's literally the same Constitutional clause
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 11:30 am
Posted on 4/29/24 at 11:31 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
What do you suppose the relevance of that little nuance is?
Removing the VPOTUS from the equation
Posted on 4/29/24 at 11:43 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Removing the VPOTUS from the equation
What else could it imply?
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News