- 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 3:42 pm to Robin Masters
Posted on 4/29/24 at 3:42 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law.
Again, that says nothing that we aren't arguing, first of all.
Secondly, that isn't in the Constitution.
1
Posted on 4/29/24 at 3:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But, but, but, but ... that implies a different treatment for the POTUS
Federalist 77 is titled
quote:
The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered
The entire article is about the President. It implies no difference in application of the Constitution's plain language. It's just only focused on one specific branch.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 3:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are arguing the POTUS can be tried while in office. You cited treatment of someone in the Judiciary as precedently indicative of how courts would regard a POTUS in identical circumstances. It seems a comparatively vacuous citing to me.
What does this have to do with impeachment, though?
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
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Roe v Wade wasn't in the Constitution.
Secondly, that isn't in the Constitution.
TX v PA sure as hell was not in the Constitution.
Opening our borders to illegal immigration to economically and civilly destroy TX is not in the Constitution,
nor is a denial to TX to defend its own borders from foreign invasion in the Constitution.
Where are Special Prosecutors noted in the Constitution? How about wide-eyed mouth foaming Special Prosecutors (who were never endorsed by Congress) indicting ex-POTUSes? Is the latter enabled in the Constitution? Where?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Roe v Wade wasn't in the Constitution
Exactly
quote:
TX v PA sure as hell was not in the Constitution.
The concept of standing is judicial, and granted as an exercise of judicial review. Now, if you want to make the argument Madison v. Marbury was improper, feel free.
quote:
Where are Special Prosecutors noted in the Constitution?
They're granted by statute, which Congress has specifically in the Constitution.
quote:
How about wide-eyed mouth foaming Special Prosecutors (who were never endorsed by Congress) indicting ex-POTUSes? Is the latter enabled in the Constitution? Where?
They're granted by statute, which Congress has specifically in the Constitution.
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?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Multiple federal appellate courts agree. 0 accept your interpretation
They did the same with Roe. Until they didnt
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You referred to what is in the Constitution. Madison v. Marbury has nothing to do with literal content of the Constitution, but rather the SCOTUS interpretation of it's meaning.
Now, if you want to make the argument Madison v. Marbury was improper, feel free.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:30 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Madison v. Marbury has nothing to do with the Constitution, but rather the SCOTUS interpretation of it.
This is going to get circular quickly considering that interpreting the Constitution is SCOTUS' constitutional duty.
ETA: As an aside, at what point did all this veer off from discussing executive immunity for a former POTUS and its nexus with impeachment to a purely hypothetical federal prosecution of a sitting POTUS (which has never happened and likely wont)?
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:34 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The Constitution says nothing about the elements you are addressing.
It literally lays out the separation in impeachment-removal and criminal prosecution. Like, it addresses this topic directly.
quote:
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.
The clause applies to everyone subject to impeachment and removal.
The court literally analyzed the clause covering this.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:36 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Is it?
This is going to get circular quickly
Perhaps go back and read insistences that the "Constitution says" certain things and we can square your "circular" in a quick minute.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:38 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Perhaps go back and read insistences that the "Constitution says" certain things and we can square your "circular" in a quick minute.
I don't even know what you're talking about frankly, at least not relative to my posts. To the extent I used that phrase at all ITT, it was earlier in the thread when Robin Masters was woefully and demonstrably wrong about the impeachment judgment clause.
But then again, I'm not the one arguing that the impeachment clauses in the Constitution differentiate between POTUS and other impeachable officers--when it doesn't--simply because I want it to differentiate between them, as you are.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Have I ever suggested you overuse (abuse) the term "literally" when you are losing an argument. I believe I have. But if not, you should know, in your line of work, that it's a "tell."
It literally lays out ...
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:You've not posted that much here. However, when supporting others who are forwarding questionable viewpoints, as in this instance, you may get called on that.
at least not relative to my posts.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You've not posted that much here.
Then you didn't read the thread that you popped into halfway through.
SFP is correct on the impeachment clauses not making any sort of distinction between POTUS' and the judiciary, except to the extent that the CJ presides over a POTUS impeachment trial. Not sure what your point is there.
As far as federal prosecution in office, its really a pointless exercise considering that DOJ is part of the executive branch and it would never happen in practice.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:49 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Have I ever suggested you overuse (abuse) the term "literally" when you are losing an argument.
And apparently when I'm winning one.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:50 pm to GumboPot
So Gumbo, you would rather an unrestrained President rule over you?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:50 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
As far as federal prosecution in office, its really a pointless exercise considering that DOJ is part of the executive branch and it would never happen in practice.
That's the current understanding via the DOJ memo.
Now state prosecutions...that's much more of a spicy meatball, especially with the initial conceptualization of federalism and the expansive state power it envisioned, at the time of the passing of the Constitution.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:55 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
To the extent I used that phrase at all ITT, it was earlier in the thread when Robin Masters was woefully and demonstrably wrong about the impeachment judgment clause.
Do you have a mole at the USSC? They are deciding on that argument as we type? Curious what makes you so sure. Especially considering their willingness to hear the case?
quote:
Sauer told the justices that presidents could only face criminal charges once they are impeached and convicted in the Senate. At the same time, he said such a prosecution could only happen under criminal statutes that make a “clear statement” to explicitly include the president.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News