|
botany posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/888237971278888960 The SCOTUS has zero authority to block Trump from pardoning people or being pardoned by another POTUS in the future.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The SCOTUS has zero authority to block Trump from pardoning people or being pardoned by another POTUS in the future. That wasn't the point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
botany posted:I strongly doubt in any case that there will be the political will to prosecute Trump after he's out of office in any case, simply because the Dems know that it would open them up to routine prosecutions by the GOP for the future. Prosecuting a US president is probably not going to happen in our lifetime I think. Just like the filibuster you see
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Okay, if we're dealing with hypotheticals here, I have two related, but distinct questions that a layman like me is having a hard time working out: 1) Say that Trump talks to Pence and says "If I resign, will you pardon me of anything and everything I may have done?" and Pence says "No." so Trump then Trump pardons himself. Could that be challenged, and if so, wouldn't it immediately go to the Supreme Court? 2) If the House votes to impeach Trump, could Trump then pardon himself and tell the Senate to go away and not have a trial, since he's pardoned himself for anything he may have done? Or is the Senate legally allowed to remove him from office even if he can't be found guilty of the crimes he was impeached over?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:2) If the House votes to impeach Trump, could Trump then pardon himself and tell the Senate to go away and not have a trial, since he's pardoned himself for anything he may have done? Or is the Senate legally allowed to remove him from office even if he can't be found guilty of the crimes he was impeached over? He explicitly can't pardon for impeachable offenses, as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Okay, if we're dealing with hypotheticals here, I have two related, but distinct questions that a layman like me is having a hard time working out: For 2, the Senate can impeach him for literally any reason, so it doesn't matter if he is pardoned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Okay, if we're dealing with hypotheticals here, I have two related, but distinct questions that a layman like me is having a hard time working out: Challenged by who? A pardon would be for crimes against the United States so the challenge would have to come in the form of a USA pressing charges, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Expulsion from office and criminal sentencing are two separate subjects, and the Senate has digression on which, if any, to levy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
botany posted:Prosecuting a US president is probably not going to happen in our lifetime I think. A president Donald Trump was not supposed to happen either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:He explicitly can't pardon for impeachable offenses, as I understand it. "Says here these are all felonies, looks like we can't impeach" - the usual suspects
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Okay, if we're dealing with hypotheticals here, I have two related, but distinct questions that a layman like me is having a hard time working out: 1) It probably would go to the supreme court, and no one knows what they would do. I can make a good argument for both sides, but I think the "president can't pardon himself" argument is more compelling. The supreme court could just air bud it and go "I see nothing in the precedents and common law history that says Trump can't pardon himself" 2) The constitution specifically says the president can't pardon himself out of an impeachment. Impeachment is also a political process, not legal. If the senate literally pardoned him for having crazy hair, maybe the courts would get involved if it was utterly arbitrary, but there's plenty of legit reasons to impeach, and an inability to prosecute doesn't impact that. Rigel fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
botany posted:I strongly doubt in any case that there will be the political will to prosecute Trump after he's out of office in any case, simply because the Dems know that it would open them up to routine prosecutions by the GOP for the future. Prosecuting a US president is probably not going to happen in our lifetime I think. It would probably have to be literal murder with indisputable evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Ah, got it. I think I was getting hung up on the whole "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing and believing that there necessarily needed to be a crime. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
botany posted:I strongly doubt in any case that there will be the political will to prosecute Trump after he's out of office in any case, simply because the Dems know that it would open them up to routine prosecutions by the GOP for the future. Prosecuting a US president is probably not going to happen in our lifetime I think. congress not only doesn't have the power to prosecute individual citizens but is explicitly barred from doing so by the constitution so it wouldn't actually be up to the GOP to make that call
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Slaan posted:From what I've been reading on lawfare the last couple days, the president can't be prosecuted until he is out of office. He's basically immune to everything until congress decides to impeach him, because who knows, maybe shooting someone on fifth avenue was essential for national security; only congress can decide if that's over the line or not. It's actually a lot murkier than that; it seems to be a bit of an open debate, and it was an open debate back in the Nixon days too. The OLC has always maintained that the President can't be prosecuted at all while in office, but the OLC is not SCOTUS. It is literal uncharted Constitutional territory. It is especially uncharted because mostly we are talking about potential crimes committed before Trump was inaugurated, and having immunity from prosecution for things that he did when he was not President would be a pretty absurd outcome. Granted, as we've seen a lot during this process, it being absurd doesn't automatically mean it doesn't work that way, but it's far from definitive that Trump could not be prosecuted while in office.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Fraction Jackson posted:It's actually a lot murkier than that; it seems to be a bit of an open debate, and it was an open debate back in the Nixon days too. The OLC has always maintained that the President can't be prosecuted at all while in office, but the OLC is not SCOTUS. It is literal uncharted Constitutional territory. It is especially uncharted because mostly we are talking about potential crimes committed before Trump was inaugurated, and having immunity from prosecution for things that he did when he was not President would be a pretty absurd outcome. Granted, as we've seen a lot during this process, it being absurd doesn't automatically mean it doesn't work that way, but it's far from definitive that Trump could not be prosecuted while in office. Legally, it's an open question. In practice, it's uncharted because a president would either shut down the investigation or get impeached or both long before it saw a courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Legally, it's an open question. 99% of the time that would be the case, but we might actually be in the other 1% if the NY AG investigation produces any charges. Trump wouldn't be able to do anything about those at all, so it would lead to the question of whether a sitting President can be prosecuted for state charges, at least. And while in an ordinary political climate you'd think that a President facing charges of any kind would be impeached, this isn't an ordinary political climate and it's not guaranteed that Congress would actually manage to impeach. I tend to think that Trump would be so radioactive at that point that they would be forced to get rid of him and suffer the consequences of that, but that's a political and not a legal question, and one without a 100% certain answer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Fraction Jackson posted:99% of the time that would be the case, but we might actually be in the other 1% if the NY AG investigation produces any charges. Trump wouldn't be able to do anything about those at all, so it would lead to the question of whether a sitting President can be prosecuted for state charges, at least. Grant was arrested for speeding in DC several times. So there is a small amount of precedent for that
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Yeah, good point about the possibility of state level prosecution. I think that's a fairly low probability outcome, though, because if actual criminal charges were filed, even at a state level: 1) the Congress would *freak out* and 2) the courts would absolutely deadlock as Trumpian lawyers fought everything on separation of powers and federal grounds, all of which would have to be appealed to the supreme Court, which would be reluctant to even hear the case due to political question/separation of powers principles, and 3) all the charged details would leak to the press and paralyze the entire federal government I actually think that would be one of the few paths that would force impeachment proceedings. Hell, at that point Trump might even want an impeachment trial in front of a sympathetic Republican Congress just to distract from the criminal trial. The more I describe this the more plausible it seems
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Grant was arrested for speeding in DC several times. So there is a small amount of precedent for that  Grant didn’t ask “AM I BEING DETAINED?”, so we’re never know if he was really arrested. Pierce was, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
@FerrisMueller 69m I … Investigated on This Story for a Year … and … He Just … He Pardoned Himself
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, good point about the possibility of state level prosecution. I think that's a fairly low probability outcome, though, because if actual criminal charges were filed, even at a state level: I don't disagree that it should force impeachment proceedings, for specifically the reasons you stated - the entire executive branch would be paralyzed. Especially in this administration, since the executive branch is about 20 people total, and we are already seeing the consequences of unfilled appointments. Since basically everyone, in the worst-case scenario, would be involved, everything would shut down. I just think that we're already pushing the boundaries of what should be possible, and I don't want to say with 100% certainty that the thing that should happen actually will, if that makes sense. Congress already has more than enough reasons to pull the plug, and has not. Again, I do feel that if/when charges are filed they will be likely to impeach and convict, but I'm not so confident that I would bet money on it. So there's still the low probability constitutional crisis option. I do think, though, that if it comes down to the question of whether the President can be prosecuted, and it reaches SCOTUS, that Roberts might come down on the "yes" side. As terrible as some of his opinions are, he does seem legacy-obsessed, and based on some of his opinions and votes in high-profile cases I do not think he would want to be remembered for a decision saying "actually, the President can do literally anything without consequence, no big deal". Granted my thoughts on that are no better than a hunch, but it does seem to fit how he has acted thus far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
UberJew posted:congress not only doesn't have the power to prosecute individual citizens but is explicitly barred from doing so by the constitution so it wouldn't actually be up to the GOP to make that call Pence's Attorney General would have that power but would never use it. Nor, judging from recent history, would a theoretical Democratic President's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Is there any precedent for Gorsuch recusing himself from a case deciding, say, whether Trump can pardon himself because he was so recently nominated by him? I know he wouldn't be required to or anything, just wondering if he ever would.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
State charges would probably(?) not come while he's in office. It's a lot easier to imagine Trump pardoning himself and resigning / resigning and being pardoned by Pence, followed by NY state filing money laundering, or fraud, or tax evasion, or whatever charges against now-private citizen Trump. There would be very little in the way of a federalism / supremacy clause / etc. basis for challenging that, assuming it was for private actions. Short of tolling a statute of limitation most AGs from states that would ever plausibly prosecute Trump are probably smart enough to not file a criminal case against a sitting president.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:Is there any precedent for Gorsuch recusing himself from a case deciding, say, whether Trump can pardon himself because he was so recently nominated by him? I know he wouldn't be required to or anything, just wondering if he ever would. No. There has never been a case I'm aware of where a judge recused himself or was even expected to recuse himself when the case they are hearing involves the president who nominated them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Rigel posted:No. There has never been a case I'm aware of where a judge recused himself or was even expected to recuse himself when the case they are hearing involves the president who nominated them. I remember reading that a judge had recused himself in the case where the court ruled against Nixon that the president's not above the law (phoneposting, so I can't dig up the judge or the case), but that was because he had worked for Nixon in some other capacity before being nominated to the SC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Kagan had to recuse herself on some cases because of her work as the US Solicitor General, but that's all I can think of
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Mikl posted:I remember reading that a judge had recused himself in the case where the court ruled against Nixon that the president's not above the law (phoneposting, so I can't dig up the judge or the case), but that was because he had worked for Nixon in some other capacity before being nominated to the SC. Thats definitely a stronger case for recusal, since he actually worked for him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Kagan had to recuse herself on some cases because of her work as the US Solicitor General, but that's all I can think of Yeah, justices will recuse if the case touches their earlier work - if promoted from an appeals court they won't rule on an appeal of their own decision - but not just because the appeal involves the person who appointed them. That would be completely unworkable anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
So this question got fielded to me on facebook: "Where in the constitution is power granted to the federal government to arbitrarily enter a private market?" I'm assuming it's implicit part of either the 'tax and spend' clause, or the 'regulation of interstate commerce' clause. Is there something more specific about regulation of corporations and whether the federal or state government can create a public corporation and have it compete in the 'private' market?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So this question got fielded to me on facebook: "Where in the constitution is power granted to the federal government to arbitrarily enter a private market?" You're going to need to give more detail on your question. The government enters a private market just when it buys goods and services. The government also competes as a seller in the private market when it, say, provides housing and health care to soldiers. That would come under the power "to raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy." Is the real question "can the US federal government set up just a bookstore to compete with Barnes and Noble", or is there something more specific behind "arbitrarily"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Specifically we were discussing whether Wisconsin could do something more efficient with the hundred billion it's giving to Foxconn such as simply starting up it's own factory to produce electronics to sell on the market for the entire purpose of providing employment. It started with this: quote:I do not think it's likely that the Wisconsin State Government has the power to overcome barriers to entry in the LCD screen market. The US Federal Government maybe. If your point was that the US Federal Government with a heavily amended constitution could dominate any given industry at will, then I will concede you are correct. My response was along the lines of "All the government has to do is register a corporation to do that, it doesn't need to change the constitution, what actual limitation exists in the constitution, what legally prevents a state or federal government from registering a publicly owned corporation? What specifically prevents them?" So yes, can the government create it's own bookstore to compete with Barnes & Noble. (Although wouldn't that just be a library or is that deliberate?  )e: Technically he's shifting the burden of proof onto me but I feel like it's a slam dunk since the US has had publicly owned corporations for a long time now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Those questions are always asked by lolbertarians who don't expect real answers, so just say "Article I, Section 8" and let them look up it on their own. If they fixate on the General Welfare pivot to Commerce Clause and vice-versa. For example, you could justify a federally run bookstore (or public library) either as a contribution to the general welfare or as a regulation of interstate commerce in books. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Are townships and county government technically incorporated?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
scaterry posted:Are townships and county government technically incorporated? Depends on how the state has it set up. Some are incorporated, some are chartered, etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
If he wants a specific example, point him to the Federal Flood Insurance program https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program The private flood insurance market pretty much vanished when the Feds got into the business of selling cheap flood insurance. If anyone is confused and says "wait, no I get flood insurance through XYZ company", no you don't. Unless its some high-end policy, insurance companies will take your money, keep a tiny amount of it and send the rest to the Feds. When you file a flood claim, the insurance company looks at it, then turns to the Feds and tells the government "yeah, its a valid claim, you need to pay this guy." The program goes broke every few years because the Feds aren't selling flood policies for anywhere close to a break-even, so we essentially have decided to use tax money to subsidize homeowners and businesses in flood-prone areas. Rigel fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
An example of governments entering markets for the public good would be Amtrak, which the government funds because it views having inter-city passenger rail travel shrivel up and die is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So yes, can the government create it's own bookstore to compete with Barnes & Noble. (Although wouldn't that just be a library or is that deliberate? The goalposts are going to just shift, as Hieronymous Alloy notes. The real work is in the word "arbitrarily." The corporations owned by the federal government are mostly financing style (Federal Financing Bank) or infrastructure (Tennessee Valley Authority) corporations with special needs (and, of course, other one-offs like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation). You're not going to see a bookstore or other serious competitor because Congress frankly doesn't need it. But if Congress did want to create a bookstore, they could certainly do it on federal land (consider the PX on military bases), in addition to the general welfare or interstate commerce options. Nice 2011 report here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
ulmont posted:The goalposts are going to just shift, as Hieronymous Alloy notes. The real work is in the word "arbitrarily." The flood insurance example could work here because their justification was that flood insurance was becoming "unaffordable". Well poo poo, if that flies, you can say anything is unaffordable and get into that market with the lowest taxpayer-subsidized price.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:56
|
|