|
I know this is a little bit to pick but it's worth mentioning that the electoral college has never worked the way it was supposed to and by 1800 electors were already seen as mere proxies for specific presidential candidates.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
ulmont posted:I don't think this is completely true, and I think the example given in the link of an announcement that all white but no black convicts would be pardoned would be impermissible as a violation of the 14th amendment is correct, given that the 14th amendment was added to the Constitution later than the pardon power. I'm not very clear on how the Supreme Court manages how the rest of the constitution as a whole is modified by amendments. I would think they would say they don't have standing to overturn the pardons, but then overturn every conviction of a black person to enforce equal protection. Assuming the court looks at it in a purely academic and non-partisan or biased way, of course. Does this seem right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
That arpaio is out of office makes it academic. A tougher scenario would be if say that Russia grand jury subpoenas a trump associate and the associate says no, is slapped with contempt, and the president issues a pardon. My gut tells me that this court would not come to the rescue and would instead leave it up to congress to impeach.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I'm not very clear on how the Supreme Court manages how the rest of the constitution as a whole is modified by amendments. I would think they would say they don't have standing to overturn the pardons, but then overturn every conviction of a black person to enforce equal protection. Assuming the court looks at it in a purely academic and non-partisan or biased way, of course. Does this seem right? Amendments supersede anything that comes before them. This has come up in this thread before I believe
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I'm not very clear on how the Supreme Court manages how the rest of the constitution as a whole is modified by amendments. As EwokEntourage noted, the last change in time wins, with the rest of the Constitution otherwise interpreted as consistently as possible acknowledging the last change in time winning. Ron Jeremy posted:A tougher scenario would be if say that Russia grand jury subpoenas a trump associate and the associate says no, is slapped with contempt, and the president issues a pardon. That's the difference between criminal contempt - a crime - and civil contempt, where you stay in jail until you either (a) do the thing the court is trying to get you to do or (b) stop doing the thing the court is trying to stop you from doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 04:05
|
|
ulmont posted:As EwokEntourage noted, the last change in time wins, with the rest of the Constitution otherwise interpreted as consistently as possible acknowledging the last change in time winning. Are those running the jail under the authority of the executive? Could Trump just order them to ignore the court's contempt charge and release the person in question?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Are those running the jail under the authority of the executive? Could Trump just order them to ignore the court's contempt charge and release the person in question? To the first: Yes, in the sense that those are part of the Department of Justice, which is an executive agency. To the second: Yes, Trump could say that. I have serious doubts as to the legality and constitutionality of such an order.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Amendments supersede anything that comes before them. This has come up in this thread before I believe Unless the text of the amendment includes "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 08:28
|
|
ulmont posted:To the first: Yes, in the sense that those are part of the Department of Justice, which is an executive agency. But if Trump can just pardon anyone who violates the constitutional rights of another doesn't that mean that he is effectively violating the constitution? Is the president still bound by the constitution if he is using a constitutionally granted power of the executive to violate some other party's rights also granted by the same document?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:But if Trump can just pardon anyone who violates the constitutional rights of another doesn't that mean that he is effectively violating the constitution? Is the president still bound by the constitution if he is using a constitutionally granted power of the executive to violate some other party's rights also granted by the same document? He's not doing that here except very indirectly, because Arpaio is out of office now. If he were using the pardon power on an ongoing basis to legitimize ongoing crimes it'd be different. Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Unless the text of the amendment includes "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Few things better show how completely gutless Obama and the Democrats are than them sitting by and allowing Roberts to gut the VRA. But hey, it's not like that directly lead to the numerous GOP-held states proceeding to roll back decades of civil rights and suppress AVeryLargeRadish posted:But if Trump can just pardon anyone who violates the constitutional rights of another doesn't that mean that he is effectively violating the constitution? Is the president still bound by the constitution if he is using a constitutionally granted power of the executive to violate some other party's rights also granted by the same document? Bush Sr. pardoned people like Oliver North who engaged in unconstitutional and likely treasonous activity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Few things better show how completely gutless Obama and the Democrats are than them sitting by and allowing Roberts to gut the VRA. But hey, it's not like that directly lead to the numerous GOP-held states proceeding to roll back decades of civil rights and suppress Ollie North's actions weren't exactly treason, but they certainly were illegal as gently caress and the arms deals Reagan approved were far beyond his constitutional and statutory authority, but they didn't deprive people of constitutional rights. There's a fundamental difference in the underlying conduct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:But if Trump can just pardon anyone who violates the constitutional rights of another doesn't that mean that he is effectively violating the constitution? Is the president still bound by the constitution if he is using a constitutionally granted power of the executive to violate some other party's rights also granted by the same document? Pardoning someone who violates constitutional rights isn't the same as directly violating constitutional rights. As far as I'm aware, there isn't really a constitutional right to have someone punished for violating your constitutional rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Few things better show how completely gutless Obama and the Democrats are than them sitting by and allowing Roberts to gut the VRA. What exactly were they supposed to do in light of the majority Republican House and filibuster-proof Republican minority in the Senate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
ulmont posted:What exactly were they supposed to do in light of the majority Republican House and filibuster-proof Republican minority in the Senate? Be angry and magically get people to vote in the insane numbers needed to overcome the House gerrymander and sorting, and rural state bias in the Senate. This is what some people really believe/
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
ulmont posted:What exactly were they supposed to do in light of the majority Republican House and filibuster-proof Republican minority in the Senate? Defeat the opposition in elections by adopting a political strategy with broader appeal and a stronger ideological vision than technocratic managerialism, maybe. Zoran fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 20:19
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Pardoning someone who violates constitutional rights isn't the same as directly violating constitutional rights. As far as I'm aware, there isn't really a constitutional right to have someone punished for violating your constitutional rights. If there is no consequence for the violation of someone's constitutional rights can they really be said to hold those rights in the first place?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
ulmont posted:What exactly were they supposed to do in light of the majority Republican House and filibuster-proof Republican minority in the Senate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm confused, do you want a list of things human beings can do to affect positive change with respect to voting rights that doesn't include "vote on the winning side of a bill in the US House or US Senate", or have you already imagined that list, and determined that all Democratic politicians have done everything on that list? I'm confused, do you want a list of ways the US Congress can stop the Supreme Court from striking down part of a bill as unconstitutional? Because here it is:
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I'm confused, do you want a list of ways the US Congress can stop the Supreme Court from striking down part of a bill as unconstitutional? Usually you should say pass a constitutional amendment giving congress the explicit power to make a certain law but considering thats what the supreme court struck down....
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
I think that the VRA decision should have been followed, but repeatedly and openly attacked as entirely illegitimate. I assume that's what he's suggesting: that Democrats should have made clear that the Supreme Court did not have the power to issue this decision and it was lawless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
ulmont posted:To the second: Yes, Trump could say that. I have serious doubts as to the legality and constitutionality of such an order. I think the point people are trying to make is that there are limited remedies for that sort of scenario. With contempt out of the picture, the only possibilities are law enforcement agencies refusing such an order, or impeachment. Since impeachment is such a high bar, that really just leaves refusal and that is not exactly great either. Basically, saying something is unconstitutional or illegal means nothing if the rule of law is being broken and there's no effective mechanism with which to unbreak it. Main Paineframe posted:Pardoning someone who violates constitutional rights isn't the same as directly violating constitutional rights. As far as I'm aware, there isn't really a constitutional right to have someone punished for violating your constitutional rights. This might be technically true, but you need to have legal remedies for when people violate constitutional rights. If you remove the accountability mechanism and all you can do is say "no, stop, that's unconstitutional," then it allows for widespread rights violations with no real recourse. The whole point of a government recognizing and guaranteeing certain rights is that it will use the law to defend those rights. If it cannot do that, because the methods of actually enforcing the law have been compromised, then it in practice guarantees zero rights, because the guarantee is not backed up by the force of law. Put another way, punishment for violations of constitutional rights isn't itself a right, but it's a necessary condition of those rights being recognized. When people responsible for enforcing those rights refuse to, and they are prevented from being held accountable, then it means those rights are no longer guaranteed. That's what the Arpaio pardon damages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I'm confused, do you want a list of ways the US Congress can stop the Supreme Court from striking down part of a bill as unconstitutional? They knew the preclearance formula was in danger after Northwest Austin Municipal v Holder and could have passed a better preclearance formula that wasn't out of date and (e.g.) covered Wisconsin and other states that were excluded
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Fraction Jackson posted:I think the point people are trying to make is that there are limited remedies for that sort of scenario. With contempt out of the picture, the only possibilities are law enforcement agencies refusing such an order, or impeachment. Since impeachment is such a high bar, that really just leaves refusal and that is not exactly great either. Those are not the only possibilities. One additional one would be to get a temporary restraining order barring the release until whether or not the order is legal is sorted out. The hypothetical release order was separate from the pardon of a criminal conviction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Those are not the only possibilities. One additional one would be to get a temporary restraining order barring the release until whether or not the order is legal is sorted out. If they're already ignoring the court in releasing them, why wouldn't they also ignore the restraining order? What particular legal force would a restraining order have, that contempt would not, in a scenario where there is an active decision on the part of an agency under the direction of the President to undermine the courts in this instance? If the Executive is signaling via pardon that no one will face any consequences, it seems to me that the only reason they'd comply with a restraining order is because they feel that it is a legal order and that, it being legitimate and legal, they're obligated to follow it. But if they are already following an order to undermine a legitimate and legal contempt of court ruling, it seems like they're already past the point where they'd even remotely respect a restraining order, injunction, or any other legal instrument lesser in nature than holding someone in contempt. Basically what I'm trying to say is that the remedies you are pointing out are all true, but only work when the rule of law is functioning. Pardoning people for contempt, or otherwise trying to interfere in the legal process to absolve LEOs and public officials from consequences, creates scenarios where the rule of law can cease to effectively function.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think that the VRA decision should have been followed, but repeatedly and openly attacked as entirely illegitimate. I assume that's what he's suggesting: that Democrats should have made clear that the Supreme Court did not have the power to issue this decision and it was lawless. Could you imagine the results though, if a sitting President repeatedly attacked the judicial branch as illegitimate and lawless?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:If there is no consequence for the violation of someone's constitutional rights can they really be said to hold those rights in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Could you imagine the results though, if a sitting President repeatedly attacked the judicial branch as illegitimate and lawless? Why, the public would be so horrified at this person's lack of decorum that they'd vote in droves for any more serious, respectable opponent!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Could you imagine the results though, if a sitting President repeatedly attacked the judicial branch as illegitimate and lawless? Why, I never!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I'm confused, do you want a list of ways the US Congress can stop the Supreme Court from striking down part of a bill as unconstitutional?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Could you imagine the results though, if a sitting President repeatedly attacked the judicial branch as illegitimate and lawless? More people might notice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Posner is stepping down. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-judge-richard-posner-retires-met-20170901-story.html 
Proust Malone fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Sep 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
What a terrible decision. Now they'll be no more of his jurisprudence, which is quite good, and more of his opinions on anything else at all, which are nearly always awful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
I hope he makes time in his retirement to talk poo poo about whatever activist hack Trump picks to replace him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I hope he makes time in his retirement to talk poo poo about whatever activist hack Trump picks to replace him. Lol Trump isn't going to nominate anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Lol Trump isn't going to nominate anyone. If there's one thing Trump is nominating, it's judges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
He must be dying, can't imagine why he'd retire otherwise
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:If there is no consequence for the violation of someone's constitutional rights can they really be said to hold those rights in the first place? Legally, yes. The fact that consequences were waived in a particular case or situation doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist or doesn't count. It's like pointing to various prominent cases of murderers getting off without punishment (occasionally with the aid of law enforcement) and using that to say that murder isn't actually illegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:07
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Legally, yes. The fact that consequences were waived in a particular case or situation doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist or doesn't count. It's like pointing to various prominent cases of murderers getting off without punishment (occasionally with the aid of law enforcement) and using that to say that murder isn't actually illegal. The law is only meaningful in its effect, if the courts cannot remedy a situation because the executive overrules them then they are effectively meaningless and the law itself with them. If a law is not enforced consistently then it starts to lose its meaning, equality before the law is a necessary part of the foundation of the legal system. If the laws simply existed on the books but were never enforced, if all the courts closed their doors forever would you still say that those laws have any bearing on the real world? I am not saying that we are already at the point where laws have lost their meaning, what I am saying is that the power of pardon, wielded often enough and without regard for the consequences can do lasting damage to the legitimacy of the law and that the Arpaio pardon is just the sort of thing that undermines the very foundations of the law and our constitutional rights.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:If a law is not enforced consistently then it starts to lose its meaning, equality before the law is a necessary part of the foundation of the legal system. I'm afraid I have some really bad news for you about the entire American legal system...
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 22:01
|
|
