|
I have no idea how cromulent the guy smackfu linked is but he seems extremely bearish on the office/officer question being the one that settles things, and I find his argument fairly convincing - but I'm no law expert and I'm coming at this from the perspective of a layperson who thinks the argument that a person holding office is not an officer is barefacedly insane. I'm torn between thinking the SCOTUS will issue the ruling "gently caress you Trump can do what he wants" or something much more cowardly. If they lay out something that basically lets states decide for themselves, it's going to be chaos like we've never seen before, because getting Trump off the ballot in Colorado doesn't matter electorally, he's not winning it, but if there's a chance to get him kicked off in a swing state? Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, anything like that? Cataclysmic. Makes a victory, though not outright impossible, a Herculean challenge. Though I can see one route to even greater chaos still, which is if Alito or Thomas keel over from a heart attack in the next couple of weeks.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:While I'm not entirely on board with BigHead's read, you appear to have misread the argument (emphasis mine) "Well he was never a senator at any point in time, so therefore Trump is Emperor"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 09:48
|
|
|
Skex posted:This Colorado case could nip the the Trump campaign in the bud and I'm betting that the actual powers behind the GOP would be more than happy to roll the dice on Haley. Yeah, this is kind of the way I'm leaning here, this would be the last best time to take him off the board, before the campaign really builds steam. Ms Adequate posted:Though I can see one route to even greater chaos still, which is if Alito or Thomas keel over from a heart attack in the next couple of weeks. From your lips to God's ear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 10:49
|
|
|
the "officer" argument, if i am understanding correctly, is that officers of the executive branch are anyone subordinate to the president: people who hold office under the president the president is the head of the executive branch, so he is the one figure that is not an officer
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 10:55
|
|
|
Yes but as the Colorado Supreme Court justified it, it is absurd to argue that:quote:"President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land," the majority wrote. "Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three." EDIT: But all of this is purely academic, of course. As I am certain the Supreme Court will overturn this as even the Colorado state court had only a 4-3 vote on this. Keisari fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Dec 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 11:34
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Interestingly, that article points out that Trump is basically the only president who has never been anything but president. Everyone else has been a senator or governor or general. A president who used to be a senator would fall under the Amendment because that person would have, at some point, taken an oath as an officer, and the Amendment bans anyone who has taken that oath in the past. Liquid Communism posted:The hilarious part is that he, as recently as July this year, used the argument that he was a federal officer to justify trying to move a case against him from other jurisdictions to the DC circuit federal courts. The Islamic Shock fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Dec 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 11:47
|
|
|
Lol this is the SCOTUS that spent weeks with multiple members during their hearings saying Roe was "settled law" and then loving instantly gutted Roe because that's what they wanted to do all along. They'll rule however they god drat well feel like and law or precedent means less than the morning poo poo I flushed away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
Fifteen of Many posted:I’m not sure how to feel here. Like on the one hand I believe Trump did the things, and should be disqualified, but I don’t super love a precedent that allows insanely gerrymandered states like Wisconsin to unilaterally decide no dems can be on the ballot because “they’re aiding and abetting the enemy hordes flooding over the border” or some poo poo. I was thinking about this last night. It's great people are stepping up and admitting he attempted an insurrection, but the Republican's will retaliate for the courts trying to take their golden racism lamb away from them. I don't know much about this stuff, so honest question: How likely is it we end up with a patchwork of states where Dems have been thrown off the ballot? Assuming the Supreme Court allows the ruling to stay. I can't imagine them fully ruling Trump is ineligible, but I could see them saying states legislatures can handle things how they want. Although now that I think about it, didn't they rule against ISL recently? Would they trot that ruling out to say that states can't do what they want and cancel the Colorado ruling? Or am I misinterpreting the ISL ruling?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 14:31
|
|
) but lol at any coherent standard coming out of this SCOTUS
|
So presidents take the highly publicized oath of office just for fun? Not actually bound to said oath?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:So presidents take the highly publicized oath of office just for fun? Not actually bound to said oath? The idea is that the president isn't an "officer of the United States", and therefore the presidential oath of office isn't specifically an oath to be an officer. It's not quite as ridiculous as it sounds. "Officer of the United States" is actually a fairly specific term with specific requirements and conditions, and it's not really clear from the Constitutional text or caselaw whether the presidency falls into that category. It's not really a question anyone's ever had to ask before in hundreds of years of US law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I agree with earlier analysis in this thread that the Justices (with the excepting of compromised stooges obeying their minder) are unlikely themselves to be sympathetic to or eager to pursue accelerationism. They all have an interest in the system continuing to exist. If the rules don’t mean anything, they don’t mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Lol this is the SCOTUS that spent weeks with multiple members during their hearings saying Roe was "settled law" and then loving instantly gutted Roe because that's what they wanted to do all along. They'll rule however they god drat well feel like and law or precedent means less than the morning poo poo I flushed away. Honestly I think this is the most convincing perspective, sad as that is. The republicans onthe court will mostly decide on the conclusion they want and work backwards from there, the only real question for them is whether they want to detonate Trump and restore the orthodox business Republicans to primacy or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
Supreme court in X weeks: ah you see this law clearly must have been designed to ensure that 99% of people could still become president after doing a literal insurrection. There is no reason to conclude it refers to anything other than an extremely narrow and specific category of people. For everyone else it's OK. OK to attempt the insurrection, then still be a presidential candidate. Thank you for subscribing to SCOTUS facts
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
What's the specific wording of the 14th amendment? Because I'll laugh my rear end off if the wording is phrased in a way that means that him being the President of the Trump Foundation when he was sworn in means that he was, in fact, an officer at the time he took the oath.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Good God the constitution needs a complete re-write
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
Randalor posted:What's the specific wording of the 14th amendment? Because I'll laugh my rear end off if the wording is phrased in a way that means that him being the President of the Trump Foundation when he was sworn in means that he was, in fact, an officer at the time he took the oath. This is the relevant section: quote:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. It lists a number of specific posts, but president isn't one of them. The argument is whether any of the general descriptions of categories covers the president. The post of president is referred to explicitly as an "office" elsewhere in the Constitution, which makes the arguments that the president is not an officer just that much more counterintuitive (There is also an argument that, per the final clause in the section, Congress did remove such disability and effectively nullify this entire section forever. This is extensively covered in the substack link posted earlier) haveblue fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Dec 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
haveblue posted:This is the relevant section: Feel that by the same tortured logic they used to make the Second Amendment as powerful as it is they should lock on to my bolded part and ignore "of any state" or else argue that the United States is also a singular state as understood by sovereignty of states on the world stage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 16:27
|
|
|
It's frankly ludicrous to argue that the president is not an officer of the United States within the meaning of that clause. He didn't swear an oath to himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Well, it's Trump... he might have done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Well, it's Trump... he might have done.  l'état, c'est moi
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
Big brained 4-D chess move but could Biden declare retro actively all presidents are and were officers as a way to honor them this upcoming Presidents Day? The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for." (Article II, section 2)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
GloriousDemon posted:Big brained 4-D chess move but could Biden declare retro actively all presidents are and were officers as a way to honor them this upcoming Presidents Day? That would just support the argument that Trump was not an officer on Jan 6, 2021.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:They all have an interest in the system continuing to exist. If the rules don’t mean anything, they don’t mean anything. "All" implies none of them are paid by enemies of the state (foreign and domestic) to cause maximum harm. Their opinions should shed light on this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:"All" implies none of them are paid by enemies of the state (foreign and domestic) to cause maximum harm. Yeah, I’d agree regarding Thomas and Alito.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:the "officer" argument, if i am understanding correctly, is that officers of the executive branch are anyone subordinate to the president: people who hold office under the president He took an oath of office and the President is the CINC of the US military, QED he is an officer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:He took an oath of office and the President is the CINC of the US military, QED he is an officer. The motherfucking US Constitution posted:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It's hard to dance around that and say he's not an officer while holding the Office of the President of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
No, it clearly states that the Office of President is the officer, so actually the oval office is disqualified from the ballot and must be ripped from the white house and taken away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that if I was the president of a company and was arrested for insider trading, the argument "I'm not an officer of the company, I'm the president," would not fly and I would be going to jail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Look as someone who is elected to the US Federal Government, you can either be elected as an Officer or a Gentlemen. Obviously as president you are elected to be a Gentlemen, so as to be gentle to those whom over you rule. Um, although maybe at least one of those terms need to be updated a touch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Look as someone who is elected to the US Federal Government, you can either be elected as an Officer or a Gentlemen. Obviously as president you are elected to be a Gentlemen, so as to be gentle to those whom over you rule. Well that settles it, because Trump is not and has never been a gentleman
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Um, although maybe at least one of those terms need to be updated a touch. You're right - officer carries too much police brutality baggage 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Independence posted:It's hard to dance around that and say he's not an officer while holding the Office of the President of the United States. It’s funny that the framers of the constitution thought that the president’s oath of office was so important that it had to be spelled out explicitly but that hyper-textual readings since then have basically negated any penalty for failing that oath. I expect that an honest discussion with the framers would have them all saying, “of course violating the oath is grounds for impeachment, dismissal from office and bar from future office! WTF is wrong with you people?”
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
Murgos posted:
"Wait, this man routinely insults all of you, and no one has challenged him to a duel or beaten him with a cane for his cowardice?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Good God the constitution needs a complete re-write I can't really fault the writers of the Constitution for not considering "a traitorous insurrectionist wins the presidential election completely legitimately, despite all the safeguards built into the system against mob rule" to be a serious scenario that they'd have to account for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
Isn't the president also a military officer during his term in office? Specifically so he can order around the troops properly? That's a military office right there and well people can wear more than one hat, so even if the PRESIDENT is not an "officer" He was also a general at that time per the military chain of command... and thats an office of the USA right there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:Isn't the president also a military officer during his term in office? Specifically so he can order around the troops properly? That's a military office right there and well people can wear more than one hat, so even if the PRESIDENT is not an "officer" He was also a general at that time per the military chain of command... and thats an office of the USA right there. The president commands the military but is not himself part of the military and doesn't have a military rank; commander-in-chief is his role but that's not the same thing Main Paineframe posted:I can't really fault the writers of the Constitution for not considering "a traitorous insurrectionist wins the presidential election completely legitimately, despite all the safeguards built into the system against mob rule" to be a serious scenario that they'd have to account for. Yeah, there is no statutory defense against "the majority of the country wants this to happen" that we could still call democracy. It's a cultural problem at least as much as it is a political problem
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:Isn't the president also a military officer during his term in office? Specifically so he can order around the troops properly? That's a military office right there and well people can wear more than one hat, so even if the PRESIDENT is not an "officer" He was also a general at that time per the military chain of command... and thats an office of the USA right there. No, the whole point of the President as CINC is that it’s a civilian role overseeing the military.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm pretty sure that if I was the president of a company and was arrested for insider trading, the argument "I'm not an officer of the company, I'm the president," would not fly and I would be going to jail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
it also doesn’t matter whether you’re an officer or not for insider trading, just whether or not you have material non-public information
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:They all have an interest in the system continuing to exist. If the rules don’t mean anything, they don’t mean anything. Conservatives have an interest in destroying the federal government as anything other than a mechanism to transfer public funds to corporations and the wealthy. The conservatives on the court will place that goal above preserving institutions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 18:36
|
|
