Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Huckleberry 32663]

55 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You would actually be wrong about that.  As outlined above, there's considerable debate about the meaning of the term "officer" as used in the Constitution.

The one agreed/established point is that those who are appointed and confirmed by the Senate are absolutely officers. 

The question first arising in connection with Art. II, s. 2 of the Constitution:

 

"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 and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they may think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

As early as 1878, and probably earlier, the question as to who is an "officer" of the United States arose. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/99/508/  See also https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/124/303/

"Unless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the President or of one of the courts of justice or heads of departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States."

I said reasonable person. That clearly doesn't include lawyers. 

[TexasEd 8058]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

You would actually be wrong about that.  As outlined above, there's considerable debate about the meaning of the term "officer" as used in the Constitution.

The one agreed/established point is that those who are appointed and confirmed by the Senate are absolutely officers. 

The question first arising in connection with Art. II, s. 2 of the Constitution:

 

"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 and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they may think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

As early as 1878, and probably earlier, the question as to who is an "officer" of the United States arose. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/99/508/  See also https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/124/303/

"Unless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the President or of one of the courts of justice or heads of departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States."

Plain language...

The president, CEO, Chairman of the Board of a corporation are all officers.

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces - An officer

Arguing otherwise is looking for a loophole and not in good faith

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

As outlined above, there's considerable debate about the meaning of the term "officer" as used in the Constitution.

This is one of the silliest debates in the history of human language

[TwiceHorn 31087]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is one of the silliest debates in the history of human language

It may be silly, but it's for real.  And it's been for-real for quite some time.

It's always been Calvinball.

[The Dog 43716]

the gag order hearing is going just WONDERFUL for Trump:

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

11 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Arguing otherwise is looking for a loophole and not in good faith

I don't think @TwiceHorn is doing that, but I agree. And it's a ridiculous argument in part because the answer lies in the meaning of the words themselves and the nature of how they are used together. It's absurd. The President literally sits first (Prae+sedere="president") at the head of the executive branch, or make-work function (op+facere="office"). Everyone who came up with this stuff was fluent in latin. They chose titles on purpose. They chose roman words with roman meanings - a celebrant in the apostolic tradition is often called "President" because the lead the offices of the church. 

The idea that somehow the can be the presiding make-worker over the office of the president without being an officer himself because of some arcane  phrasiological artifact of construction in contravention of both plain language and clear intent of the framers is yet another sign of a federal bench in crisis.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 31087]

Saw an article somewhere that suggests the NY Trump trial team is basically attempting to bait Engoron into reversible error in the fraud trial.

Might possibly be doing the same with the gag order stuff.

[TwiceHorn 31087]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't think @TwiceHorn is doing that, but I agree. And it's a ridiculous argument in part because the answer lies in the meaning of the words themselves and the nature of how they are used together. It's absurd. The President literally sits first (Prae+sedere="president") at the head of the executive branch, or make-work function (op+facere="office"). The idea that somehow the can be the presiding make-worker over the office of the president without being an officer himself because of some arcane  phrasiological artifact of construction in contravention of both plain language and clear intent of the framers is yet another sign of a federal bench in crisis. 

No I'm not "doing that," I am exposing you to 100+ year old arguments about the meaning of the Constitution and legislation that references it.

How did you ascertain the clear intent of the framers?  You know what you want it to mean, using contemporary, 21st century understanding.

But these documents weren't drafted in the 21st century.

Also, as was pointed out earlier, the framers drafted, but the state legislatures passed/ratified.  Whose intention or understanding then is more important?

And, in case you weren't paying attention, the two Supreme Court decisions I cited, mulling over this problem, were from 1878 and 1888, respectively.  

Is it in crisis?  Or have you just not been paying attention?

Edited October 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

How did you ascertain the clear intent of the framers?  You know what you want it to mean, using contemporary, 21st century understanding.

But these documents weren't drafted in the 21st century.

If you see my edit I spoke to that:
 

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Everyone who came up with this stuff was fluent in latin. They chose titles on purpose. They chose roman words with roman meanings - a celebrant in the apostolic tradition is often called "President" because the lead the offices of the church. 

[wildcat09 29146]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

No serious person would consider the President not to be a federal officer. So the Supreme Court probably won't consider him an officer.

 

Unfortunately this excludes most constitutional lawyers and law professors. 

edit: I see you already made my point.

Edited October 16, 2023 by wildcat09

[TwiceHorn 31087]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If you see my edit I spoke to that:
 

Well, I suppose that's one mode of interpretation of the Constitution.  It doesn't/hasn't gotten much traction over the years.

Another, from which this stems, is how the word is used in the document itself.

[jimmyjazz 45430]

I'm sorry, this is just silly.  Sure, maybe it's been a silly argument for 100 years, but it's silly.  The fact that POTUS nominates and appoints other officers in no way implies that POTUS isn't an officer.  For pity's sake.

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, I suppose that's one mode of interpretation of the Constitution.  It doesn't/hasn't gotten much traction over the years.

Another, from which this stems, is how the word is used in the document itself.

OK, well let's try this - since the president is generally understood to be an officer, even if the constitution is silent* on the nature of a president (and also whether they be fully human or fully infernal) can you find me an example of a single western bureaucratic hierarchy since the advent of the Roman Republic where the holder of the title of president is not considered to be an officer?


*likely because the framers did not contemplate such silly lawyers

Edited October 16, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[wildcat09 29146]

More importantly, what possible fucking reason could they have had for wanting to exclude a president from disqualification by the 14th Amendment if he committed treason?  Is there any other evidence indicating that they thought a president should get to commit a little treason? 

[Beau Vine 53866]

34 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is one of the silliest debates in the history of human language

Well, it depends on the definition of the word "is."

[TwiceHorn 31087]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

More importantly, what possible fucking reason could they have had for wanting to exclude a president from disqualification by the 14th Amendment if he committed treason?  Is there any other evidence indicating that they thought a president should get to commit a little treason? 

True enough, except for lack of foresight.

Then again, why in the blue fuck would you use such an obscure definitiion?  Hindsight bias, but why not say any elected or appointed official or officer of the United States or of a State?  Why even add the oath part?  The notion of keeping traitorous types out of office doesn't seem to me to be limited to those who swore an oath.

Edited October 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Then again, why in the blue fuck would you use such an obscure definitiion?

What part is obscure? Where is the obscurity?

Edited October 16, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[wildcat09 29146]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

True enough, except for lack of foresight.

Then again, why in the blue fuck would you use such an obscure definitiion?  Hindsight bias, but why not say any elected or appointed official or officer of the United States or of a State?  Why even add the oath part?  The notion of keeping traitorous types out of office doesn't seem to me to be limited to those who swore an oath.

The simple answer is because people wrote it and revised it. That's just how laws work, because they're debated by and have to be agreed upon by a lot of people. Every one of whom may have a slightly different understanding of what any one portion of that law means. But I'm pretty sure nobody involved with passing and ratifying the 14th Amendment wanted to let a president commit treason and get elected again.

[jimmyjazz 45430]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What part is obscure? Where is the obscurity?

The part about beans.  Wait, what?

[Captainant 27250]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What part is obscure? Where is the obscurity?

Twice is doing his thing where he's twisting himself into knots to make it seem like the courts aren't humoring a farcical argument. We're all coming off a bye week and bad beat Astros game and aren't at our usual acuity 

[TwiceHorn 31087]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Twice is doing his thing where he's twisting himself into knots to make it seem like the courts aren't humoring a farcical argument. We're all coming off a bye week and bad beat Astros game and aren't at our usual acuity 

No, dude.  I'm showing you, with case law citations, what the law is.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's what it is.

People are countering with things that are wholly untethered to what the law is, for better or worse, but as is the usual wont.

The use of the term "officer" in the Constitution, and in legislation, has been fraught for more than 100 years.

It is what it is.

Edited October 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[C-Man 26937]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

What astonishes me, though, is that Congress continues to use definitionally fraught terms like "officers" or the recent "waters of the United States" (Clean Water Act) instead of more plain meaning words and phrases in legislation.

 

Maybe there's some method to that madness, but I don't know what it is.

Obfuscation

 

49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Saw an article somewhere that suggests the NY Trump trial team is basically attempting to bait Engoron into reversible error in the fraud trial.

Might possibly be doing the same with the gag order stuff.

Please expound upon this. I'm behind.

 

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Twice is doing his thing where he's twisting himself into knots to make it seem like the courts aren't humoring a farcical argument. We're all coming off a bye week and bad beat Astros game and aren't at our usual acuity 

How was that a 'bad beat' game?

[Huckleberry 32663]

And what it is is stupid. Sometimes the shit you get is because you refuse to let it go and just admit it's stupid or silly at best. Everyone here understands that lawyers have been having stupid arguments for hundreds of years. You're not showing anyone anything they don't already know. Nobody is surprised that the legal profession has figured out a way to make money billing time to argue about a word with a clear and obvious meaning in the 14th Amendment. 

I love the law and legal silliness as a general concept. The problem is you seem to be offended or unaware when the situation is that everyone understands but they still think lawyers are being stupid. Again, no serious person thinks the President doesn't fall under the meaning of officer in that sentence. 

[TwiceHorn 31087]

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What part is obscure? Where is the obscurity?

Well, the obscurity is partly seen in hindsight, because the legal squabbles over definition of officer in the Consitution arose post-14th Amendment.

Nevertheless, they chose a term in reference to federal officials that is used in one particular context (appointed officials), only, in the Constitution.

[G650 13851]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

And what it is is stupid. Sometimes the shit you get is because you refuse to let it go and just admit it's stupid or silly at best. Everyone here understands that lawyers have been having stupid arguments for hundreds of years. You're not showing anyone anything they don't already know. Nobody is surprised that the legal profession has figured out a way to make money billing time to argue about a word with a clear and obvious meaning in the 14th Amendment. 

I love the law and legal silliness as a general concept. The problem is you seem to be offended or unaware when the situation is that everyone understands but they still think lawyers are being stupid. Again, no serious person thinks the President doesn't fall under the meaning of officer in that sentence. 

@TwiceHorn please, for the love of god, read this  post like three or four times.

[Rimbo 25707]

59 minutes ago, The Dog said:

the gag order hearing is going just WONDERFUL for Trump:

 

I'm sorry... which case is this hearing for?

There's just too many to keep track ...

[Rimbo 25707]

44 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, this is just silly.  Sure, maybe it's been a silly argument for 100 years, but it's silly.  The fact that POTUS nominates and appoints other officers in no way implies that POTUS isn't an officer.  For pity's sake.

It's silly that a third of the country still supports this con man, but here we are.

[TexasEd 8058]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

And what it is is stupid. Sometimes the shit you get is because you refuse to let it go and just admit it's stupid or silly at best. Everyone here understands that lawyers have been having stupid arguments for hundreds of years. You're not showing anyone anything they don't already know. Nobody is surprised that the legal profession has figured out a way to make money billing time to argue about a word with a clear and obvious meaning in the 14th Amendment. 

I love the law and legal silliness as a general concept. The problem is you seem to be offended or unaware when the situation is that everyone understands but they still think lawyers are being stupid. Again, no serious person thinks the President doesn't fall under the meaning of officer in that sentence. 

Agree.  He would get less shit if he ended those posts with "It's really stupid but this is how it has been twisted".  Unless he actually agrees with it.

I guess Jefferson Davis should have been eligible to run for office under the 14th Amendment.  After all, he was "President"

['stache 21730]

42 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

More importantly, what possible fucking reason could they have had for wanting to exclude a president from disqualification by the 14th Amendment if he committed treason?  Is there any other evidence indicating that they thought a president should get to commit a little treason? 

Maybe the same reason the Supreme Court is the only court without ethics requirements. Because reasons. 

[TexasEd 8058]

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.

Hold any office, civil or military.  Don't we call it the "Office of the President"

The person how holds the Office of President is an Officer.

Good Luck getting congress to remove the disability.

 

Is Trump the perfect loophole because the only office he has ever held is President?  If he had been a state representative for NY before that and taken an oath to support the Constitution he would be disqualified?

Over to the Jan 6  Insurrectionist angle.  Have we made sure none of the people that planned or entered the capitol building are currently hold any position at the state or federal level?

Edited October 16, 2023 by TexasEd

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

8 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

I guess Jefferson Davis should have been eligible to run for office under the 14th Amendment.  After all, he was "President"

only in hindsight. At the time, they understood otherwise and didn't know they would have to explain it to scholastics later. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[The Dog 43716]

 

[jimmyjazz 45430]

It seems to me that too many attorneys are enamored of the process yet inured to outcomes.  "Ah well, nevertheless."

[dcbc 14368]

4 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

or military

Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.  -Art. II, Sec. 2, Clause 1.

[TwiceHorn 31087]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It seems to me that too many attorneys are enamored of the process yet inured to outcomes.  "Ah well, nevertheless."

Well, because there's a problem with adjusting your analysis to obtain a desired outcome.  That leads to a lack of analytic consistency.

And, while every single mode of interpretation of the Constitution has flaws, fatal flaws, the "adjust your analysis to obtain the desired outcome" is possibly the most flawed of all.

Edited October 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[The Dog 43716]

 

[TwiceHorn 31087]

33 minutes ago, G650 said:

@TwiceHorn please, for the love of god, read this  post like three or four times.

I get it.  The law is an ass.

But it is what is.  

I started this colloquy explaining that what appeared to be a grotesquely shitty argument by Trump "wasn't quite as shitty as it sounds" in that it has more than a century's worth of precedent behind it.

By the very quoted part, I acknowledge that it's a shitty argument, sort of.  This is where the whole part of "thinking like a lawyer" comes into it.  THAT is the barrier to entry to the legal profession, pretty much nothing else.

I don't do con law, obviously, but I am in an area where words and how they are strung together and then interpreted later on are immensely important.  Outcome- determinative, the outcome often involving millions of dollars and an injunction against further production and sale of infringing products.

Every fucking day, I draft things that I know are going to be subject to legal interpretation, first at the PTO, then later in the courts.  So I am kind of steeped in this shit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

None of this shit matters, Trump will continue to disobey.

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, because there's a problem with adjusting your analysis to obtain a desired outcome.

These analyses are only entertained by the court at the prompting of members of the bar seeking to obtain a desired outcome at odds with both existing interpretations AND the plain meaning of the text.  These are not grey areas or categorical gaps like whether the constitution implicitly guarantees privacy to the citizen. This is about the meaning of a word. That the president is an officer has been understood  to be true for literally millenia and it's difficult to understand what the word would even mean outside that context.
So, I appreciate you playing Devil's advocate - would you treat my earlier question? Can you cite a single example of the president in a western bureaucratic hierarchy of the last 2000 years that was not considered an officer? 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 31087]

18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

These the analyses are only entertained by the court at the prompting of members of the bar seeking to obtain a desired outcome at odds with both existing interpretations AND the plain meaning of the text.  These are no grey areas or categorical gaps like whether the constitution implicitly guarantees privacy to the citizen. That the president is an officer has been understood  to be true for literally millenia and it's difficult to understand what the word would even mean outside that context.
So, I appreciate you playing Devil's advocate - would you treat my earlier question? Can you cite a single example of the president in a western bureaucratic hierarchy of the last 2000 years that was not considered an officer? 

I'm not playing Devi's advocate.  The interpretation of the term officer (President isn't really on the table here) is the subject of a century-old dispute in US Constitutional law.

That's a fact. 

I haven't said it's good or bad, but the argument you make has been available to advocates all that time and either has not been made or has not prevailed.  I'm not fer it or agin it.  I'm just reporting what is.

What I have done in terms of devils advocacy is raise some questions about proposed definitions of President using modern notions and definitions.  And, again, the term under consideration is not President, rather officer.

 

ETA:  With respect to the 14th Amendment, this is all moot anyway.  I'd be shocked it if was found that the determination whether a person engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or aiding/comforting the enemies of the US can be made by a civil court considering whether that person can hold any office, civil or military.  It's going to require a criminal conviction, an impeachment with conviction, or possibly findings by Congress pursuant to legislation that currently does not exist (that's how it was originally done to keep traitors out of congress).

Edited October 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Dnaguy 11706]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

[Captainant 27250]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I haven't said it's good or bad, but the argument you make has been available to advocates all that time and either has not been made or has not prevailed.  I'm not fer it or agin it.  I'm just reporting what is.

What I have done in terms of devils advocacy is raise some questions about proposed definitions of President using modern notions and definitions.  And, again, the term under consideration is not President, rather officer.

You're getting shit on because you're doing the juris doctorate equivalent of "JuStAsKiNgQuEsTiOnS" and trying to convince us to not believe our lying eyes

[Foosters 17688]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Saw an article somewhere that suggests the NY Trump trial team is basically attempting to bait Engoron into reversible error in the fraud trial.

Might possibly be doing the same with the gag order stuff.

A gag order only impacting statements made by the defendant out of court can be reversible error? 

[TwiceHorn 31087]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're getting shit on because you're doing the juris doctorate equivalent of "JuStAsKiNgQuEsTiOnS" and trying to convince us to not believe our lying eyes

Well, what I am really doing is giving a bunch of amateur, armchair lawdogs some insight into how real lawdogs work.

[TwiceHorn 31087]

Just now, Foosters said:

A gag order only impacting statements made by the defendant out of court can be reversible error? 

No but it might give rise to an interlocutory appeal that delays things.  Hopefully not.

[G650 13851]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, what I am really doing is giving a bunch of amateur, armchair lawdogs some insight into how real lawdogs work.

I mean, I believe you think you are doing that.

[Horn Dog 9588]

54 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.  -Art. II, Sec. 2, Clause 1.

Yes, but are we sure we know what "Commander in Chief" or even "Army" and "Navy" really means?   These words could literally mean anything!

[TwiceHorn 31087]

1 minute ago, G650 said:

I mean, I believe you think you are doing that.

Tell me, wise one, what am I doing then?

Do you think for a bloody second that because I engage in these expository colloquies that I support Trump escaping consequences?  

Because the rest of the board sits there and bleats "this is stupid." Ok great, how far do you think "this is stupid" or "not fair" or "what a load of shit" gets you in court?  Not even monkey briefcase lawyers get to make those kinds of arguments and win.

[G650 13851]

Man you are a beating.

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

On 10/12/2023 at 8:51 PM, TwiceHorn said:

The President is clearly not 1, 2, or 3, so the question is, is he an "officer of the United States"?  And the answer to that is not as clear as it might seem.

 

42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, again, the term under consideration is not President, rather officer.

 

Square these two statements for me, would you?
I believe the question we have been discussing is whether the president is an officer of the Federal government. Are you saying that it's possible the president isn't an officer because of the way officer is defined?