Jump to content

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

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

200w.gif?cid=6c09b9525h50pn48jkna5jd13zv

The point being the 14th Amendment is drafted so imprecisely as to be goddamn near useless, a lot like the Second.

And that's without even touching on "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"  As determined by whom?  What the fuck.  What the fucking fuck.  

We're lucky you can even base a Civil Rights Act on that piece of shit.

Noone is ever going to be barred from office under that provision unless convicted of a crime of insurrection, rebellion, or treason.  Because it's a useless piece of shit.

With shitass drafting like this is it any wonder the Supreme Court is calvinball?

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

Dutchrudder

Dutchrudder 11103

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's why that's not quite as shitty an argument as it sounds like.  The relevant wording of the 14th Amendment is:

who, having previously taken an oath, as a 1, or as an officer of the United States, or as [a member of any State legislature]2, or as [an executive or judicial officer of any State]3, to support the Constitution of the United States,  . . .

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.  In fact, it's an unanswered question as to whether the removal statute applies to Trump or not.  And one that comes up with some frequency.

Because we have a hierarchy of federal (and state for that matter) officials:

  • Elected officials
  • Officials (these almost always are "officers") appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate
  • Inferior officers (those appointed by POTUS or others and not confirmed)
  • Employees

So, many times, you have to answer to which of the above does the statute/law/amendment apply?  

And, the Constitution specifies the oath of office of the President as "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.  It does not set out the oaths for Reps or Senators but does say "support" the Constitution.

I don't know enough constitutional history to know if that was an intended difference in the original document, but suspect it might have been.

So, the "support" vs. "preserve, protect, defend," which is unique to the presidential oath is perhaps a clue that the drafters of the 14th did not intend "officers" to include the President.

Or, they were just drunk and stupid as shit and not paying attention to what they were doing.  The 14th Amendment rivals the Second in lack of clarity and linguistic WHAT THE FUCK?  

 

I think even the most insane ramblings of our "originalist" Supreme Court Justices couldn't find a way to say the founders did not intend for the President to "support" the constitution. The idea that any of those things are mutually exclusive, or not inclusive of each other would require a special set of gold medal winning mental gymnastics to try to defend.

Again though, this all goes back to the root of the problem, the Founders never expected the voting populace to elect someone so fucking stupid, careless, selfish and corrupt. They also didn't think that Congress would allow someone like that to continue to serve in that office. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I think even the most insane ramblings of our "originalist" Supreme Court Justices couldn't find a way to say the founders did not intend for the President to "support" the constitution. The idea that any of those things are mutually exclusive, or not inclusive of each other would require a special set of gold medal winning mental gymnastics to try to defend.

Again though, this all goes back to the root of the problem, the Founders never expected the voting populace to elect someone so fucking stupid, careless, selfish and corrupt. They also didn't think that Congress would allow someone like that to continue to serve in that office. 

Actually, the argument above is a "textualist" argument.

Which is ironic because unless it's the Constitution, fascist conservative judges believe nothing is relevant but the text, no legislative history, no nothing.  Pure textualism.  "We assume Congress meant what it wrote."

But with the Constitution, it's intent of the framers, mostly ascertained by what was supposedly customary at the time of drafting, which is even more nebulous than legislative intent. The earlier name for "originalism" was "original intent," which meant perusing the Federalist, the Convention "transcripts," etc. to ascertain what the founders/drafters meant, absolutely no different from legislative intent in regular legislation.  But over the last few years, it has morphed into this new thing that barely relies on the founders' stated intentions from the above sources, but just pretends its 1789.

And, again, I suspect the difference in the oaths was intentional.  Legislative types, who draft laws to supplement and enable the Constitution, must "support" it.  Executive officials, who have no such role, but must only "take care," must preserve, protect, and defend.

What that really means for the 14th Amendment is not clear.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted

On a more sanguine note relating to ambiguous and imprecise drafting, old statutes and old court decisions are wondrously poorly organized, often quite poorly written, except maybe in the "pithiest" parts, and carry a lot of excess verbiage, i.e. are "prolix," especially as compared to similar things of the last half century or so.

I tend to think people aren't much smarter today or more capable than in years past.  Empowered to do things better and more easily, sure.  

Maybe it's just appreciation for how loose wording can come back to haunt you, in these days where anything and everything is litigated to death, but it's kind of an odd phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6524

Posted
Posted
I think even the most insane ramblings of our "originalist" Supreme Court Justices couldn't find a way to say the founders did not intend for the President to "support" the constitution. The idea that any of those things are mutually exclusive, or not inclusive of each other would require a special set of gold medal winning mental gymnastics to try to defend.
Again though, this all goes back to the root of the problem, the Founders never expected the voting populace to elect someone so fucking stupid, careless, selfish and corrupt. They also didn't think that Congress would allow someone like that to continue to serve in that office. 
Yet here we are, 3 years later with zero additional guardrails installed and nothing done to prevent the same insurrection group from doing it again for a wanna be king. The framers would have hashed something out whilst drunk, with quills. Or more likely just convicted and executed fat boy post haste.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6524

Posted
Posted
On a more sanguine note relating to ambiguous and imprecise drafting, old statutes and old court decisions are wondrously poorly organized, often quite poorly written, except maybe in the "pithiest" parts, and carry a lot of excess verbiage, i.e. are "prolix," especially as compared to similar things of the last half century or so.
I tend to think people aren't much smarter today or more capable than in years past.  Empowered to do things better and more easily, sure.  
Maybe it's just appreciation for how loose wording can come back to haunt you, in these days where anything and everything is litigated to death, but it's kind of an odd phenomenon.
So glad I decided not to pursue law further.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30064

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

So glad I decided not to pursue law further.

I had a six hour mediation today with two defendants that ended at 9 PM, with one defendant - who had offered X amount to settle - later rescinding the offer because the other defendant has the same insurance company (although there are two different adjusters).  The adjuster walked back the offer because he thought he would look bad to his boss because the other adjuster was taking a hard line. FML

So this hits close to home

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Born to Run said:
2 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:
I think even the most insane ramblings of our "originalist" Supreme Court Justices couldn't find a way to say the founders did not intend for the President to "support" the constitution. The idea that any of those things are mutually exclusive, or not inclusive of each other would require a special set of gold medal winning mental gymnastics to try to defend.
Again though, this all goes back to the root of the problem, the Founders never expected the voting populace to elect someone so fucking stupid, careless, selfish and corrupt. They also didn't think that Congress would allow someone like that to continue to serve in that office. 

Yet here we are, 3 years later with zero additional guardrails installed and nothing done to prevent the same insurrection group from doing it again for a wanna be king. The framers would have hashed something out whilst drunk, with quills. Or more likely just convicted and executed fat boy post haste.

Well, to have additional guardrails, you'd have to have a functioning congress.  And it would help if approximately half of each house vehemently oppose the guardrails because it's their man blowing past them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slacks

Slacks 6791

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

On a more sanguine note relating to ambiguous and imprecise drafting, old statutes and old court decisions are wondrously poorly organized, often quite poorly written, except maybe in the "pithiest" parts, and carry a lot of excess verbiage, i.e. are "prolix," especially as compared to similar things of the last half century or so.

I tend to think people aren't much smarter today or more capable than in years past.  Empowered to do things better and more easily, sure.  

Maybe it's just appreciation for how loose wording can come back to haunt you, in these days where anything and everything is litigated to death, but it's kind of an odd phenomenon.

So... I'm not a lawyer, but took a few courses and studied with a several lady lawyers over the years. (yes, it was worth it.) 

I can attest that loose wording will come back to haunt you. 

But I was taught that all of the words, when ambiguous, were meant to support fairness and justice. 

Of course, we all know that is not how law is applied, but that is the supposed intent, according to the academics of law. 

I think Trump walks and becomes The Peoples Champ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29756

Posted
Posted (edited)

Did Trump promise to obey the laws set forth in the Constitution or any laws for that matter? 

Trump also didn't promise not to use the Constitution as toilet paper if he has to take a shit while defending it. 

Someone earlier posted that the word "support" is included in the dictionary definition of defend. I suppose Trump never promised that he would look up anything having to do with the law or his oath.

It was just words and lies. Business as usual for him and his party. We're accustomed to it, so it's okay.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 10970

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

WTF's an "incorrect fact?"

 

kind of like an alternate fact. But different.

 

17 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

You know, I truly appreciate @TwiceHorn's continued efforts to clarify the law, but I think I appreciate the reactions even more.

 

His continued efforts to clarify the law are pushing me closer and closer to believing we should just guillotine anyone who is worth more than a few million dollars.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GenXer

GenXer 2776

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

His continued efforts to clarify the law are pushing me closer and closer to believing we should just guillotine anyone who is worth more than a few million dollars.

The good news is you won the lottery. The bad news is…

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 47809

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

kind of like an alternate fact. But different.

 

 

His continued efforts to clarify the law are pushing me closer and closer to believing we should just guillotine anyone who is worth more than a few million dollars.

 

 

 

 

 

How many is a few here? You know, for my retirement planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25752

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Slacks said:

I raised my kids and I've been told I look like Chris Rock, so this hits close to home. 

 

(I do not look like Chris Rock) 

I was mistaken for Lenny Kravitz in Vienna in the Summer of 1993.

(I'm white and have short mousy-blondish-brown hair.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slacks

Slacks 6791

Posted
Posted
On 10/13/2023 at 6:32 PM, Rimbo said:

I was mistaken for Lenny Kravitz in Vienna in the Summer of 1993.

(I'm white and have short mousy-blondish-brown hair.)

I was mistaken for Lenny Kravitz on a plane last month. 

Maybe you and I look alike. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19449

Posted
Posted

How many middle-aged black jew looking dudes we got on this site anyway?  

When I was younger, I got "You look like Corey Feldman" a lot.  Though he was older, richer, and had a markedly larger substance abuse issue.  I got older, put on muscle and fat and folks told me I looked like Liev Shreiber often.  Now I lost a bunch of weight, and muscle, and went very grey/salt.  So I get what my father used to get a lot in the 1980's..."You remind me of Steve Martin."  And now, I spend my middle-aged thinking of three people who'll never be in my kitchen, and are infinitely more talented than I am.  Well, maybe I'm better than Feldman.  But that's a low bar.  

Bringing it back to #45.  A friend of mine and I were talking at ACL recently.  I've got a couple conference this week and I'm gonna try out our theory (he was stoned out of his mind for the record).  When you want to end a conversation with someone on a folksy note...don't be specific about appearance, politics, or general personality, but just say, "Oh man, you remind me a lot of Donald Trump"...and then just smile and walk away.  Since almost nobody looks like a 6'3", 275 pound glop of orange shit in a crappy tie and goofy hair...no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, they'll know you didn't mean that they physically resemble Trump to you.  But they'll just be absolutely stumped by what the fuck you mean by "I remind him of Trump?"  I tried it a couple of times today and it's a shitton of fun when you can't have alcohol.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25752

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Slacks said:

I was mistaken for Lenny Kravitz on a plane last month. 

Maybe you and I look alike. 

No, no. I don't think so. See, the only reason the guy might have thought I was Lenny Kravitz is that (1) he was in town that weekend, (2) I was leaving a hotel in downtown Vienna through a side door (3) wearing full length red pajamas.

(How I came to be there is another story involving me not knowing what the word "notausgang" meant.)

In reality, I'm a better-looking version of Jude Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)

So, back to the cases, the Garcia hearings were held on October 12.  DeOliveira waived any conflict and Cannon accepted the waiver and Irving, his lawyer, agreed not to cross-examine former clients with potentially incriminating information.  Fine, mission accomplished, ineffective assistance of counsel appeal quashed.

On Nauta, though, Cannon adjourned the hearing for reasons that aren't clear.  First, it was all under seal, so reporting comes from leakage, which is not always accurate.  But it seems like the government took the position that if Stan Woodward is going to cross-examine his former client Yuscil Taveras while representing Nauta, the conflict is non-waivable and Woodward must be disqualified from representing Nauta.  It seems like that idea has always been "on the table," or just below the surface, but was not specifically raised or briefed.  Cannon treated it like a new issue unbriefed by the parties and sent them home.  She really does seem kind of stupid.

Not a big, hairy deal either way.  Does not appear that Woodward's harebrained idea of excluding Taveras' testimony was on the table at all.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes 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.

 

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."

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...