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 32155

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

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? 

Well, the Amendment does not use "President," except in other contexts (which also adds to the quagmire).

The term in question is "officers of the United States" not President, and that is the term that must be interpreted.  I have never implied otherwise.  The various definitions of President, I didn't really comment upon except that most of them, particularly those related to corporate organization, are much more modern than the Constitution, if not the 14th Amendment.

I haven't offered an opinion on the matter.   Without having been exposed to what I have been exposed to in litigation over the term officers, which often excludes elected officials, I might tend to agree with you.  I'm not sure the President/officer question has been addressed anywhere.  As mentioned it is an unresolved issue with respect to "federal officer" removal under 28 USC 1442 which has been under much scrutiny lately.

But as far as determining whether the term "officer" encompasses the president, I think definitions of president may be of limited utility.

And yes, the entirety of the "officer" problem, which has arisen in many other contests, is its usage in Art. II, s. 2, cl. 2, the "Appointments Clause."  

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28.5k
  • 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

tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78873

Posted
Posted
4 hours 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.

 


Alito and Thomas are ready to rule

he’s the commander and chief, that’s sounds like an officer to me 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 27008

Posted
Posted (edited)

but @TwiceHorn that doesn't answer the question. I've asked you two of them:
1) 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?
2) Is it possible the president isn't a officer of the executive branch because of the way officer is defined in the law? 

If you intend not to answer or indulge the question, that's fine. Just say so an I'll not ask again. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32155

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

but @TwiceHorn that doesn't answer the question. I've asked you two of them:
1) 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?
2) Is it possible the president isn't a officer of the executive branch because of the way officer is defined in the law? 

If you intend not to answer or indulge the question, that's fine. Just say so an I'll not ask again. 

No I can't I don't have the resources.  I don't really argue the point.  A large reason for that is that "plain meaning" is not usually an interpretive device used w/r/to the Constitution, unless it's "plain meaning ca. 1789."

As to 2), I said the term under consideration is "officer of the United States" not "President" and suggested that definitions of the latter typically aren't useful in defining the former and that the problem arises because the Constitution, in particular the cited section, uses officer in a pretty specific way.  I quoted it way above. It doesn't "define it," the Constitution is conspicuously missing a definitional section.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 27008

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/12/2023 at 8:51 PM, TwiceHorn said:

who, having previously taken an oath, as [a member of Congress]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

Pardon me - leaving the other issues aside, how is he clearly not #2, having taken an oath to:
"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."

You later go on to say 

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

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.

So the crux of the textualist argument is therefore that the president is either that the president is not an officer because reasons or took an oath of office that didn't include the word support and either isn't an officer for that reason or doesn't have to "support" the constitution if he is?
Do I have that right?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78873

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Pardon me - leaving the other issues aside, how is he clearly not #2, having taken an oath to:
"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."

You later go on to say 

So the crux of the textualist argument is therefore that the president is either that the president is not an officer because reasons or took an oath of office that didn't include the word support and either isn't an officer for that reason or doesn't have to "support" the constitution if he is?
Do I have that right?


trump crossed his fingers while taking the oath 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32155

Posted
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Pardon me - leaving the other issues aside, how is he clearly not #2, having taken an oath to:

He's clearly not #2 because he's not a member of any state legislature.

I have already explained at great length the source of the "officer of the United States" definition.

The Constituton prescribes the literal oath of the President and that oath fails to say "support."  Conversely, it doesn't specify the oath of Congresscritters, but requires that the oath include "supporting the Constituition."

At best, a highly curious inconsistency.  Deliberate?  Meaningful? I don't fucking know.  

But words do tend to matter.

And an amendment is an amendment to an existing document, so you use the same language in a different manner at your peril.  So why the fuck did Congress use "officer of the United States" inconsistently with its use in Article II?  Why did it reference the congressional oath language of "support" and omit the presidential oath language?

I don't fucking know.  But they did.  And they created this fucking mess.

ALSO, YOU BUNCH OF FUCKWADS, TELLING YOU WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS IS NOT ADVOCATING FOR THE ARGUMENT.  

IT"S GODDAMN NEAR FACTUAL.

So, for those of you ascribing some kind of motive to me other than to explain what the law is in the face of your multitudes of questions, fucking gargle my balls.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 14464

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

ALSO, YOU BUNCH OF FUCKWADS, TELLING YOU WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS IS NOT ADVOCATING FOR THE ARGUMENT.  

 

At some point you will realize you are having a completely different conversation than everyone else. You keep regurgitating the argument. Everyone is talking about how stupid the argument is. You can explain it fifty more times, no one cares man.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32155

Posted
Posted

Another curiosity, apparently, any enlisted personnel of the military would be exempted from the 14th Amendment.  Under constitutional text interpretations or "ordinary meaning."

So E-1 up to SM of the Army and MCPO of the Navy can insurrect, rebel, and treason away and stand for office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18179

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Another curiosity, apparently, any enlisted personnel of the military would be exempted from the 14th Amendment.  Under constitutional text interpretations or "ordinary meaning."

So E-1 up to SM of the Army and MCPO of the Navy can insurrect, rebel, and treason away and stand for office.

[chuckles in Founding Father] Because everyone knows gentlemen would NEVER elect an enlisted person!  Pshaw, it'd be a rule for things that would never happen. Like women getting the vote, or abolition of slavery.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32155

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

[chuckles in Founding Father] Because everyone knows gentlemen would NEVER elect an enlisted person!  Pshaw, it'd be a rule for things that would never happen. Like women getting the vote, or abolition of slavery.

Pretty much what I was thinking, possibly with the addendum that any enlisted is by definition so foolish as to be excused for any such activities.

However, this was in 1868.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32155

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47as7f5ss9hb3eve567f

no opinion, but damn near a page and a half telling everyone off why the president could reasonably NOT be considered an officer of the United States? You must have some gullible clients lol

I do have the ability to make arguments that inure to my clients' benefit, whether I agree with those arguments or not.

And, most of my comments here have been in response to Bozo's specific questions or additional, tangentially related comments about why Congress was so fucking sloppy in drafting the 14th Amendment, this particular section in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32155

Posted
Posted

Also, I wonder if the opinion that "it's stupid" would prevail if President/Trump was excluded from the operation of the removal statute?

(a)A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1)
The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8272

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, I wonder if the opinion that "it's stupid" would prevail if President/Trump was excluded from the operation of the removal statute?

(a)A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1)
The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof,

Thought that one has already been answered by the lower courts that 1) He was an officer but 2) the actions were not part of his duties as an officer.  Maybe it was Meadows and Trump dropped his because of the writing on the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 27008

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Constituton prescribes the literal oath of the President and that oath fails to say "support."  Conversely, it doesn't specify the oath of Congresscritters, but requires that the oath include "supporting the Constituition."

That’s a long stretch. It certainly says they have taken an oath to support the constitution. It does not require the oath include the word “support” or any other thing.

what people tend to forget is that the authors of the 14th amendment were not universally lawyers, let alone Federalist society textualists, and relied on plain meaning and guide their writings.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47397

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Take an oath to faithfully execute the "OFFICE" of the chief executive of the federal government. 

Lawyers: but he might not be an officer of the federal government

I work in an office.  (Well, I work in an office on Mondays and Fridays.)  That said, I am not an officer.  Therefore, people who work in offices are not officers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Goredho

Goredho 17665

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

Petition to rename TwiceHorn's username to Axiom of Lawdoggery.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Haha 8
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 10202

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, I wonder if the opinion that "it's stupid" would prevail if President/Trump was excluded from the operation of the removal statute?

(a)A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1)
The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof,

If  Trump was currently president, and thus an officer of the United States, he probably could and would (?did) make this argument. The fact is he is not currently president, and thus he is not currently an officer of the US, therefore.. its still stupid.

Edited by Horn Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14675

Posted
Posted
7 hours 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 

Sir, it was not a bad beat.  It was a fantastic win, and having that cheater doubled up missing second made it oh so sweet.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28633

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Sir, it was not a bad beat.  It was a fantastic win, and having that cheater doubled up missing second made it oh so sweet.

I more mean that the stros left SO MANY people on base and couldn't make any runs. That's bad baseball when you've got bats like the Astros do

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19647

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Let's check in on how the latest gag order is going...

Post image

Biden Judge Chutney! (Well, Barack Hussein Obama appointed her.  But Trump judge Cannon is OK),

I thought this was America (hey, my favorite president like South Park!  The Rs are getting better at comedy!)

Monkeys (I wonder what he means by that?)

We have the 2A, too.  (Let's use our guns!!)

This douche should be in jail tomorrow.

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32155

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Thought that one has already been answered by the lower courts that 1) He was an officer but 2) the actions were not part of his duties as an officer.  Maybe it was Meadows and Trump dropped his because of the writing on the wall.

Nope, the officer issue wasn't litigated, because Meadows was one, effectively.  Nor was it litigated in NY in Trump's removal of the Manhattan case.

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...