The Purge

[highfigh]

It's amazing that, pretty much from Washington's time in office, the issue of presidential term limits was debated and kicked around; yet, over the course of a century-and-a-half, the framers of the 22nd amendment couldn't make it more precise than this. I mean, they could have just dropped the qualifier "elected". How difficult would it be to include the phrase "under no circumstances"? Or, if there were certain circumstances, they could have been spelled out.

The 22nd wasn't seen as an issue until Roosevelt was in office for four terms. The framers NEVER saw elected government office a a career path, it was usually one or two terms and out. The initial politicians were paid for their expenses, they met occaionally and returned to their homes, to run farms and other businesses. If they were to come back and see the quagmire the US government has become, they would pass out.

Also, at that time and for many elections after, POTUS and VP didn't run as a team, POTUS received the most votes, VP came in second.

All they need to do to make something happen, or not- use the word 'shall' or 'shall not'. That word carries a lot of weight and it was used in the original language- the 2nd Amendment is an easy example where it contains "shall not be infringed". (I only used that because it's easy to remember due to all of the debate, not to start something)

I have heard "The law requires specificity" many times- if language isn't included, lawyers WILL argue for and against it, probably endlessly.

 

[Trell]

The 22nd wasn't seen as an issue until Roosevelt was in office for four terms. The framers NEVER saw elected government office a a career path, it was usually one or two terms and out.

So now now you're cosplaying a historian, unless you got some credible source? I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Broader language was rejected:

>>>By its terms, the Twenty-Second Amendment bars only the election of two-term Presidents, and this prohibition would not prevent someone who had twice been elected President from succeeding to the office after having been elected or appointed Vice President. Broader language providing that no such person shall be chosen or serve as President . . . or be eligible to hold the office was rejected in favor of the Twenty-Second Amendment’s ban merely on election.<<< (emphasis added)

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt22-1/ALDE_00001008/

To my mind it is actually quite clear that "elected" is not an accident and it means what it says. But, who knows what the U.S. Supreme Court would say.

If it wasn't an accident - and I have no reason to argue that it was - it was a deliberate choice to allow for future gaming of a presidential election.

 

[Trell]

If it wasn't an accident - and I have no reason to argue that it was - it was a deliberate choice to allow for future gaming of a presidential election.

I dunno what their reason were for this vagueness, but the damage is done, and USA and the rest of the world have to suffer the consequences.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The 22nd wasn't seen as an issue until Roosevelt was in office for four terms. The framers NEVER saw elected government office a a career path, it was usually one or two terms and out. The initial politicians were paid for their expenses, they met occaionally and returned to their homes, to run farms and other businesses. If they were to come back and see the quagmire the US government has become, they would pass out.

Also, at that time and for many elections after, POTUS and VP didn't run as a team, POTUS received the most votes, VP came in second.

All they need to do to make something happen, or not- use the word 'shall' or 'shall not'. That word carries a lot of weight and it was used in the original language- the 2nd Amendment is an easy example where it contains "shall not be infringed". (I only used that because it's easy to remember due to all of the debate, not to start something)

I have heard "The law requires specificity" many times- if language isn't included, lawyers WILL argue for and against it, probably endlessly.

But, the precision of the 2nd amendment clause "shall not be infringed" is preceded by imprecise clauses - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - leading to the almost continuous arguing we see today.

 

[Trell]

But, the precision of the 2nd amendment clause "shall not be infringed" is preceded by imprecise clauses - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - leading to the almost continuous arguing we see today.

Well, until the the "conservatives" in the Supreme Court began cosplaying historians and promote intellectually dishonest legal theories.

 

[highfigh]

But, the precision of the 2nd amendment clause "shall not be infringed" is preceded by imprecise clauses - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - leading to the almost continuous arguing we see today.

I think "being necessary to the security of a free State" is the main point. Even so-called 'gun free' countries that are considered 'free' have guns in the hands of some citizens. The governments that outlaw them completely aren't in free countries.

Since languages evolve, we see "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." following "being necessary to the security of a free State" as awkward.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for protection, shall not be infringed.”- adding 'and' & 'for protection' changes it to something that I believe many people infer as the meaning, but even that wouldn't bring total agreement across the population.

Even if it had been written that way, it doesn't matter since people can't stop being violent.

If addressing mental health care could be improved in sustantial ways, it would go a long way to help a lot of problems.

 

[cpp]

You're the one who mentioned the 22nd Amendment and trying to go around it and here's a quote from your post-

"He could exploit a little-noticed loophole in the amendment that might allow him to run for vice president and then immediately ascend back to the presidency.". That loophole doesn't exist, as shown in the quote I provided.

Why can't Snopes find info, just like everyone else?

How was it addressed to you? I quoted your whole post! You might try reading it again.

You really think that he could just refuse to leave? That's just paranoia and biting hook, line & singer on the BS bait that's flying around. Also, if SCOTUS tries to let him stay, it will be without precedent and without authority- the Consitution is still the law of the land and they can't just decide that it's irrelevant or should be violated.

You and I both don't have a dam clue what Trump can or could do. Hell the guy needs to be in jail, but the courts let him stay out. HE might figure out some way with a majority in Congress and support at the Supreme Court to hang around regardless of what the US Constitution notes, which I hope it doesn't happen. So I guess we will know in 4 darn years.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...Hell the guy needs to be in jail, but the courts let him stay out. ...

And Mitch didn't help one iota but now wants to atone? Kind of late.

 

[TankTop5]

Indictments are coming. Epstein files are just a drop in the bucket.

 

[highfigh]

You and I both don't have a dam clue what Trump can or could do. Hell the guy needs to be in jail, but the courts let him stay out. HE might figure out some way with a majority in Congress and support at the Supreme Court to hang around regardless of what the US Constitution notes, which I hope it doesn't happen. So I guess we will know in 4 darn years.

Clinton and Trump are the last two to be impeached and neither faced minor charges-

Mr. Trump was impeached for obstructing Congress and abusing his power. Mr. Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury. Both paid women to shut up and in both cases, the details came out, anyway.

Ethics- nice theory, but hard to find.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Clinton and Trump are the last two to be impeached and neither faced minor charges-

Mr. Trump was impeached for obstructing Congress and abusing his power. Mr. Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury. Both paid women to shut up and in both cases, the details came out, anyway.

Ethics- nice theory, but hard to find.

But only one of them claimed the payments as business deduction, hence the felony convictions in court.

 

[Trell]

Clinton and Trump are the last two to be impeached and neither faced minor charges-

Mr. Trump was impeached for obstructing Congress and abusing his power. Mr. Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury. Both paid women to shut up and in both cases, the details came out, anyway.

Ethics- nice theory, but hard to find.

Oh my, so Trump "abusing his power" is your euphemism for his second impeachment that was "incitement of insurrection"?

 

[highfigh]

But only one of them claimed the payments as business deduction, hence the felony convictions in court.

So, his resume doesn't include this kind of activity? Must be an oversight, by someone on his staff (if you know what I mean).

 

[Mr._Clark]

Clinton and Trump are the last two to be impeached and neither faced minor charges-

Mr. Trump was impeached for obstructing Congress and abusing his power. Mr. Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury. Both paid women to shut up and in both cases, the details came out, anyway.

Ethics- nice theory, but hard to find.

Articles I and II of the first Trump impeachment were for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress, respectively, but let's not forget the second Trump impeachment for incitement of insurrection.

 

[Nondemo01]

Would like to get this out because I feel it's important.

It is true that DoD was about to fire their probationary employees on 28 Feb citing "performance issues". This was going to be done from an OPM or DoD HR email account. We were to receive the email and notify our supervisors who would not know until the email came. This email was to come from someone in D.C. who's never met us. A Federal Judge ruled it illegal and issued a stay.

Exhibit C and D regarding the BS reasons for termination found here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/.../american-federation-of.../

 

[mtrycrafts]

Would like to get this out because I feel it's important.

It is true that DoD was about to fire their probationary employees on 28 Feb citing "performance issues". This was going to be done from an OPM or DoD HR email account. We were to receive the email and notify our supervisors who would not know until the email came. This email was to come from someone in D.C. who's never met us. A Federal Judge ruled it illegal and issued a stay.

Exhibit C and D regarding the BS reasons for termination found here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/.../american-federation-of.../

And it seems, OPM has no jurisdiction to fire DOD employees, only DOD does, I believe.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Based on what I've seen so far, the vast majority of the legal challenges to Trump's actions involve laws passed by congress under Article 1 that require the executive branch (Article 2) to do certain things and not do other things.

Simplifying for purposes of discussion, the two main questions are 1) can congress limit the President's ability to fire executive branch employees, and 2) can congress pass laws requiring the President to spend money?

Simplifying (and overstating) for purposes of discussion, the Trump administration has taken the position that any legal restrictions congress puts on the executive branch are unconstitutional, and Trump can ignore laws purporting to limit his ability to fire executive branch employees and laws purporting to limit his ability to spend or not spend money as he wishes.

Here's an example of a case involving question 1 above:

>>>WASHINGTON (AP) — The head of a federal watchdog agency must remain in his job, a judge in Washington ruled on Saturday, saying President Donald Trump’s bid to remove the special counsel was unlawful. . . .

Dellinger sued Trump last month after he was fired, even though the law says special counsels can be removed by the president “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s claims that the special counsel’s removal protections are unconstitutional because they prevent the president from rightfully installing his preferred agency head.<<<

Judge rules head of watchdog agency must keep his job, says Trump's bid to oust him was unlawful

A federal judge has ruled that the head of a federal watchdog agency must remain in his job, saying President Donald Trump’s bid to remove the special counsel was unlawful.

apnews.com

I'm not sure how the Supreme Court will rule on this, assuming the case makes it there.

This blog post provides a pretty decent overview.

125. The Court's First Trump II Case Won't Be a Bellwether

The challenge to Trump's removal of the head of the Office of Special Counsel raises unique procedural and substantive issues likely to prevent it from serving as a referendum—in either direction.

www.stevevladeck.com

I tend to agree that Trump has a decent argument in this case, but it might not mean a whole lot in terms of predicting the outcome of the other "termination" cases regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

>>>The Dellinger case. . . raises a constitutional argument in support of Trump’s conduct that is stronger in this context than it will be in almost any of the other pending cases. The Dellinger case is important in its own right. But no matter how the Court rules, we shouldn’t view the result as foreshadowing everything (or, frankly, almost anything) else that’s coming.<<<