It is.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/1...-the-kind.html
Printable View
Says an op-ed piece by a lawyer. Got a court case to back that up?
Got a court case to back up murder being a high crime or misdemeanor for a president?
Sort of yes: Perjury was defined as a high crime or misdemeanor in the impeachment of Bill Clinton as it is a federal felony. Murder is a federal felony so therefore a high crime or misdemeanor.
Now do you?
Your logic: no one's been this bad before, therefore this isn't bad.
No my logic is that corporations are seperate legal entities to people and there's no legal case history that proves a payment for services rendered to a business is legally an emolument to an individual.
Of course as everyone knows several professional and academic commenters have voiced similar opinions to those in the NYT op-ed. While they're not easy to dismiss out of hand (for philosophical reasons if not legal ones), I don't believe the courts will be willing to undermine the integrity of Trump's corporate nipple-pasties. Nor are Republicans likely to impeach him for this.
Several would, wouldn't they. But opinions aren't convictions and as far as I know there's no legal precedent so the law here is not clear unless it goes to the Supreme Court and like you I doubt they'll act on this, in which case the law remains on his side - innocent until proven guilty. Sorry Loki, that's the law.
Especially since Obama failed to replace Scalia and so now he's getting to choose the key swing SCOTUS judge, the odds of SCOTUS acting here seem to me slim to nil.
It's semantic niggling, sure, but that doesn't seem to me to be the most fair representation of what happened. It's not like Obama didn't try and make an appointment.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It wasn't a pejorative. He did make a bid to replace him but failed in his bid to replace him, that's just a matter of fact not a judgement. Had he succeeded then Trump wouldn't have a vacancy to fill immediately.
"From the law perspective" is what Wiggin said, and look at your own article again. If this is an issue, it's a non-justiciable one. So Wiggin is right on the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And frankly, you may be able to find a lawyer to make a claim in an op-ed that a business engaged in contracted services is a violation of the emolument clause (our adversarial system does in fact require lawyers to argue completely untenable positions just because someone has to defend even the most clear-cut of cases, so they get use to making positions based on what they can craft an argument for rather than reality) but that doesn't mean he or she is right. They're not. If he was still involved in the day-to-day running of it maybe, but even his canard of disentanglement is enough for what the emolument clause was designed for.
The second Trump becomes president, he'll be in violation of the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
But at least we know Congress will investigate: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...-trump-hearing
It's alleged he'll be in violation of the Constitution.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/14/u...ers-trump.html
Can someone spot an intelligent argument in there?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...ry?id=44056726Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Alleged by most people who study the Constitution. But who cares about experts, right?
By which you mean three so far, one of which insists that the emoluments clause is intended to apply to children, ex-wives, and the neighbor's dog as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I've yet to see a constitutional scholar make the opposite argument, but sure.
Maybe we need a new thread about "The Trump Administration", so we can discuss things beyond campaign promises and political in-fighting? I'll leave that to others, because I'm not very good at starting new threads. :noob:
But I feel confident in saying.....Trump's Presidency is going to be like nothing we've known from the past. Check your expectations at the door, and strap in for the ride.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...y_so_many.html
In light of this, his other statement rings kinda hollow:Quote:
In what seemed to be the only moment gobsmacking enough to bring the Senate chamber to almost complete silence, in the late afternoon Sessions had this terse exchange with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
Whitehouse suggested that lists were already circulating suggesting there might be purges or demotions of certain career appointees in the Justice Department. Whitehouse wondered whether Sessions would have a problem with career lawyers “with secular beliefs,” having in the past criticized department attorneys for being secular. Sessions replied that he has used that language about secular attorneys to differentiate between people who recognize objective “truth” and those who take positions “in which truth is not sufficiently respected.”
Get Slate in your inbox.
Whitehouse replied, with a leading, and perhaps slightly conclusory question: “And a secular person has just as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is religious, correct?” At which point Sessions responded, “Well, I’m not sure.” For a few seconds the Senate chamber seemed to go completely silent.
Sessions was quick to reiterate that he doesn’t believe in religious tests, and Whitehouse moved on to questions about whether Sessions could be persuaded to abandon the GOP denial of global warming. (He says he can.) But it was one of the very few moments in which Sessions’ deft denials of prior positions and statements veered completely off script. It spoke to the levels of obfuscation that are now customary in such confirmation hearings, especially about matters of faith, and the degree to which hearings become theater in which little true about the nominees and their most deeply felt positions are revealed. It also demonstrated that the views that Sessions is hiding are absolutely inimical to the democratic values of many members of the Senate and a large portion of the country.
Idiocracy Part Deux.Quote:
We are not a theocracy. Nobody should be required to believe anything. I share Thomas Jefferson’s words on the memorial over here: I swear eternal hostility over any domination of the mind of man. And I think we should respect people’s views and not demand any kind of religious test for holding office.
Lewksian retort: it's ok, because Obama.
Eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I have no doubt that Lewk agrees with Sessions but I don't think even Lewk would be so blatant about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Reports from the confirmation hearings are frickin hilarious/terrifying.
Trump just said his picks have the highest IQ of any cabinet. After a news story went viral on twitter about his picks being the most uneducated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
And of course he picked Devos as proof of that IQ claim. The same lady who bombed her "confirmation" hearing by talking about grizzlies (among other cringe worthy comments).
The Trump inaugural speech is not the stuff of legend, but it's mostly lacking on style, it's better than expected on substance.
Really? I was distinctly unimpressed on all metrics. Although it was obvious which parts had been largely written by him and which parts had been written by a (lackluster) speechwriter, even the few sops to people aghast at his prior rhetoric were filled with provisos and were clearly window dressing. And his two main thrusts - first, painting the US as mired in decay, and second, proclaiming an 'America First' policy - were, if not new, at least troubling. Protectionism is obviously not my favorite policy, but it was more than that - there was an angry, almost sinister undercurrent to his talk. He painted the world as a zero sum game we are losing, and appears to never have heard of the concept of enlightened self interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I'm not surprised, but I was not impressed either.
Yes really, I was expecting much worse than what we got. Aside from Isis there were no outright threathening passages. I was outright surprised when he thanked people beyond the borders of America.
The stupid fucker quoted Bane, a villain from DC comics. That line "give it back to you, the people" is straight from The Dark Knight Rises.
But oh man, people are having a god damn field day making fun of how horrible the turnout is, especially compared to Obama's.
He's a populist echoing a populist who himself drew comparisons with contemporary populists like Occupy Wall Street.