There were reports here that Rudy Giuliani had refused the job, on account of not having been paid for previous work...
Giuliani has also claimed that since he was at the rally in question alongside Trump he's a witness, which would make in inappropriate for him to also be an attorney in the matter.
Which has happened how many times? And is how possible (and likely) in this political climate? Hence my word "virtually". I might could have said "there's no chance in Hell".
Well, Trump got a little good news today. The Supreme Court dismissed two emoluments cases against him today ruling that since he is no longer president, the cases are moot. Story here.. The deal of it is, both cases were filed shortly after he became president, but they never got to the fact-finding state. The moral of the story, we need a quicker court review.
It could set up a Catch-22. You can't sue a sitting president for violations of emoluments, and once he's no longer president, you can't sue him because it's moot. Therefore presidents cannot be held responsible for breaking the emoluments rules/laws. BAAAAD precedent.
Well, Trump got a little good news today. The Supreme Court dismissed two emoluments cases against him today ruling that since he is no longer president, the cases are moot. Story here.. The deal of it is, both cases were filed shortly after he became president, but they never got to the fact-finding state. The moral of the story, we need a quicker court review.
It could set up a Catch-22. You can't sue a sitting president for violations of emoluments, and once he's no longer president, you can't sue him because it's moot. Therefore presidents cannot be held responsible for breaking the emoluments rules/laws. BAAAAD precedent.
In legal Britspeak, a 'moot point' is one that is debatable. I don't understand why a case that is 'moot' cannot be brought to court. I'll take this up on the Brit/Ull take this up on the pond language thread in Heaven.
The thing about "members present" is that it might provide a handy out for Republicans who want to wriggle out of being forced to go on record in the matter of Trump. If enough of them dodge the issue this way, a conviction becomes more likely.
How will Republican Senators rationalise/justify voting for trump with their oath taken before the trial in which they swear before God (I assume) to be fair and judge based on the facts presented (or observed or experienced in the building) ?
From my UK view it would show a huge lack of personal honour, integrity and ongoing conscience problem to deny that oath just to back the lying shitweasel - and make their party look more corrupt in the eyes of future voters. (But not the current ones who support trump with no morality or conscience concerns.)
@Furtive Gander: We went through this with the first impeachment. Senators suffered neither electoral consequences nor crises of conscience then, and I don’t expect them to now.
Plus some, perhaps many, of them may believe that Trump’s rhetoric and inaction do not actually rise to the level of impeachable offense.
If the trial requires a criminal standard of proof (I don't believe it does) then the prosecution would have to disprove any attempt by Trump's lawyers that he had no idea that his words to the rally would result in the rally attacking Congress. Trump tried to at least maintain plausible deniability. (When I said, will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest, I didn't mean anybody to take me seriously.) His lawyers could try to argue that anybody with the mental capacity to foresee the result of Trump's actions would also have the mental capacity to foresee that it wouldn't work.
But while stupidity is a defence against criminal prosecution I don't see that it's a defence against impeachment.
Once. Though there have beenotherattempts. A lot of lower-court federal judges have been impeached, which tends to weed out the corruption-prone ones prior to making it to the Supreme Court.
The thing about "members present" is that it might provide a handy out for Republicans who want to wriggle out of being forced to go on record in the matter of Trump. If enough of them dodge the issue this way, a conviction becomes more likely.
How will Republican Senators rationalise/justify voting for trump with their oath taken before the trial in which they swear before God (I assume) to be fair and judge based on the facts presented (or observed or experienced in the building) ?
From my UK view it would show a huge lack of personal honour, integrity and ongoing conscience problem to deny that oath just to back the lying shitweasel - and make their party look more corrupt in the eyes of future voters. (But not the current ones who support trump with no morality or conscience concerns.)
I think you're assuming three things about these senators. First that they are informed about ethics and if are, that this is a priority for them. Second, that self professed religiosity and Christianity ever challenge their preconceived ideas, rather that it is used as justification. Third, that nothing is as important as money and getting re-elected. Thus political expediency.
In legal Britspeak, a 'moot point' is one that is debatable. I don't understand why a case that is 'moot' cannot be brought to court. I'll take this up on the Brit/Ull take this up on the pond language thread in Heaven.
There's a secondary meaning where the moot point is something no longer relevant to the situation; thus, there's no point debating it, because the result won't matter. As others have pointed out, SCOTUS just created an ugly Catch-22 placing any USA President above the law for life.
In fairness to the SCOTUS, both sides agreed it was moot and shouldn’t proceed to the Court. If they had granted leave to appeal, Trump would have been the appellant. Tactically, it made sense for his opponents to argue the Court shouldn’t hear the further appeal because it was moot. The reasoning in the court below (which decided against Trump) is still available for a future court to consider should the issue arise in the future.
The story I was looking at earlier was this Washington Post story (which may be behind a paywall).
What I said in my last post was a bit approximate, in the sense that the Court actually granted leave to appeal and undid what the three lower courts did, but in each case on the basis that the appeal was moot and without any comment on the merits of what the court said. If the appeals are in fact moot (as everyone seems to have agreed) then this result shoudn't be of any practical benefit to Trump.
If the trial requires a criminal standard of proof (I don't believe it does) then the prosecution would have to disprove any attempt by Trump's lawyers that he had no idea that his words to the rally would result in the rally attacking Congress. Trump tried to at least maintain plausible deniability. (When I said, will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest, I didn't mean anybody to take me seriously.) His lawyers could try to argue that anybody with the mental capacity to foresee the result of Trump's actions would also have the mental capacity to foresee that it wouldn't work.
But while stupidity is a defence against criminal prosecution I don't see that it's a defence against impeachment.
Nope. If anything it's additional grounds for impeachment, as in an office holder stupidity means you're likely to repeat the same actions, and in a person contemplating running for office again, ditto. So better to impeach the fool and remove him from any possibility of holding office ever again.
From the definition of the word trump. Originally trump implied a deceptive form of victory involving cheating, but that sense has been largely lost, though it's still around in the term trumped up, meaning something that's been falsely made up. ...
From the definition of the word trump. Originally trump implied a deceptive form of victory involving cheating, but that sense has been largely lost, though it's still around in the term trumped up, meaning something that's been falsely made up. ...
From the definition of the word trump. Originally trump implied a deceptive form of victory involving cheating, but that sense has been largely lost, though it's still around in the term trumped up, meaning something that's been falsely made up. ...
In legal Britspeak, a 'moot point' is one that is debatable. I don't understand why a case that is 'moot' cannot be brought to court. I'll take this up on the Brit/Ull take this up on the pond language thread in Heaven.
That may be right in the UK, but here a moot point is something that may perhaps be arguable/debatable, but is of no practical effect in the resolution of the matter before the court. By analogy, it is used in instances not before a court.
If the trial requires a criminal standard of proof (I don't believe it does) then the prosecution would have to disprove any attempt by Trump's lawyers that he had no idea that his words to the rally would result in the rally attacking Congress.
Is not the task of those arguing for impeachment to prove beyond reasonable doubt?
No, I'm pretty sure not. Impeachment is a political action, not a criminal one. As such, there isn't an established "standard of proof" or even a requirement for senators to examine evidence or witnesses--if there had been, Trump wouldn't have escaped the first time!
If the trial requires a criminal standard of proof (I don't believe it does) then the prosecution would have to disprove any attempt by Trump's lawyers that he had no idea that his words to the rally would result in the rally attacking Congress.
Is not the task of those arguing for impeachment to prove beyond reasonable doubt?
Nope. I'm not sure the exact standard of proof for conviction following impeachment has ever been established, but "beyond reasonable doubt" isn't it. The penalties for criminal conviction is to deprive those convicted of something to which they have a legal right. (Their property, their liberty, their life, etc.) No one has a "right" to hold federal office. It's a privilege.
No one has a "right" to hold federal office. It's a privilege.
If I am a citizen in good standing and meet all the requirements of the constitution, then, yes I have a right to hold a federal office. It is only a matter of having enough money and enough votes.
Thank you all for the replies and information. This is all strange territory here. If I'm correctly reading what you say, Dafyd's comment is really irrelevant, the Senate's procedure not being a trial.
If I am a citizen in good standing and meet all the requirements of the constitution, then, yes I have a right to hold a federal office.
No, you most definitely do not have any such right. Being a citizen and meeting all requirements means you are legally qualified to hold federal office, not that you have a right to do so.
If I am a citizen in good standing and meet all the requirements of the constitution, then, yes I have a right to hold a federal office.
No, you most definitely do not have any such right. Being a citizen and meeting all requirements means you are legally qualified to hold federal office, not that you have a right to do so.
If I win the election, but don't have a right to hold office, then we've got a problem.
That article on Salazar is very worrying. Its not the awful policy prescriptions, nor the atrocities (I am presently reading about the early days of the Sydney Cove settlement), it is the open admiration for his method of obtaining and holding power. That is truly frightening.
That's so, if his "meeting all requirements" does not include winning the necessary votes at the election. Note the "necessary" rather than a majority. For example IIRC Hilary Clinton obtained a majority of the popular vote, but not one in the Electoral College - and it was that which was necessary.
"Has a right to" is a weird way to talk about eligibility, propriety, or in general what "ought to happen." Like saying I have a right to graduate from high school after completing all the requirements. IMHO "have a right to" ought to be reserved for basic human needs that apply to large groups of people, not weird one-off situations that only exist because someone has inexplicably fucked up. Otherwise the "rights" concept gets incredibly watered down. A right to live, to vote, to worship--fine. A right to return library books late and free of charge because a pandemic amnesty was announced locally and my book was due two days into the lockdown, not so much.
I find it hard to envisage a scenario where a person who is ineligible to hold an office is allowed to stand for election to it.
You may remember that questions were raised about the eligibility of particular individuals to hold the US presidency. (John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Lots of nonsense was said abut Barack Obama. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, to an American mother and a Cuban father. Nobody is entirely clear what the phase "natural born citizen" in the constitution actually means.
If I am a citizen in good standing and meet all the requirements of the constitution, then, yes I have a right to hold a federal office. It is only a matter of having enough money and enough votes.
Note that “having enough votes” were not included among the things—citizenship and requirements of the Constitution—that were said to confer the claimed “right.” And note that many federal offices—judgeships and cabinet secretaries being primary examples—are appointed, not elected.
The requirements enumerated in the Constitution—generally citizenship and age—are requirements of qualification: a person meeting them is qualified to be considered for, elected/appointed to and sworn into the office in question. But that person had no “right” to hold that office simply because they are a citizen and old enough. Otherwise, most adult Americans have a “right” to be president or in Congress.
For elected office and generally speaking, only when a certificate of election has been issued by the appropriate authority can a person claim a right in any legal sense to that office for the specified term, and at that point they can only be removed from office through the procedures provided for removal.
As I see it, I have a right to stand for any public office provided I meet the criteria for that office (as outlined in the constitution), I become eligible for that office if I go through the political process and get nominated.
Now, in Washington State, I can get on the primary ballot for any office, provided I get enough signatures to get on the ballot. Then, if I am among the top two candidates receiving votes, I am then eligible to run for that office in the general election. But, as I said, it is a matter of money. Can I afford to do it?
An example is this last primary system. We had 15 people on the primary ballot for president. Each person is asked to indicate which party they prefer. It did not have to be either national party, though. Biden and Trump came out the top two candidates and moved on from there. I could have gotten my name on that ballot if I took the time and effort to get enough signatures. It would have been rather easy if I had gotten a dozen of my friends to stand outside certain stores to ask people for their signatures (people will sign anything in my experience).
Similarly, when the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, it also gave them the right to run for public office. It has taken a while but we now have a woman just a heartbeat away from the presidency.
You may remember that questions were raised about the eligibility of particular individuals to hold the US presidency. (John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Lots of nonsense was said abut Barack Obama. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, to an American mother and a Cuban father. Nobody is entirely clear what the phase "natural born citizen" in the constitution actually means.
There's consensus that anyone who's a citizen under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a "natural born citizen". There's also consensus that someone who is legally naturalized at some point after being born is not a "natural born citizen". It's the borderline cases (mostly people born outside the U.S. to American parents) that are unclear.
If I am a citizen in good standing and meet all the requirements of the constitution, then, yes I have a right to hold a federal office. It is only a matter of having enough money and enough votes.
Note that “having enough votes” were not included among the things—citizenship and requirements of the Constitution—that were said to confer the claimed “right.” And note that many federal offices—judgeships and cabinet secretaries being primary examples—are appointed, not elected.
The requirements enumerated in the Constitution—generally citizenship and age—are requirements of qualification: a person meeting them is qualified to be considered for, elected/appointed to and sworn into the office in question. But that person had no “right” to hold that office simply because they are a citizen and old enough. Otherwise, most adult Americans have a “right” to be president or in Congress.
If they are eligible and they win the election, then yes they have that right. You're arguing against a straw man here.
I think one can distinguish between a right to hold an office simpliciter (which people don't have), a right to run for office (which eligible people who haven't been impeached don't have), and the right once elected to hold the office (which someone who has been elected has and is conferred upon them by recognition of the results of the election).
That said, I see the original thought that holding an office is a privilege not a right. A privilege I suppose is a kind of right? There are rights of which one cannot ever be justly deprived, at least without criminal wrongdoing, and then I think privileges are rights of which one can be justly deprived if one abuses them.
Comments
Giuliani has also claimed that since he was at the rally in question alongside Trump he's a witness, which would make in inappropriate for him to also be an attorney in the matter.
Which has happened how many times? And is how possible (and likely) in this political climate? Hence my word "virtually". I might could have said "there's no chance in Hell".
Tell that to SCOTUS.
Unnecessary snipe I'm thinking.
How will Republican Senators rationalise/justify voting for trump with their oath taken before the trial in which they swear before God (I assume) to be fair and judge based on the facts presented (or observed or experienced in the building) ?
From my UK view it would show a huge lack of personal honour, integrity and ongoing conscience problem to deny that oath just to back the lying shitweasel - and make their party look more corrupt in the eyes of future voters. (But not the current ones who support trump with no morality or conscience concerns.)
Plus some, perhaps many, of them may believe that Trump’s rhetoric and inaction do not actually rise to the level of impeachable offense.
But while stupidity is a defence against criminal prosecution I don't see that it's a defence against impeachment.
Once. Though there have been other attempts. A lot of lower-court federal judges have been impeached, which tends to weed out the corruption-prone ones prior to making it to the Supreme Court.
It may even be considered an aggravating factor.
I think you're assuming three things about these senators. First that they are informed about ethics and if are, that this is a priority for them. Second, that self professed religiosity and Christianity ever challenge their preconceived ideas, rather that it is used as justification. Third, that nothing is as important as money and getting re-elected. Thus political expediency.
I've an extremely dim view of politicians.
There's a secondary meaning where the moot point is something no longer relevant to the situation; thus, there's no point debating it, because the result won't matter. As others have pointed out, SCOTUS just created an ugly Catch-22 placing any USA President above the law for life.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012521zor_3f14.pdf
The story I was looking at earlier was this Washington Post story (which may be behind a paywall).
What I said in my last post was a bit approximate, in the sense that the Court actually granted leave to appeal and undid what the three lower courts did, but in each case on the basis that the appeal was moot and without any comment on the merits of what the court said. If the appeals are in fact moot (as everyone seems to have agreed) then this result shoudn't be of any practical benefit to Trump.
Nope. If anything it's additional grounds for impeachment, as in an office holder stupidity means you're likely to repeat the same actions, and in a person contemplating running for office again, ditto. So better to impeach the fool and remove him from any possibility of holding office ever again.
Oh please.
He should only turn witness in the Senate and give us the whole thing on public broadcast. I'll get the popcorn.
Shall I book the Sossidge-inna-Bun man?
Originally trump implied a deceptive form of victory involving cheating, but that sense has been largely lost, though it's still around in the term trumped up, meaning something that's been falsely made up. ...
We could have an international watch party...
It also means a little fart.
I did not know that it related to the size .
That may be right in the UK, but here a moot point is something that may perhaps be arguable/debatable, but is of no practical effect in the resolution of the matter before the court. By analogy, it is used in instances not before a court.
Is not the task of those arguing for impeachment to prove beyond reasonable doubt?
Nope. I'm not sure the exact standard of proof for conviction following impeachment has ever been established, but "beyond reasonable doubt" isn't it. The penalties for criminal conviction is to deprive those convicted of something to which they have a legal right. (Their property, their liberty, their life, etc.) No one has a "right" to hold federal office. It's a privilege.
If I am a citizen in good standing and meet all the requirements of the constitution, then, yes I have a right to hold a federal office. It is only a matter of having enough money and enough votes.
The threat of that might make said hand actually write a non rubber cheque for the bill he is apparently studiously ignoring.
If I win the election, but don't have a right to hold office, then we've got a problem.
I find it hard to envisage a scenario where a person who is ineligible to hold an office is allowed to stand for election to it.
The issue is not eligible but "has a right to". @Nick Tamen says they're not the same.
Ahem. Have you forgotten just how many members of the Australian Parliament managed to not get their own citizenship right a couple of years back?
I grant you, everyone somehow missed they were ineligible until after they were elected, but they were all ineligible when they stood for election!
Turns out that around here we often have to ask the High Court to clear it up for us.
You may remember that questions were raised about the eligibility of particular individuals to hold the US presidency. (John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Lots of nonsense was said abut Barack Obama. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, to an American mother and a Cuban father. Nobody is entirely clear what the phase "natural born citizen" in the constitution actually means.
To clarify on “rights,” I was responding to this statement: Note that “having enough votes” were not included among the things—citizenship and requirements of the Constitution—that were said to confer the claimed “right.” And note that many federal offices—judgeships and cabinet secretaries being primary examples—are appointed, not elected.
The requirements enumerated in the Constitution—generally citizenship and age—are requirements of qualification: a person meeting them is qualified to be considered for, elected/appointed to and sworn into the office in question. But that person had no “right” to hold that office simply because they are a citizen and old enough. Otherwise, most adult Americans have a “right” to be president or in Congress.
For elected office and generally speaking, only when a certificate of election has been issued by the appropriate authority can a person claim a right in any legal sense to that office for the specified term, and at that point they can only be removed from office through the procedures provided for removal.
Now, in Washington State, I can get on the primary ballot for any office, provided I get enough signatures to get on the ballot. Then, if I am among the top two candidates receiving votes, I am then eligible to run for that office in the general election. But, as I said, it is a matter of money. Can I afford to do it?
An example is this last primary system. We had 15 people on the primary ballot for president. Each person is asked to indicate which party they prefer. It did not have to be either national party, though. Biden and Trump came out the top two candidates and moved on from there. I could have gotten my name on that ballot if I took the time and effort to get enough signatures. It would have been rather easy if I had gotten a dozen of my friends to stand outside certain stores to ask people for their signatures (people will sign anything in my experience).
Similarly, when the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, it also gave them the right to run for public office. It has taken a while but we now have a woman just a heartbeat away from the presidency.
There's consensus that anyone who's a citizen under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a "natural born citizen". There's also consensus that someone who is legally naturalized at some point after being born is not a "natural born citizen". It's the borderline cases (mostly people born outside the U.S. to American parents) that are unclear.
Then they're not eligible for that office. You're playing with words now.
If they are eligible and they win the election, then yes they have that right. You're arguing against a straw man here.
That said, I see the original thought that holding an office is a privilege not a right. A privilege I suppose is a kind of right? There are rights of which one cannot ever be justly deprived, at least without criminal wrongdoing, and then I think privileges are rights of which one can be justly deprived if one abuses them.