- 04 Jun 2018 02:37
#14920859
This latest chapter has potential to ignite a knock down drag out fight that may well end up in the Supreme Court. I suggest you notify the involved parties of your verdict so as to save the country months of uncertainty and anguish.
and
No tenable account of executive power holds that a president’s purposes in exercising powers accorded under Article II, “to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” have no import. If it were otherwise — if the president had the authority to use his constitutional powers for any reason — it would follow that he could accept a bribe for doing an official act, or, more saliently, extend a pardon to keep a witness from testifying. This would very clearly violate the maxim that the president is not above the law.
If this sounds like legal theorizing, just consider the fact that Mr. Trump’s position is soundly contradicted by the Richard Nixon case. Under Mr. Trump’s view, Nixon would not have been guilty of obstruction for ordering the F.B.I. to stand down on the investigation of the Watergate burglars or paying off the defendants to keep them quiet.
annatar1914 wrote:All Nations have a Sovereign who decides when the Constitution (all Nations have written or unwritten Constitutions) in order to be defended, must be abrogated. President Trump has this power within the US Constitution.
This latest chapter has potential to ignite a knock down drag out fight that may well end up in the Supreme Court. I suggest you notify the involved parties of your verdict so as to save the country months of uncertainty and anguish.
and
No tenable account of executive power holds that a president’s purposes in exercising powers accorded under Article II, “to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” have no import. If it were otherwise — if the president had the authority to use his constitutional powers for any reason — it would follow that he could accept a bribe for doing an official act, or, more saliently, extend a pardon to keep a witness from testifying. This would very clearly violate the maxim that the president is not above the law.
If this sounds like legal theorizing, just consider the fact that Mr. Trump’s position is soundly contradicted by the Richard Nixon case. Under Mr. Trump’s view, Nixon would not have been guilty of obstruction for ordering the F.B.I. to stand down on the investigation of the Watergate burglars or paying off the defendants to keep them quiet.
"Society in those days was a perfectly competent, perfectly complacent, ruthless machine." Virginia Woolf 1897