Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Admiral Yi]

The 1st and 2nd Amendment seem absolutely clear to me as well, but the courts have found ways to qualify them, usually in ways the public agrees with.

[grumbler]

If they open a loophole for Musk, Schwarzenegger must step into it.

I would love it if Schwarzenegger took over from Musk.  He could toss him out by the seat of his pants and say "now GET YA ASS TO MAHS!"

Get to da Stahship!

[grumbler]

Have I said this before, or merely thought it?

The 6 conservative justices are definitely very ideological.  But they're not "in the bag" for Trump either.  They were Federalist Society hard-cores.

As such they will (and have) gone along with some very, lets call it controversial, decisions.  But just because those were in line with long-standing Federalist Society principles.

Don't put too much faith in the USSC (for example I'm not sure what they'd do with the birthright citizenship idea) but I don't think they'll just flatly ignore the language of the constitution either just because Trump says so.

The flatly ignore the language of the Constitution that say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

I don't believe that presidential immunity for criminal acts was a longstanding Federalist Society principal.  The justices had to dig deep into their own asses to justify that one.

[grumbler]

The only thing I see in the Constitution about president's committing crimes is the articles of impeachment.

And the result was that presidents (and judges, for that matter) were not charged with criminal behavior until they had been impeached or no longer held office.  Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the President being immune to prosecution for criminal acts.  The justices had to infer that sweeping judgement from a sentence fragment in a single issue of the Federalist Papers.

[The Minsky Moment]

No that is what was so shocking about that ruling.  The Fed Society favors the unitary executive, but that is a doctrine that respects, the separation of powers and is based in an orginalist conception of constitutional authority.  The notion of Presidential immunity from prosecution is fundamentally contrary to an originalist "tradition and history" approach, because the concept flagrantly contradicts original understanding, the very purpose of the American Revolution and constitutional system, the literal text, and two and half centuries of historical practice.

The only thing I see in the Constitution about president's committing crimes is the articles of impeachment.

The impeachment judgment clause specifically says that a conviction does not bar a subsequent prosecution. That provisions makes no sense if the President is immune from prosecution.

[The Brain]

Do the POTUS requirements (geezer, non-Caesarean etc) apply just to holders of the office of POTUS, or do they limit candidates for the office?

[Tonitrus]

The 22nd amendment is pretty clear in its language not allowing a candidate to be "elected" more than twice (or once if finishing most of a term).  The only loophole I could think of is simply not being elected.  But that would require a weird political maneuver such as making Trump Speaker of the House and then taking out the POTUS and VPOTUS. (so he would be succeeding into the post, not "elected").

[DGuller]

Am I imagining things, or was there at one time a contemplation, probably not serious, of having Obama as Veep?

[Caliga]

Get to da Stahship!

[Barrister]

The 22nd amendment is pretty clear in its language not allowing a candidate to be "elected" more than twice (or once if finishing most of a term).  The only loophole I could think of is simply not being elected.  But that would require a weird political maneuver such as making Trump Speaker of the House and then taking out the POTUS and VPOTUS. (so he would be succeeding into the post, not "elected").

I think the deviousness would be to have Trump listed as VP, with the intention that his running mate step down shortly after the election.

Whether it would work or not, who knows.  But I have seen that floated.  And it is similar to what Putin did when he was term-limited (before he just changed the constitution).

[Admiral Yi]

The impeachment judgment clause specifically says that a conviction does not bar a subsequent prosecution. That provisions makes no sense if the President is immune from prosecution.

Can you tell me which article and section to look at? All I can find is Article II section 4:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

[Tonitrus]

The 22nd amendment is pretty clear in its language not allowing a candidate to be "elected" more than twice (or once if finishing most of a term).  The only loophole I could think of is simply not being elected.  But that would require a weird political maneuver such as making Trump Speaker of the House and then taking out the POTUS and VPOTUS. (so he would be succeeding into the post, not "elected").

I think the deviousness would be to have Trump listed as VP, with the intention that his running mate step down shortly after the election.

Whether it would work or not, who knows.  But I have seen that floated.  And it is similar to what Putin did when he was term-limited (before he just changed the constitution).

That ploy (or the DG's idea of Obama being considered for VP) doesn't work per the 12th amendment, thus the Speaker necessity:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[Razgovory]

The impeachment judgment clause specifically says that a conviction does not bar a subsequent prosecution. That provisions makes no sense if the President is immune from prosecution.

Can you tell me which article and section to look at? All I can find is Article II section 4:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

It's in Article 1 Section 3, Clause 7

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[Admiral Yi]

Thanks Raz. 

Then the problem to me Joan is that clause only applies to office holders who have been impeached.  I.e. not Trump.

[The Minsky Moment]

Thanks Raz. 

Then the problem to me Joan is that clause only applies to office holders who have been impeached.  I.e. not Trump.

The question is whether it is consistent with proposition that the founders believed Presidents enjoyed absolute immunity.

It was always understood that non impeached Presidents could be tried criminally, that's why McConnell and a bunch of other GOP senators argued that impeachment wasn't necessary

The impeachment judgment clause was written to clarify that even though impeachment resembles a criminal trial in some ways, an impeachment conviction doesn't bar a subsequent prosecution as double jeopardy

Again it would make no sense to add that clarification if Presidents had absolute immunity from prosecution.