Trump vs the Constitution

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Trump vs the Constitution

Tagged: 

Viewing 44 posts - 1 through 44 (of 44 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1934740
    jackk
    Participant

    Trump Adviser Peter Navarro said today to Jeanine Pirro that Biden’s Inauguration Can Be Postponed

    After host Jeanine Pirro noted that “January 20th cannot be changed, that’s constitutional,” Navarro shot back: “Well it can be changed, actually. We can go past that date … we can go past that date if we need to.”

    A Trump advisor who openly believes that he can declare the constitution null and void for the sake of Trump.

    Trump is going to wake up on January 20th, and I don’t believe that he will wake up until then, and find out that the constitution of the US is alive and well.

    #1934782
    ujm
    Participant

    Navarro is correct. If the January 6 joint session of Congress lasts past January 20, then the inauguration is delayed until the joint joint session is complete and determines a winner of the electoral college. The joint session is likely to be delayed past January 6 due to multiple objections. Each objection requires two hours of floor debate. Plus there’s additional administrative time until the two houses convene for each two hour debate plus reconvene for the joint session after each two hour debate. That’s usually four hours from the time of the objection until the count continues after the debate.

    There are fifty one slates of electors. There are five hundred and thirty eight electors. One Senator plus one Congressman can object to each of the fifty one slates. Or if they want to delay it even more they can individually object to each of the 538 electors. Requiring 2 hours of debate (about four hours of interruption) each time.

    Congress also needs to sleep at night. It can easily go past January 20. And Michael Pence is the presiding officer of Congress who rules on how to handle each objection.

    Freilichen Purim!

    P.S. There’s a legitimate constitutional debate as to whether the Succession Act is constitutional in placing non-members of the Executive Branch (the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Temp of the Senate) in the line. The Attorney General has the authority to determine its constitutionality and how to carry out the law. If it seems likely they’ll be no declared winner from the joint session of Congress before January 6, the AG potentially could rule that the Speaker and Pro Temp are skipped and therefore Secretary of State Mike Pompeo becomes Acting President on January 20, until the joint session declares a winner.

    Freilichen Shushan Purim!

    #1934831
    yaakov doe
    Participant

    Trump’s term ends at noon on January 20 as does Pence’s. The one who is next in line is Nancy Pelosi who would be acting President until the matter is resolved. There is no way the Attorney General could prevent Speaker Pelosi from ascending to the office.

    #1934865
    CTLAWYER
    Participant

    ujm, your ignorance is showing again.

    The USA does NOT have an Attorney General, Barr resigned in December. No nominee was sent to the Senate for Confirmation by Lame Duck Trump.
    Even if there were an Attorney General, his/her term would expire January 20, 2021 at noon EST.

    #1934877
    ujm
    Participant

    Yaakov: I addressed your point in my P.S. The AG can declare the Secretary of State next in line after the Vice President. That would make Mike Pompeo the Acting President at noon on January 20, *IF* the scenario I described transpires.

    CTL: There’s an Acting Attorney General. He has the same power as a sitting AG in this case. Furthermore, you are incorrect. None of the members of the cabinet, including AG, Acting AG, Secretary of State, etc stop serving in their positions on January 20 at noon, until and unless the new President or Acting President fires any of the cabinet members. Unless and until such time the outgoing administration’s cabinet legally continues to serve in their position.

    #1934878
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    UJM: I guess you get some perverse pleasure in knowingly flaunting your ignorance of constitutional law (or any “legal” issue for that matter). In addition to the points made by CT lawyer above, perhaps the most breathtakingly stupid comment is that the “AG gets to determine” the constitutionality of any law. Nope. He (or any aggrieved party that can demonstrate standing) can ask a court to make such a finding but cannot unilaterally make such a determination. Otherwise, it would render the legislative branch a nullity. SCOTUS gets to revisit a prior decision and decide it was “wrongly decided” but Presidents don’t have that option.

    #1934882
    Abba_S
    Participant

    If the election is challanged and extends beyond Jan. 20 the USA will be entering uncharted waters. Even if the Speaker takes over, it will be interesting becuase if she becomes President there is going to be a race for speaker and the Republicans maybe able to win the speakership. Even if they can’t, there is a good chance, due to her number of enemies, of her getting impeached once becoming president.

    #1934887
    jackk
    Participant

    Now there is the Trump call to the Governor of Georgia.
    It is the same style as the Ukraine call.

    Pressure until you get what you want regardless of legality and then deny everything when caught.

    #1934894
    bored guy
    Participant

    ctlawyer lol Rosenstein is the acting ag and has the same powers. not sure what the point of this thread is anyways other than you’re just a troll who likes ticking off trump supporters all you’re post are all about one thing that you don’t like d Trump. show some originality Branch out to new Vistas explore your paradigms.

    #1934910
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Bored Guy:
    Now we know why you are so bored. You must still be living in a time warp. Rod Rosenstein resigned back in May 2019 and is now a partner at K&S. Jeff Rosen (who replaced Rosenstein as acting AG) became acting AG on Christmas Eve when Barr “went back to spend more time with his family” (or to avoid being fired by the Trumkopf for not finding evidence of systemic election fraud). If you don’t even know who is the Acting AG, not sure we should have any confidence in your constitutional scholarship.

    #1934914
    jackk
    Participant

    Bored guy,

    Kind of unbelievable that you ask we should ignore the topic of the president of the US .

    #1934922
    bk613
    Participant

    “Now there is the Trump call to the Governor of Georgia.”

    I wonder if twitter will apply their hacked material policy to this phone call?

    #1934925
    CTLAWYER
    Participant

    @bored
    I’m no troll.
    Tired of UJM constantly posting lies.
    Again, we have an acting AG, not an AG as UJN posted. He will not be acting as of noon on January 20, 2021.
    After the recordings of yesterday’s phone call from Trump to the Georgia Secretary of State, no one in their right mind can profess to be a Trump supporter.

    Donny thinks he can be Dictator for Life like his buddies in Russia, North Korea and China.
    It appears that he has broken Georgia law and no Federal pardon can save him from prosecution if the sovereign state of Georgia decides to proceed.

    As to the point of this thread, I suggest you ask the OP. I didn’t start the thread, but will not let ujm’s lies and inaccuracies go unchallenged.

    #1934939
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Georgia if you listening find me 11,780 votes, sound familiar Russia and Hillary’s email?

    #1934944
    ujm
    Participant

    Hadorah: It is a legal fact that the President and AG have the legal right and ability to determine a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional and so declare and act accordingly by not enforcing the act they determine is unconstitutional. This is a routine point and fact that is regularly done by presidents and AGs. Often when signing a law the president will add a “signing statement” declaring a particular provision of the law unconstitutional. And thereafter disregard the provision declared unconstitutional.

    CTL: You are merely repeating your factually false claims. You are absolutely wrong about this matter of constitutional law. You may practice state civil tort in court but your knowledge of federal constitutional law is demonstrably poor.

    #1934951
    JacobLev
    Participant

    The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate determiner of the constitutionality of a law. Not the President, the attorney general and not the congress.

    #1934955
    ujm
    Participant

    If the joint session that starts on January 6 doesn’t declare a winner by January 20, there will be only an Acting President, and no elected president, in office until the joint session declares a winner.

    #1934954
    ujm
    Participant

    As links aren’t permitted, Google (without quotes): unconstitutional presidential succession act

    Take your pick from any number of results, especially “A Presidential Succession Nightmare” on the Lawfare site or even the Wikipedia article.

    The general legal consensus is that the weight of constitutional evidence is that the act is unconstitutional in placing any Congress members in the line of succession and, therefore, they could be skipped.

    #1934965
    yaakov doe
    Participant

    The Trump call with the Georgia election officials is amazing. The great deal maker restates all of the debunked claims of election fraud and urges that a way be found to give him just the number of votes he needs to win despite his claim that he actually won by hundreds of thousands of votes.
    Super lawyer Rudy Guiliani should have advised his client never to discuss crimes on the phone, but to rather go for a walk to discuss the crimes where they can’t be bugged or recorded.
    Isn’t it surprising that the President has an hour available in his busy schedule?

    #1934966
    charliehall
    Participant

    “the Republicans maybe able to win the speakership”

    No they won’t. Not one Democrat will vote for any Republican for Speaker and the Democrats currently have an 11 vote majority, with two vacancies, one because a newly elected Republican died from COVID, and the other because there is an upstate New York seat that is still too close to call. Steny Hoyer would become the new Speaker and there will be huge rejoicing among every supporter of Israel other than the ones who put loyalty to Trump over the interests of the Jewish people.

    #1934967
    charliehall
    Participant

    ujm is really showing is ignorance here. There is nothing for the AG or ex-President to enforce; Nancy Pelosi would be sworn in at 1201pm on January 20 and nobody will be able to stop her. She will immediately fire every political hack in Trump’s orbit including Pompeo, and there will be no Vice President.

    #1934968
    charliehall
    Participant

    “And Michael Pence is the presiding officer of Congress who rules on how to handle each objection.”

    As of 12 noon on January 20, Pence is a private citizen. There would be no Vice President after that point under your scenario.

    For most of US history, officers of Congress — the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives — were first and second in line of succession. Only Trumpies have ever seriously suggested that that was a problem.

    In any case, the House can prevent anyone in the cabinet from becoming President by impeaching them. That is in both the 1947 law and the 1886 law that preceded it. Were Pompeo try to pull such a stunt he would probably be immediately impeached.

    The real question is why you want America to become an undemocratic fascist dictatorship.

    #1934973
    ujm
    Participant

    Charlie: Impeaching Pompeo simply moves the Acting Presidency down the line to another Trump cabinet member.

    The Justice Department can issue a legal opinion before January 20 that constitutionally the succession act must skip members of Congress. Then at noon on January 20 the AG swears into office as Acting President a member of Trump’s cabinet.

    As I suggested, read “A Presidential Succession Nightmare”, written by a liberal Democrat legal scholar.

    Once Pence is out of office, Republican Chuck Grassley becomes the presiding officer of the Joint Session of Congress in the absence of the joint session having yet declared a winner of the electoral college.

    #1934982
    ujm
    Participant

    Suddenly the Democrats are crying how “undemocratic” it is for Republicans to use a fully legal, constitutional, process when just mere months ago the Democrats used the constitutional impeachment process as an undemocratic political farce attempt to overturn the will of the voters and the election the Democrats lost.

    #1934983
    akuperma
    Participant

    The Constitution clearly makes it the resonsibiity of each state to decide how it chooses electors. In fact, it is a minhag to have a direct election – at one time state legislatures chose them.

    If a new president, isn’t chosen by noon on Jan. 20, the next person is line would be the Speaker of the House, who is Nancy Pelosi.

    Even the most militant pro-Trump fanatics prefer Joe Biden to Nancy Pelosi.

    #1935008
    Amil Zola
    Participant

    UJM: ‘As I suggested, read “A Presidential Succession Nightmare”, written by a liberal Democrat legal scholar.” Jack Landman Goldsmith is not now nor has he ever been a liberal Democrat. It’s pretty apparent after reading the blog post you cited above that you have zero understanding of the convo. But it’s a blog post, not a scholarly opinion on COG or presidential succession.

    #1935015
    ujm
    Participant

    Ms. Zola, Mr. Goldsmith is an expert on federal law (among other areas of law) at Harvard Law School. You’re clearly out of your element in unsuccessfully attempting to understand the subject matter. Perhaps you can have someone explain it to you.

    #1935094
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ujm

    It is interesting how you silly ideas change

    I’m glad you’ve given up on the wrong idea that Pence can choose which electors count . You now accept that it is inevitable that eventually Biden will be president, just that might be delayed a bit to cause problems. (Can you imagine how much the Republicans hate this country that you can imagine them causing this headache just to delay President Biden’s term by a few days? a month? *)

    At any rate the law is clear. Pelosi becomes President. If there is a question about constitutionality the courts can decide. I know you assume republicans are criminals and don’t care much for laws. but give them a little credit Are you really suggesting they would unilateraly volate laws to seaze power for a few days?
    and you have trouble understanding why unlike FOLLOWING impeachment procedures that would be undemocratic?

    * I think you overestimate the length of the debate 13 senators said will challenge (need senator + representative) Only 4 states have been questioned that’s 26 hours of debate (2 hours is the maximum not minimum) even if they need an extra 2 hours for each debate to Schmooze? chap a coffee ? that is 52 hours If they skip weekends work 9 – 5 they can be done well before the 20th.
    And that is a lot of ifs

    #1935107
    ujm
    Participant

    Folks, please read Loyola University Chicago Law Journal’s “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management” before even attempting to mindlessly respond with legally inaccurate claims.

    #1935120
    gadfly1
    Participant

    You wanna talk about the Constitution? Here’s the clause regarding the States role in regulating Federal elections:

    Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

    So it’s clear that according to the Constitution, the power to determine the “Manner of holding elections” (referring to Federal elections) lies solely with the State legislatures. Not the Governors or Secretaries of State or State Supreme Court. Unfortunately many states with Democratic leadership but Republican legislatures decided to sidestep this clause by using their (Democratic) State Courts to amend the laws to favor their party. (Mail-in ballots, no signature verification, and extended deadlines tend to favor the Democratic party.)

    These are the same people who then lecture us on Trump violating the Constitution.

    #1935131
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ujm

    Folks, please read Loyola University Chicago Law Journal’s “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election

    great read. thanks for sharing

    It does not mention many of the wrong ideas that you have Like The Attorney General choosing to disregard laws
    You are making stuff up and sharing (interesting) articles that do not at all say what you claim.

    gadfly

    “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;”

    Yes beforehand not afterwards. The laws for voting in a state are determined by the legislature. not determining the winner

    #1935136
    ujm
    Participant

    ubiq, you obviously didn’t read the first citation I posted on the Lawfare site. That article, in fact, does say that the Justice Department/Attorney General can unilaterally declare the succession act partially unconstitutional and thereafter act accordingly by skipping the two members of Congress listed in that act, for the purposes of succession.

    #1935144
    Amil Zola
    Participant

    UJM, why did you lie about Goldsmith being a liberal democrat?

    #1935151
    jackk
    Participant

    Trump, his lawyers and the Republican party have an unwillingness to comprehend that the constitution is the only document that is keeping this country from ripping itself apart.

    They also do not realize that both sides can play this game.

    Let us imagine other scenarios where the Democrats ignore the parts of the constitution that they deem to be unconstitutional.

    #1935150
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    UJM

    “ubiq, you obviously didn’t read the first citation I posted on the Lawfare site.”

    sure did! You provide great sources!

    Though not really an article more musings of a professor, musings are fine , keep sharing

    But arent “proof”

    and the the second more exhaustive article doesn’t -at all – raise the ideas you are using it t buttress

    #1935163
    ujm
    Participant

    ubiq, after having read the Lawfare article are you willing to concede that the Justice Department/Attorney General have the standing to declare an act (partially) unconstitutional and act accordingly by disregarding provisions they deemed contrary to the constitution? This type of action has occurred regularly with different presidential administrations over the last half century and longer. (Obviously not with the succession act in particular, as that act has never been used in history.)

    jackk, you’re a day late and a dollar short. The Democrats already HAVE played this game with their abuse of the constitutional impeachment process for use as a political weapon and a farcial attempt to overturn the election they lost and the will of the voters.

    Now the Democrats are reaping what they sowed with the Republicans utilizing constitutional and legal mechanisms available in kind.

    #1935178
    jackk
    Participant

    I am right on time. The democrats in congress were filling their obligation to the constitution and I hope that they do it again in the next 17 days since Trump is almost completely anarchic right now.

    The US Constitution:
    Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

    The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

    Article II, Section 4 provides:

    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.

    #1935183
    ujm
    Participant

    Since you’re such a great constitutionalist, jackk, you are well aware that the constitution gives Congress the sole right to determine the validity, or lack thereof, of any submitted electoral college votes.

    If Congress rejects any, it is doing so under its constitutional powers. Much as what you described above from the constitution.

    #1935191
    Amil Zola
    Participant

    GA Secy of States press conf. is live on YouTube. Debunking point by point the conspiracy claims regarding the GA election.

    #1935201
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “the Justice Department/Attorney General have the standing to declare an act (partially) unconstitutional and act accordingly by disregarding provisions they deemed contrary to the constitution? ”

    No of course not .

    I concede that people have incorrectly made that claim. that was never in dispute noen of your wrong claims are yoru own, Ive heard the same talking points on twitter. They are mostly worng.

    “he Democrats already HAVE played this game with their abuse of the constitutional impeachment process for use as a political weapon and a farcial attempt to overturn the election they lost and the will of the voters.”

    Wrong again
    Amazing. you do not disappoint

    “Now the Democrats are reaping what they sowed with the Republicans utilizing constitutional and legal mechanisms available in kind.”
    You have that backwards
    nothing will come of these objection the Democrat’s control the house and as you now know the VP is not in charge of the proceedings. Yes Biden’s inevitable inauguration MIGHT be delayed (I doubt that too) but stopping it is legally impossible.

    What has been sown is the new norm . If a Republican chas veshalom wins the presidency and there is A democratic congress they will object (following the precedent to be set by Republicans) and this time ovrthrow the election.
    you reap what you sow

    #1935303
    charliehall
    Participant

    “the constitution gives Congress the sole right to determine the validity”

    Actually it doesn’t. It gives each house the right to determine the validity of its *own* elections, but not that of the Presidential electors. Congress’s only role is to watch the count. The states determine the validity of the elections for Presidential electors. In fact there isn’t a requirement that there BE elections for Presidential electors but that last time that any state did not have such an election was 1860.

    Why don’t you actually read the Constitution before further embarrassing yourself?

    #1935310
    charliehall
    Participant

    “Jack Landman Goldsmith is not now nor has he ever been a liberal Democrat.”

    Yup. He was responsible for some of the most eggregious offenses in the Bush 43 Administration, is affiliated with the ultraconservative Hoover Institution, but is called a Liberal Democrat? How far do the lies of the Trump Cult extend?

    #1935880
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Trump should consider himself being impeached again for sedition of instigating violence by protesters.

    #1936210
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ujm

    “What if your hobby is politics?” *

    Then you should get a new hobby. Particularly as you seem to eat up a lot of nonsense and cant ascertain the difference between fact and fiction

    This thread and the suing VP pence thread https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/vp-pence-sued-by-republicans
    are both proof of that

    *from here https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/start-the-clock#post-1936094
    (I dont want to hijack syag’s thread)

Viewing 44 posts - 1 through 44 (of 44 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.