Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
It's time for Colorado residents to break out guns and use the 2nd amendment.
It's time for Colorado residents to break out guns and use the 2nd amendment.
By PhiloBeddo
19 Dec 2023 6:26 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
28 Dec 2023 9:34 pm
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”golfboy » 28 Dec 2023, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Nope. Read the Constitution, it defines who are officers of the United States.
28 Dec 2023 9:47 pm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------golfboy » 28 Dec 2023, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Nope. Read the Constitution, it defines who are officers of the United States.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4668398
Looking at all of the relevant provisions of the Constitution, we're left with only one conclusion: the words of the Constitution alone simply do not give us a clear answer as to who, or what, an "officer of the United States" is, and certainly not a clear enough answer to claim that the president, as the highest ranking public official in the land, is excluded from that definition.
If the text alone does not clearly tell us, however, then historical evidence must serve as a critical supplement. This is where tension arises between the legal doctrines of "Textualism" and "Originalism" and where this paper adds to the literature. The overwhelming body of historical evidence suggests that almost everyone, starting with the Constitutional Convention all the way up through at least Reconstruction, thought the constitutional definition of "officer," "officer of the United States," "officer under the United States," and everything in between, included the president. Additionally, the evidence from the 20th and 21st centuries, though less substantive, does little to alter this historical context.
28 Dec 2023 9:53 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------golfboy » 28 Dec 2023, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Nope. Read the Constitution, it defines who are officers of the United States.
https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/ ... amendment/
Section 3 was adopted principally to prevent “Officers of the United States” who joined the Confederacy from reclaiming power in the Reconstruction government. Its drafters hardly would have exempted a turncoat president.And they didn’t. In the mid-nineteenth century, as today, the president fell within the ordinary meaning of “officer.” Members of the 39th Congress, which proposed the Amendment, repeatedly referred to the president as an officer.Historically, the distinguishing feature of an “officer” is that they swore an oath. And while Mr. Mukasey is correct that Article II, separately from Article IV, mandates a presidential oath, lawmakers made no distinction between these oaths for the purpose of Section 3.wm
-----------------------
Mr. Mukasey may think that an election is the preferable way to keep Trump from office, but under the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump’s not qualified to serve.
28 Dec 2023 9:58 pm
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/U ... 1251-1.pdfgolfboy » 28 Dec 2023, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Nope. Read the Constitution, it defines who are officers of the United States.
Who are “Officers of the United States”? Jennifer L. Mascott* 70 STANFORD LAW REVIEW (forthcoming) (February 2017 Draft) Abstract For decades courts have believed that only officials with “significant authority” are “Officers of the United States” subject to the Constitution’s Article II Appointments Clause requirements. But this standard has proven difficult to apply to major categories of officials, leading to a circuit split this past December over whether certain administrative law judges need Article II appointments. This article challenges whether “significant authority” is even the proper standard, using two distinctive tools: (i) “corpus linguistics”-style analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty.
29 Dec 2023 2:37 am
Colorado residents are very happy. They have one of the happiest states in America.PhiloBeddo » 19 Dec 2023, 7:26 pm » wrote: ↑ If the stupid politicians and courts of Colorado want to silence the public vote. It's time to use 2nd amendment rights.
29 Dec 2023 8:00 pm
The Constitution actually explains it - they are appointed positions.jerrab » 28 Dec 2023, 10:58 pm » wrote: ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/U ... 1251-1.pdf
Who are “Officers of the United States”? Jennifer L. Mascott* 70 STANFORD LAW REVIEW (forthcoming) (February 2017 Draft) Abstract For decades courts have believed that only officials with “significant authority” are “Officers of the United States” subject to the Constitution’s Article II Appointments Clause requirements. But this standard has proven difficult to apply to major categories of officials, leading to a circuit split this past December over whether certain administrative law judges need Article II appointments. This article challenges whether “significant authority” is even the proper standard, using two distinctive tools: (i) “corpus linguistics”-style analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty.
You should read it sometime.
BTW, since you're not aware, when the 14th Amendment was written, there were several drafts. Those drafts specifically named the President, like Senators and Congressmen. But you know what happened? They removed the President when they passed the Amendment.
Do you understand what that means? It shows their intent that the President was not subject to Section 3.
29 Dec 2023 8:02 pm
A government official is the president also.golfboy » 29 Dec 2023, 9:00 pm » wrote: ↑ The Constitution actually explains it - they are appointed positions.
You should read it sometime.
BTW, since you're not aware, when the 14th Amendment was written, there were several drafts. Those drafts specifically named the President, like Senators and Congressmen. But you know what happened? They removed the President when they passed the Amendment.
Do you understand what that means? It shows their intent that the President was not subject to Section 3.
29 Dec 2023 8:09 pm
You don't get to change the language of the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions to suit your momentary desires.
Article 2, Section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
29 Dec 2023 8:10 pm
The president is a government official always has been.golfboy » 29 Dec 2023, 9:09 pm » wrote: ↑ You don't get to change the language of the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions to suit your momentary desires.
Article 2, Section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
29 Dec 2023 8:16 pm
So you are arguing the the president is not part of the government. Boy you're lost.golfboy » 29 Dec 2023, 9:09 pm » wrote: ↑ You don't get to change the language of the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions to suit your momentary desires.
Article 2, Section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
29 Dec 2023 8:19 pm
No, I'm arguing the President is not an appointed officer of the United States, and is not explicitly named as are Congressmen and Senators.Bidencrimefamily » 29 Dec 2023, 9:16 pm » wrote: ↑ So you are arguing the the president is not part of the government. Boy you're lost.
There is a reason for that, which seems to have escaped your public school intelligence.
29 Dec 2023 8:38 pm
Yeah you want me to believe the president the head official is not a government official. Dumb.golfboy » 29 Dec 2023, 9:19 pm » wrote: ↑ No, I'm arguing the President is not an appointed officer of the United States, and is not explicitly named as are Congressmen and Senators.
There is a reason for that, which seems to have escaped your public school intelligence.
29 Dec 2023 9:44 pm
Yeah he does.Bidencrimefamily » 29 Dec 2023, 9:38 pm » wrote: ↑ Yeah you want me to believe the president the head official is not a government official. Dumb.
But then again he's an idiot.
He is fun to **** with though.
He acts so serious and like he knows everything about government.
30 Dec 2023 6:33 am
golfboy » 29 Dec 2023, 9:00 pm » wrote: ↑ The Constitution actually explains it - they are appointed positions.
You should read it sometime.
BTW, since you're not aware, when the 14th Amendment was written, there were several drafts. Those drafts specifically named the President, like Senators and Congressmen. But you know what happened? They removed the President when they passed the Amendment.
Do you understand what that means? It shows their intent that the President was not subject to Section 3.
analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty.
30 Dec 2023 12:03 pm
golfboy » 29 Dec 2023, 9:00 pm » wrote: ↑ The Constitution actually explains it - they are appointed positions.
You should read it sometime.
BTW, since you're not aware, when the 14th Amendment was written, there were several drafts. Those drafts specifically named the President, like Senators and Congressmen. But you know what happened? They removed the President when they passed the Amendment.
Do you understand what that means? It shows their intent that the President was not subject to Section 3.
do you think you are smarter than the supreme court?
30 Dec 2023 12:24 pm
golfboy » 29 Dec 2023, 9:00 pm » wrote: ↑ The Constitution actually explains it - they are appointed positions.
You should read it sometime.
BTW, since you're not aware, when the 14th Amendment was written, there were several drafts. Those drafts specifically named the President, like Senators and Congressmen. But you know what happened? They removed the President when they passed the Amendment.
Do you understand what that means? It shows their intent that the President was not subject to Section 3.
why is this redundant?
all dogs and german shepherds love to eat.
30 Dec 2023 3:12 pm
Homeland Security notified.PhiloBeddo » 19 Dec 2023, 7:26 pm » wrote: ↑ If the stupid politicians and courts of Colorado want to silence the public vote. It's time to use 2nd amendment rights.
31 Dec 2023 3:05 am
Saddle up then "patriot".PhiloBeddo » 19 Dec 2023, 7:26 pm » wrote: ↑ If the stupid politicians and courts of Colorado want to silence the public vote. It's time to use 2nd amendment rights.
Let's see some action snowflake.
Or are you another one like all the rest?
All hat and no cattle?
You trump people are a pathetic bunch of whiners is what the country sees.
Nothing to worry about in the least.
31 Dec 2023 7:53 am
You would love for Americans to die. We get that.PhiloBeddo » 19 Dec 2023, 7:26 pm » wrote: ↑ If the stupid politicians and courts of Colorado want to silence the public vote. It's time to use 2nd amendment rights.
31 Dec 2023 8:24 am
But he's too impotent to do it himself.Bidencrimefamily » 31 Dec 2023, 8:53 am » wrote: ↑ You would love for Americans to die. We get that.
We get that too.
Who is online
In total there are 2801 users online :: 7 registered, 12 bots, and 2782 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, Beekeeper, jerra b, Cannonpointer, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101
Bots: Disco, ADmantX, MQQBrowser, curl/7, proximic, Googlebot, YandexBot, CriteoBot, bingbot, Mediapartners-Google, facebookexternalhit, Applebot