WAS TRUMP CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY A FAKE MOVE TO SET UP A QUARTERBACK SNEAK TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR A NEW IMMUNITY RULE COVERING "OFFICIAL" CRIMES? PLAY IS HALTED FOR REPLAY REVIEW.
Thanks,Evan. I guess if Congress doesn’t act then if a Democratic House and Senate vote to reject a Trump Electoral College win and bar him as an insurrection then the Court is hoist on its own petard? And now the States can’t act to ban slavery should it reemerge say in Alabama fertility clinics because the 13th Amendment has the same language as the 14th and Congress has never ruled on whether embryos are slaves since they serve rather involuntarily
That bonfire can go even higher, Terry! Toss on sentence 2 of Section 3 of the 14th granting Congress the right to remove the insurrection prohibition by a 2/3 vote. How else might one explain Congress prohibiting a candidate and subsequently lifting the prohibition unless some other entity is responsible for imposing the prohibition? Heap on the takings clause of the Fifth, as that also must not be self-executing. Finally, hoist the 10th too, as somewhere lurks a Constitutional "penumbra" prohibiting powers to the States, including the delegated power to run elections in Article I, Section 4.
When those same conservatives decree like politicians, impossible to square conservative distress over an activist court it is. Justice Brandeis advanced the precept of judicial minimalism in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936). Concurring in the Court's judgment but not its reasoning, Brandeis rightly noted that the Circuit Court's decision in Ashwander was proper and required no elaboration. The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is applied." Id. at 347 (Quoting Liverpool, N.Y. & Phila. Steamship Co. v. Emigration Commissioners, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885)). At least four sitting justices know this rule. In their Anderson concurrence, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson cited Roberts invoking it in Dobbs.
Like Ashwander, the Circuit Court's decision in Trump v. U.S. required no elaboration. Since at least 2010, the Court must be lobbied like every other politician, as a "democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold." Citizens United v. F.E.C., 588 U.S. 310, 453 (2010) (Stevens, J. dissenting). Elude no one the irony should.
Thanks,Evan. I guess if Congress doesn’t act then if a Democratic House and Senate vote to reject a Trump Electoral College win and bar him as an insurrection then the Court is hoist on its own petard? And now the States can’t act to ban slavery should it reemerge say in Alabama fertility clinics because the 13th Amendment has the same language as the 14th and Congress has never ruled on whether embryos are slaves since they serve rather involuntarily
That bonfire can go even higher, Terry! Toss on sentence 2 of Section 3 of the 14th granting Congress the right to remove the insurrection prohibition by a 2/3 vote. How else might one explain Congress prohibiting a candidate and subsequently lifting the prohibition unless some other entity is responsible for imposing the prohibition? Heap on the takings clause of the Fifth, as that also must not be self-executing. Finally, hoist the 10th too, as somewhere lurks a Constitutional "penumbra" prohibiting powers to the States, including the delegated power to run elections in Article I, Section 4.
When those same conservatives decree like politicians, impossible to square conservative distress over an activist court it is. Justice Brandeis advanced the precept of judicial minimalism in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936). Concurring in the Court's judgment but not its reasoning, Brandeis rightly noted that the Circuit Court's decision in Ashwander was proper and required no elaboration. The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is applied." Id. at 347 (Quoting Liverpool, N.Y. & Phila. Steamship Co. v. Emigration Commissioners, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885)). At least four sitting justices know this rule. In their Anderson concurrence, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson cited Roberts invoking it in Dobbs.
Like Ashwander, the Circuit Court's decision in Trump v. U.S. required no elaboration. Since at least 2010, the Court must be lobbied like every other politician, as a "democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold." Citizens United v. F.E.C., 588 U.S. 310, 453 (2010) (Stevens, J. dissenting). Elude no one the irony should.