Lurker > red sox 777

xp1337 posted...

I mean, I guess I'll add that personally I think SCOTUS would laugh the idea of a self-pardon out of the court but I'm not entirely sure where they could get that if you are a 100% true believer in STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST TEXTUAL READINGS ONLY.

I think their rejection would be more like: "u srs?" because allowing a self-pardon basically would destroy the country/democracy.

It's really easy. The Constitution places one limitation on the pardon power - impeachment. So the founding fathers knew how to limit pardons, and chose not to put in any other ones.

This is consistent with the legal theory that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is still the official position of the DOJ. If he can't be indicted and a pardon doesn't stop impeachment, a self-pardon wouldn't actually do anything, so why ban it?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

The issue here is that removal of a president is and always has been a political question, not a legal one. That is why Congress, and not any court, was given the sole power to try the president. The root of this is the old English principle that the king can do no wrong in the eyes of the law. We don't have a king here, so the people are sovereign and stand in the place of the king in the law. No court has the power to overturn the will of the people, but only the people themselves through one set of elected representatives (Congress) can overturn the will of the people through another set (the Electoral College).

I kind of feel the right time was earlier for Trump to assert this and insist that no investigation of him could take place except through Congress. Now he looks pretty obviously guilty...
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

So I've been reading about the trial of King Charles I of England. After initially promising one of his biggest supporters that no harm would come to him, he gave in to political pressure and gave royal assent to Parliament's bill of attainder convicting the man of treason, and allowed him to be executed. It didn't save the king, who ended up following him to execution at the hands of Parliament.

At the king's trial, his defense was solely that no court had jurisdiction to try the king and legally, the king can do no wrong. Although legally the king was clearly correct, and 350 years of subsequent British caselaw have confirmed these principles, it didn't stop the court created by Parliament to try the king from finding him guilty of treason.

I guess what I'm getting from this is Trump should probably pardon Manafort right now, to maximize his chances of staying in power.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/nyregion/ocasio-cortez-town-hall.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

Bad move by Ocasio-Cortez. The media is not the enemy

The media is the enemy, if she wants to win. I mean, she'll win in her district anyway, but if she wants a national platform, making enemies of the media is the way to do it. It's like having a witness with a long history of perjury convictions testify against you.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

Like sometimes I try to imagine what it must be like to be someone like Trump who has to constantly balance so many spinning plates of corruption and it just seems so exhausting

You have to be an extremely stable genius to do it.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Property rights/due process clause. Say I have a share of stock in Apple. If this passes, it will be worth less because the employees will now be getting 40% of the vote. So the value of my share is now lower.

Also, the Contracts Clause bars Congress from interfering with existing contracts, which could apply to the Apple articles of incorporation.

What does them having 40% of the membership of directors have to do with your stock?

The primary privilege your stock gets you is the right to vote for directors.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Property rights/due process clause. Say I have a share of stock in Apple. If this passes, it will be worth less because the employees will now be getting 40% of the vote. So the value of my share is now lower.

Also, the Contracts Clause bars Congress from interfering with existing contracts, which could apply to the Apple articles of incorporation.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

But can you take away a person's rights by legislation? Both the corporation itself, since corporations have been determined to be people, and the shareholders.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

xp1337 posted...

Elizabeth Warren is proposing a massive shift in how corporations would work. It's also probably one of the most progressive major proposals I've seen.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations

It's a long article that both examines key parts of her proposal as well as some background and context on the current state of how corporations and the stock market affect the economy both here and compared to other countries.

Key parts in Warren's proposal:

-Creation of an Office of United States Corporations inside the Department of Commerce.
-Require any corporation with revenue over $1 billion to obtain a federal charter of corporate citizenship. This charter tells them to consider not just the interests of shareholders but employees, customers, and the communities in which they do business.
-Corporations required to allow their workers to elect 40% of the membership of the board of directors
-All political activity must be approved by 75% of shareholders and 75% of the board members
-Limits on corporate executives' ability to sell shares they receive as pay by introducing wait periods before they can do so in certain situations

The part about codetermination (The requirement to have workers elect 40% of the board) ties in with that poll I linked a topic or two back showing a lot of support for the idea. (In fact, that poll is referenced and included as an image in this article) and is IMO the biggest part of the proposed bill. Warren is calling it the Accountable Capitalism Act, so we can have ACA2: ACA Harder.

Really like the proposal, sounds like a lot of great ideas to me.

Hmm, that sounds pretty good. Good luck getting other Democrats to support it though.

Also, not sure if requiring a federal charter to do business across state lines is constitutional. Sounds like a pretty big move into what has always been a matter of state law (corporate structure).
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

Has the Saudi crown prince been confirmed alive yet after that April brouhaha?

Yes, he watched the World Cup opener with Putin (where he saw his team get demolished 5-0 by Putin's).
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

The emphasis on Manafort's luxurious life could backfire by making the jury think the reason they are talking about it so much is that they lack strong evidence of crimes.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!