Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 178: Last Topic Wasn't Fair to Flair [POLITICS]

(+) Yeah! (+)

And yes, Republicans currently control 32 state legislatures, with 329 electoral votes. If they really wanted to, they could dispense with the presidential election and simply elect the Republican nominee. Democrats control only 14 state legislatures, with 164 electoral votes (including DC). The remaining states have split legislatures.
---

red sox 777 posted...

It's whatever the state legislatures decide. Almost all of them just give all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in the state. In the past, South Carolina didn't hold a presidential election and the legislature simply appointed the electors.

oh so it's not like the san andreas faultline opens up as california's mouth and hoarsely calls out, "clinton/kaine 2016"

so just to clarify here, what you actually mean is that a couple hundred random electors can't be denied their choice of president, no matter how many laws that president breaks?
---

Kenri posted...

red sox 777 posted...

It's whatever the state legislatures decide. Almost all of them just give all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in the state. In the past, South Carolina didn't hold a presidential election and the legislature simply appointed the electors.

oh so it's not like the san andreas faultline opens up as california's mouth and hoarsely calls out, "clinton/kaine 2016"

so just to clarify here, what you actually mean is that a couple hundred random electors can't be denied their choice of president, no matter how many laws that president breaks?

Unless a majority of the House impeaches him and 2/3 of the Senate votes to remove him from office, yes, absolutely.

And the framers got it right. Unelected officials should never be able to remove an elected official from power on their own. Only other elected officials should be able to do that. That's why we can call ourselves a republic.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Unless a majority of the House impeaches him and 2/3 of the Senate votes to remove him from office, yes, absolutely.

Are we not talking about impeachment to begin with? I thought that was the whole point here?

red sox 777 posted...

That's why we can call ourselves a republic.

I mean, if you wanna own up to something that embarrassing, I guess.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Unelected officials should never be able to remove an elected official from power on their own.

Tell that to God. Hes an unelected official and He takes people out of their office sometimes!
---

Kenri posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Unless a majority of the House impeaches him and 2/3 of the Senate votes to remove him from office, yes, absolutely.

Are we not talking about impeachment to begin with? I thought that was the whole point here?

red sox 777 posted...

That's why we can call ourselves a republic.

I mean, if you wanna own up to something that embarrassing, I guess.

We're talking about criminal prosecution of a president. The way an ordinary citizen would be prosecuted. I'm arguing that it's not available to prosecute a president and that I agree that it shouldn't be.
---

red sox 777 posted...

We're talking about criminal prosecution of a president. The way an ordinary citizen would be prosecuted. I'm arguing that it's not available to prosecute a president and that I agree that it shouldn't be.

Ah, somehow I legit missed that and took your "people can't be denied their choice" thing as still about impeachment.

anyway you're making a great case for violent overthrow of the government here, which is cool, but i doubt it's intentional
---

And, you know, 10 state legislatures, all controlled by Democrats, have passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to ignore the popular vote in their own states and choose electors based on the national popular vote. That's within their right as state legislatures, of course. But what if the 32 state legislatures controlled by Republicans exercised their rights by abolishing presidential elections and just having the state legislatures vote for the electors themselves? Maybe they should fight fire with fire!
---

I'd appreciate it because it's at least honest? Like what's your point, the system's already not democratic, that hardly even makes it less so.
---

The Supreme Court of the United States wrote:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (" '[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated''')

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e. g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) ("[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"). It must be remembered that "the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).

The Court went on to rule that different standards for recounting votes in different counties violated the equal protection clause and hence no recount was allowed to go forward, so Bush won.
---

I love the electoral college. As far as I'm concerned, it's the most brilliant feature of the whole Constitution. The electoral college and the Senate is what separates us from Europe. If they had similar institutions over there with similar power, we could see countries like Poland, Estonia, Greece, Slovakia, etc. wielding power over Germany and France. Of course, Germany and France would never have agreed to enter into such a union. But here, there was an opportune moment in time, when the big states agreed to this deal called the Constitution....and what a deal it was! Vastly more power for the federal government than the Articles of Confederation.....yet designed so that small states would always have disproportionately more control of that power. Brilliant!
---

red sox 777 posted...

The electoral college and the Senate is what separates us from Europe.

I kind of like this new gimmick where you just trash America constantly lmao
---

red sox 777 posted...

The Supreme Court of the United States wrote:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (" '[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated''')

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e. g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) ("[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"). It must be remembered that "the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).

The Court went on to rule that different standards for recounting votes in different counties violated the equal protection clause and hence no recount was allowed to go forward, so Bush won.

Bush won the vote totals anyways. It didn't matter.
---

red sox 777 posted...

And, you know, 10 state legislatures, all controlled by Democrats, have passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to ignore the popular vote in their own states and choose electors based on the national popular vote. That's within their right as state legislatures, of course. But what if the 32 state legislatures controlled by Republicans exercised their rights by abolishing presidential elections and just having the state legislatures vote for the electors themselves? Maybe they should fight fire with fire!

The absolute madman
---

Forgot to say thanks for that link earlier Jakyl!
---

Got a hilarious email from the Trump campaign

Joseph,

President Trump recognizes how much support youve given him since our movement began.

But most importantly, youve proven yourself to be a true friend.

The Presidents birthday is coming up on June 14, and we at Headquarters want to give him a card signed by ALL of his friends and family. Joseph, his birthday card will NOT be complete without your signature and personal message.

Nothing could make the Presidents birthday better than to see your signature and warm wishes for his 72nd birthday.

Plus a link to the card

Should I sign it?!?
---

My father got that as well, from "Melania"

Yeah, ok
---

"Jakyl Joe won't sign my birthday card. All Americans with common courtesy would stand for the occasion and SING ALONG (really). Say it loud! @FoxAndFriends"
---

What do we make of the conspiracy theory that something happened to Melania because she hadnt been in the public eye in weeks?
---

And the one tweet she sent out was obviously written by Donald or someone trying to emulate his style

https://twitter.com/flotus/status/1001912411933364224?s=21

I see the media is working overtime speculating where I am & what I'm doing. Rest assured, I'm here at the @WhiteHouse w my family, feeling great, & working hard on behalf of children & the American people!

---

Jakyl25 posted...

What do we make of the conspiracy theory that something happened to Melania because she hadn?t been in the public eye in weeks?

That it's exactly that and she's probably recovering still.
---

What if she escaped from the Hospital and is on the run??
---

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2018/06/saudi-threatens-military-action-qatar-400-report-180601165304449.html?__twitter_impression=true

Yaaaaaay
---

I probably need to gtfo

I'm only at the end of year 3 of a 5 year plan but uh. Thinking more and more about those Saudi tanks crossing the border
---

Pardon my ignorance but why specifically tell this just to France?
---

hey you know how people were worried that hillary would be all cozy with the saudis

I mean, valid concern, but I'm just wondering if people remembered how that was a reason not to vote for her and stuff

so what's up with this letter from Trump's lawyers stating that he can't be forced to testify because he has absolute authority over any investigation, and can kill any investigation he wants any time. Basically, because he IS the law?

i'm not an american but from what I understood the whole system is predicated on this notion called "checks and balances" so it sounds like a stretch that anybody, even the president, is completely immune from investigation or being involved in an investigation.
---

If Obama said something similar, Fox News and Congressional Republicans would be SCREAMING about treason and tyranny.

I would like to see one of the B8 Republicans deny this.
---

CoolCly posted...

so what's up with this letter from Trump's lawyers stating that he can't be forced to testify because he has absolute authority over any investigation, and can kill any investigation he wants any time. Basically, because he IS the law?

i'm not an american but from what I understood the whole system is predicated on this notion called "checks and balances" so it sounds like a stretch that anybody, even the president, is completely immune from investigation or being involved in an investigation.

What he actually said was. How can he have obstructed if he the power that he can end the investigation at any time and has chosen not to. Thus, he can't possibly have been obstructing and thus has no reason to answer for an investigation that is just going to try and trap him in some way in accidentally saying something that can be used against him for obstructing when it is impossible already.
---

His argument is basically

"How could I have stolen $200 when there is $400 there, and I could have easily just stolen $400, but I didn't. Therefore, I will not answer any questions regarding the stolen $200."

He's trying to say "I didn't need to obstruct because I could have just ended the investigation if I really wanted to"

It's a defense that doesn't really fly.
---

CoolCly posted...

so what's up with this letter from Trump's lawyers stating that he can't be forced to testify because he has absolute authority over any investigation, and can kill any investigation he wants any time. Basically, because he IS the law?

i'm not an american but from what I understood the whole system is predicated on this notion called "checks and balances" so it sounds like a stretch that anybody, even the president, is completely immune from investigation or being involved in an investigation.

A lot of this is in uncharted/untested legal territory so on a number of points we couldn't give you a solid answer because none exist.

That said, I think you're partially mixing the "checks and balances" thing with what's being asserted in that letter. The checks and balance concept, in this context at least, refers to the separation of powers as set out by the Constitution where each branch of government has means to check the others. In this case, the check here would be Impeachment from the Legislative Branch. And Congress can impeach for whatever they get the votes for. If they chose to impeach because of bad fashion sense, they could. (Hypothetically, if they did this it might be challenged, but I'm pretty sure it would stand.) So in that sense, regardless of the Executive Branch claims in regards to criminal allegations, it doesn't matter because Congress can do whatever - even if the position that the President could not commit obstruction of justice were held to be true, Congress could still file articles of impeachment and remove said President.

Basically, that letter is tied up with what the Mueller investigation. And a lot of those details are, as I said, unclear. The Department of Justice has held since Nixon that a sitting president can not be indicted. Now whether that's true or not is unclear and would end up being an issue for the courts to decide.

That letter is basically, "If the president does it, it's not illegal" ver 2.0.

Taken to its logical extreme you end up with something ridiculous like this: https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1002997134558363648

tl;dr: That letter makes assertions based on criminal liability. Checks and balances refers to the ability of another branch of government - Congress/Legislative in this case - being able to act as a check. Congress could act to impeach and remove a president regardless of criminal liability so they could still act as a check if they wished.
---

Oh nice, I'm gonna have a new episode of What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law to listen to
---

If I wanted to obstruct justice, there would be no need for an investigation because everyone would know it. I would obstruct justice so hard you wouldnt believe it. Wed never see justice again because it would be so obstructed, am I right?
---

He isn't going to be impeached regardless so the whole thing is pretty much a waste of time. Though he should be if guilty.
---

Corrik posted...

CoolCly posted...

so what's up with this letter from Trump's lawyers stating that he can't be forced to testify because he has absolute authority over any investigation, and can kill any investigation he wants any time. Basically, because he IS the law?

i'm not an american but from what I understood the whole system is predicated on this notion called "checks and balances" so it sounds like a stretch that anybody, even the president, is completely immune from investigation or being involved in an investigation.

What he actually said was. How can he have obstructed if he the power that he can end the investigation at any time and has chosen not to. Thus, he can't possibly have been obstructing and thus has no reason to answer for an investigation that is just going to try and trap him in some way in accidentally saying something that can be used against him for obstructing when it is impossible already.

It goes further than that. It states that even if he were to have ordered the investigation to end, it's not obstruction because ending an investigation is an exercise of Presidential power and by rule that can't be obstruction.
---

xp1337 posted...

Taken to its logical extreme you end up with something ridiculous like this: https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1002997134558363648

I like this response

https://twitter.com/hagan_laura/status/1003022515504074752?s=21

POTUS: The Prez can legally order the FBI to investigate or not investigate anyone he wants.
Also POTUS: Obama illegally ordered the FBI to investigate me! Lock him up!

---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

CoolCly posted...

so what's up with this letter from Trump's lawyers stating that he can't be forced to testify because he has absolute authority over any investigation, and can kill any investigation he wants any time. Basically, because he IS the law?

i'm not an american but from what I understood the whole system is predicated on this notion called "checks and balances" so it sounds like a stretch that anybody, even the president, is completely immune from investigation or being involved in an investigation.

What he actually said was. How can he have obstructed if he the power that he can end the investigation at any time and has chosen not to. Thus, he can't possibly have been obstructing and thus has no reason to answer for an investigation that is just going to try and trap him in some way in accidentally saying something that can be used against him for obstructing when it is impossible already.

It goes further than that. It states that even if he were to have ordered the investigation to end, it's not obstruction because ending an investigation is an exercise of Presidential power and by rule that can't be obstruction.

Correct. He says how can I have obstructed on a federal investigation that I can personally end at any time legally if I wished to. Thus, by not ending it he has proven he hasn't obstructed anyways.
---

I guess I understand the idea that the department of justice reports up to the president so there is a bit of a conflict in how that might work if they decide he needs to be investigated.

But if the department of justice literally cannot investigate the president for any crime or abuse of power, then who can?

Congress can choose to do this vote to remove him, but how can they accumulate the evidence that might be necessary to push a vote like that through if the branch that does all of the investigating has their hands completely tied?

It sounds like a very big hole in the system if that's the case.
---

CoolCly posted...

I guess I understand the idea that the department of justice reports up to the president so there is a bit of a conflict in how that might work if they decide he needs to be investigated.

But if the department of justice literally cannot investigate the president for any crime or abuse of power, then who can?

Congress can choose to do this vote to remove him, but how can they accumulate the evidence that might be necessary to push a vote like that through if the branch that does all of the investigating has their hands completely tied?

It sounds like a very big hole in the system if that's the case.

Well, it is basically on Congress to impeach the president if he doesn't allow the investigation to happen.
---

CoolCly posted...

I guess I understand the idea that the department of justice reports up to the president so there is a bit of a conflict in how that might work if they decide he needs to be investigated.

But if the department of justice literally cannot investigate the president for any crime or abuse of power, then who can?

Congress can choose to do this vote to remove him, but how can they accumulate the evidence that might be necessary to push a vote like that through if the branch that does all of the investigating has their hands completely tied?

It sounds like a very big hole in the system if that's the case.

Congress can run its own investigation(s) and has subpoena power, etc.

Hypothetically, were the DOJ investigation shut down, Congress could re-hire Mueller and his team.

Corrik posted...

Correct. He says how can I have obstructed on a federal investigation that I can personally end at any time legally if I wished to. Thus, by not ending it he has proven he hasn't obstructed anyways.

I feel you're missing the point we're making. He's asserting that he could end it/order its end and that would not constitute obstruction.

Not sure why you're talking about "I could end it but I haven't so no obstruction!" they're saying "The President can not obstruct justice."
---

I'll note if you want to follow the loophole thread to its extreme, I suppose you could encounter a situation like this:

DOJ Investigation ended
Congress takes over the investigation
Congress issues subpoenas
Witnesses refuse to comply
Witnesses found in contempt
President pardons witnesses
Repeat

In which case the only remedy would be for Congress to go "yeah not playing" and impeach and convict.
---

xp1337 posted...

I feel you're missing the point we're making. He's asserting that he could end it/order its end and that would not constitute obstruction.

Not sure why you're talking about "I could end it but I haven't so no obstruction!" they're saying "The President can not obstruct justice."

I feel like you are missing that I am saying what Trump is saying.
---

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

I feel you're missing the point we're making. He's asserting that he could end it/order its end and that would not constitute obstruction.

Not sure why you're talking about "I could end it but I haven't so no obstruction!" they're saying "The President can not obstruct justice."

I feel like you are missing that I am saying what Trump is saying.

I am not. It's just that's not relevant. This discussion arose over the claims made in the letter by his lawyers. That's what we're discussing.

And the letter asserts that:

1. The President is empowered by the Constitution to end any investigation for any reason.
2. Exercise of a Constitutional power can not be obstruction of justice by definition.
3. Therefore the President can not obstruct justice.

You can see the highlighted parts that make that argument in that twitter link from the first post I made about this. It includes a picture of the relevant text.

At best, you came in and didn't understand/know about the letter and came in to "fact-check" Cly with your understanding of Trump's current argument.

At worst you're just bringing up something not relevant to the discussion at hand to try and derail.
---

You are literally saying the same thing as me in the last post as I am saying in different words and just taking it a single step further.
---

Corrik posted...

You are literally saying the same thing as me in the last post as I am saying in different words and just taking it a single step further.

Yes, I know. I literally said in my initial response to you that "It goes further than that."

Because it does.

I'll be 100% honest for a second here: When you responded to Cly with "What he actually said" I took that as you saying Cly was posting something wrong. He wasn't - not really. It was imprecise and stuff, but he says he's not American so I'm not going to get all super technical about the details being a bit off, it's why I tried to explain the situation in my post.

The essence of what he was saying - that the letter was asserting that Trump was able to shut down investigations without consequence due to his being President - was accurate. My read on your choice of words was that you were trying to "fake news" him or something.
---

xp1337 posted...

My read on your choice of words was that you were trying to "fake news" him or something.

This is definitely what he was doing.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

You are literally saying the same thing as me in the last post as I am saying in different words and just taking it a single step further.

Yes, I know. I literally said in my initial response to you that "It goes further than that."

Because it does.

I'll be 100% honest for a second here: When you responded to Cly with "What he actually said" I took that as you saying Cly was posting something wrong. He wasn't - not really. It was imprecise and stuff, but he says he's not American so I'm not going to get all super technical about the details being a bit off, it's why I tried to explain the situation in my post.

The essence of what he was saying - that the letter was asserting that Trump was able to shut down investigations without consequence due to his being President - was accurate. My read on your choice of words was that you were trying to "fake news" him or something.

Nah. No fake news.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

xp1337 posted...

My read on your choice of words was that you were trying to "fake news" him or something.

This is definitely what he was doing.

Oh ok. Nevermind. ChaosTony knows what I am saying for me I guess.
---

I gotchu homie
.
---

https://twitter.com/RyanHaarer/status/1003084052226822153?s=19

We can stop dancing around the issue of gun safety now.

(less of a political point and more of a pun)
---