US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8720
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 13 2017 09:26 zlefin wrote: high crimes and misdemeanors is something I would consider to refer to things spelled out in the criminal code as felonies and misdemeanors. the list of federal statutes is long; and there's plenty of felonies and misdemeanors to choose from. but is accepting an emolument without appropriate approvals actually spelled out as being a felony or misdemeanor anywhere in the federal code? violating the constitution is not per se a felony or misdemeanor as far as I know; at least not in so generic a term. if it is, I'd like to know what exact part of the federal code covers that. Dude, they are specific legal terms that define exactly what you are asking about. Literally the thing you want to know. That is why I told you to look it up. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 13 2017 09:30 ChristianS wrote: @Plansix: I don't wholly disagree with you, but I also don't think the author claims MLK invented identity politics? It seems like they're claiming that MLK's colorblind ideals were replaced with non-MLK-based, non-colorblind politics. Not saying that's right either, but I think you misread if you thought they were shitting on MLK. The author straight up says the 1960s lead to the arrival of identity politics and somehow managed to call MLK's politics color blind. He isn't shittying on MLK, he is just woefully ignorant of history. And you can tell this because he called MLK's politics color-blind, which is false. The whole identity politics line drives me crazy. Like the civil rights movement to end segregation, voter repression and redlining wasn't identity politics. That was gross injustice. Is the author just going to keep pushing that tired ass term back until we get to the lynching during the height of the KKK and then decide that the blacks had a valid complaint then? Like what the fuck is this dude on? | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On September 13 2017 09:40 Plansix wrote: The author straight up says the 1960s lead to the arrival of identity politics and somehow managed to call MLK's politics color blind. He isn't shittying on MLK, he is just woefully ignorant of history. And you can tell this because he called MLK's politics color-blind, which is false. The whole identity politics line drives me crazy. Like the civil rights movement to end segregation, voter repression and redlining wasn't identity politics. That was gross injustice. Is the author just going to keep pushing that tired ass term back until we get to the lynching during the height of the KKK and then decide that the blacks had a valid complaint then? Like what the fuck is this dude on? This era saw the beginnings of an identity politics that inverted the color-blind aspirations of civil rights leaders like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. into an obsession with race, ethnicity, gender, and now sexual preference. I think this is the part you're referring to? On rereading, it seems like the author is vague about what "this era" means, because the narrative they support is obviously "MLK wanted a colorblind society, but after MLK liberals started obsessing over all this stuff," but the dates they previously gave for bourgeois culture ended mid-60s. I was assuming that the author agrees with 60s-era civil rights, and that the "identity politics" era came later. Admittedly it's not very clear on this point, but since the op ed seems to like MLK and MLK was a driving force behind that stuff, it seems like a reasonable assumption. I mean I think conservatives who wax poetic about MLK's color-blind ideals are badly misguided, but I don't think it's dogwhistle racism either, usually. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 13 2017 09:50 zlefin wrote: my question stands and I would like an answer if someone has one; plansix is not actually answering my question at all, in aaddition to being needlessly rude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors + Show Spoiler + High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "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." "High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.[2] The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice [John] Marshall wrote of another such phrase: It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it."[3] The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well.[citation needed] Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery.[4] Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. As can be found in[5] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as "for whatever reason whatsoever". This phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said, "...impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[6] According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, "Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials – one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges."[2] The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave". Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely. And your question on how to bring charges for a violation of the emoluments clause, that is under the impeachment. That is the only way to punish the president for abuse of power of violation. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 13 2017 09:53 ChristianS wrote: I think this is the part you're referring to? On rereading, it seems like the author is vague about what "this era" means, because the narrative they support is obviously "MLK wanted a colorblind society, but after MLK liberals started obsessing over all this stuff," but the dates they previously gave for bourgeois culture ended mid-60s. I was assuming that the author agrees with 60s-era civil rights, and that the "identity politics" era came later. Admittedly it's not very clear on this point, but since the op ed seems to like MLK and MLK was a driving force behind that stuff, it seems like a reasonable assumption. I mean I think conservatives who wax poetic about MLK's color-blind ideals are badly misguided, but I don't think it's dogwhistle racism either, usually. I've seen this so many times. It isn't dog whistle racism, it is revisionist history. He turns MLK into someone who would agree with his conservative ideals that the left has gone to far with its identity politics. The part about all cultures not being equal is dog whistle racism in its finest. And it's barely a dog whistle. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Remember folks, Sessions isn't racist. He just thinks the DOJ isn't in the buisness of going after police for civil rights violations. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 13 2017 10:01 Plansix wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors + Show Spoiler + High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "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." "High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.[2] The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice [John] Marshall wrote of another such phrase: It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it."[3] The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well.[citation needed] Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery.[4] Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. As can be found in[5] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as "for whatever reason whatsoever". This phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said, "...impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[6] According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, "Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials – one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges."[2] The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave". Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely. And your question on how to bring charges for a violation of the emoluments clause, that is under the impeachment. That is the only way to punish the president for abuse of power of violation. I was already aware of all that; and you continue to not ansewr the actual question I asked; so go away and stop wasting everyone's time with non-answers. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 13 2017 07:47 zlefin wrote: is there a specified rule for violation of the emoluments clause? I don't think there's one in the constitution itself covering what actually happens if someone violates it; is there federal law that covers what would happen in case of a violation? is there a specified rule for violation of the emoluments clause? Yep. Its the part about high crimes and misdemeanors. That is the section of the Constitution that governs what constitutes an impeachable offense. I don't think there's one in the constitution itself covering what actually happens if someone violates it; It totally does. It is called impeachment. It is the process of putting the president on trial before congress. is there federal law that covers what would happen in case of a violation? No. Federal law has no power over the emoluments clause or ability to enforce it. This is due to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) shows that the only remedy is for congress to impeach the president if they feel the emoluments clause has been violated. You asked an extremely basic question and got mad that the answer was equally basic. | ||
Gahlo
United States35142 Posts
On September 13 2017 10:14 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/NPR/status/907767812499718144 Remember folks, Sessions isn't racist. He just thinks the DOJ isn't in the buisness of going after police for civil rights violations. Doesn't matter, you know Trump would pardon them anyway. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 13 2017 10:14 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/NPR/status/907767812499718144 Remember folks, Sessions isn't racist. He just thinks the DOJ isn't in the buisness of going after police for civil rights violations. Why would any federal attorney waste time prosecuting the same people for the same actions that a state DA already failed to successfully prosecute? It's clearly a waste of time and tax payer dollars. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 13 2017 10:30 xDaunt wrote: Why would any federal attorney waste time prosecuting the same people for the same actions that a state DA already failed to successfully prosecute? It's clearly a waste of time and tax payer dollars. The state DA did a bad job? They are closely connected to the local police force? The police department may have withheld evidence?The charges are different? Is this a trick question? | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 13 2017 10:36 Plansix wrote: The state DA did a bad job? They are closely connected to the local police force? The police department may have withheld evidence?The charges are different? Is this a trick question? The state DA staked her fucking political career on prosecuting these guys. There was no shortage of effort, so I highly doubt that the police withheld anything. And while the federal charges may be different, they also are harder to prove. In short, Sessions decision not to press charges is easily justifiable. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 13 2017 10:52 LegalLord wrote: I'm not too interested in the general game of "Historical figure X would have endorsed idea Y." Unless we want to start arguing about religion with an appeal to the great physicist Isaac Newton, who wrote a fair bit about theology in his own time. Agreed. But the statement the MLKs politics were color blind is just false. And I'm not fond of the "MLK stood against real racism" argument either. It is an argument that moderate whites use claim MLK would be in favor of today's establishment, which is the exact opposite of his political stance on racism. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on a proposal by Sen. Rand Paul to repeal the 2001 and 2002 war resolutions. A vote is anticipated to table — or kill — Paul's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to repeal the two authorizations for the use of military force, which provided the legal framework for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as military action in a slew of other countries. The amendment would put an end to both war authorizations six months after the bill becomes law. Paul (R-Ky.) had blocked procedural attempts to speed debate on the annual defense policy legislation in order to force a vote on the amendment. He has also threatened to block all other senators' amendments from receiving votes if the Senate leadership didn't grant him a vote. The measure has drawn support from members of both parties — including Democratic senators such as Tim Kaine of Virginia and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois — who argue that a vote on war powers is well past due. But the amendment is expected to draw fierce opposition from senators who oppose sunsetting the two authorizations without a replacement — and using the sprawling defense policy bill to do so. On the Senate floor Tuesday, Paul said the missions for which the two war resolutions were passed are "long since over." "I don't think that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes that these authorizations from 16 years ago and 14 years ago ... authorized war in seven different countries," Paul said. Source | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
IN A STUNNING MOVE, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved an amendment to the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act that will roll back Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s expansion of asset forfeiture. Amendment number 126 was sponsored by a bipartisan group of nine members, led by Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash. He was joined by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California; Washington state’s Pramila Jayapal, a rising progressive star; and Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard. Civil asset forfeiture is a practice by which law enforcement can take assets from a person who is suspected of a crime, even without a charge or conviction. Sessions revived the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, which allowed state and local police agencies to take assets and then give them to the federal government — which would in turn give a chunk back to the local police. This served as a way for these local agencies to skirt past state laws designed to limit asset forfeiture. The amendment would roll back Sessions’ elimination of the Obama-era reforms. Amash, the prime mover of the amendment, spoke forcefully in favor of the Obama-era rules on the House floor and the need to bring them back. “Unfortunately these restrictions were revoked in June of this year. My amendment would restore them by prohibiting the use of funds to do adoptive forfeitures that were banned under the 2015 rules,” he explained. Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer reached across the aisle to voice support for Amash’s effort “Civil asset forfeiture without limits presents one of the strongest threats to our civil, property, and Constitutional rights,” he said on the flood. “It creates a perverse incentive to seek profits over justice.” The amendment passed with a voice vote, meaning it had overwhelming support. Republican Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Raul Labrador of Idaho and Dana Rohrabacher of California joined in the effort, along with Democrat Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. theintercept.com | ||
| ||