Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Pardon me - leaving the other issues aside, how is he clearly not #2, having taken an oath to:

He's clearly not #2 because he's not a member of any state legislature.

I have already explained at great length the source of the "officer of the United States" definition.

The Constituton prescribes the literal oath of the President and that oath fails to say "support."  Conversely, it doesn't specify the oath of Congresscritters, but requires that the oath include "supporting the Constituition."

At best, a highly curious inconsistency.  Deliberate?  Meaningful? I don't fucking know.  

But words do tend to matter.

And an amendment is an amendment to an existing document, so you use the same language in a different manner at your peril.  So why the fuck did Congress use "officer of the United States" inconsistently with its use in Article II?  Why did it reference the congressional oath language of "support" and omit the presidential oath language?

I don't fucking know.  But they did.  And they created this fucking mess.

ALSO, YOU BUNCH OF FUCKWADS, TELLING YOU WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS IS NOT ADVOCATING FOR THE ARGUMENT.  

IT"S GODDAMN NEAR FACTUAL.

So, for those of you ascribing some kind of motive to me other than to explain what the law is in the face of your multitudes of questions, fucking gargle my balls.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

ALSO, YOU BUNCH OF FUCKWADS, TELLING YOU WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS IS NOT ADVOCATING FOR THE ARGUMENT.  

 

At some point you will realize you are having a completely different conversation than everyone else. You keep regurgitating the argument. Everyone is talking about how stupid the argument is. You can explain it fifty more times, no one cares man.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Drool 1
Posted

Another curiosity, apparently, any enlisted personnel of the military would be exempted from the 14th Amendment.  Under constitutional text interpretations or "ordinary meaning."

So E-1 up to SM of the Army and MCPO of the Navy can insurrect, rebel, and treason away and stand for office.

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Another curiosity, apparently, any enlisted personnel of the military would be exempted from the 14th Amendment.  Under constitutional text interpretations or "ordinary meaning."

So E-1 up to SM of the Army and MCPO of the Navy can insurrect, rebel, and treason away and stand for office.

[chuckles in Founding Father] Because everyone knows gentlemen would NEVER elect an enlisted person!  Pshaw, it'd be a rule for things that would never happen. Like women getting the vote, or abolition of slavery.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

[chuckles in Founding Father] Because everyone knows gentlemen would NEVER elect an enlisted person!  Pshaw, it'd be a rule for things that would never happen. Like women getting the vote, or abolition of slavery.

Pretty much what I was thinking, possibly with the addendum that any enlisted is by definition so foolish as to be excused for any such activities.

However, this was in 1868.

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty much what I was thinking, possibly with the addendum that any enlisted is by definition so foolish as to be excused for any such activities.

However, this was in 1868.

Yeah, I know that but it didn't work for the joke. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Constituton prescribes the literal oath of the President and that oath fails to say "support." 

JFC. Defend and support are synonymous. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47as7f5ss9hb3eve567f

no opinion, but damn near a page and a half telling everyone off why the president could reasonably NOT be considered an officer of the United States? You must have some gullible clients lol

I do have the ability to make arguments that inure to my clients' benefit, whether I agree with those arguments or not.

And, most of my comments here have been in response to Bozo's specific questions or additional, tangentially related comments about why Congress was so fucking sloppy in drafting the 14th Amendment, this particular section in particular.

Posted

Also, I wonder if the opinion that "it's stupid" would prevail if President/Trump was excluded from the operation of the removal statute?

(a)A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1)
The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof,
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, I wonder if the opinion that "it's stupid" would prevail if President/Trump was excluded from the operation of the removal statute?

(a)A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1)
The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof,

Thought that one has already been answered by the lower courts that 1) He was an officer but 2) the actions were not part of his duties as an officer.  Maybe it was Meadows and Trump dropped his because of the writing on the wall.

Posted
57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Constituton prescribes the literal oath of the President and that oath fails to say "support."  Conversely, it doesn't specify the oath of Congresscritters, but requires that the oath include "supporting the Constituition."

That’s a long stretch. It certainly says they have taken an oath to support the constitution. It does not require the oath include the word “support” or any other thing.

what people tend to forget is that the authors of the 14th amendment were not universally lawyers, let alone Federalist society textualists, and relied on plain meaning and guide their writings.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Take an oath to faithfully execute the "OFFICE" of the chief executive of the federal government. 

Lawyers: but he might not be an officer of the federal government

I work in an office.  (Well, I work in an office on Mondays and Fridays.)  That said, I am not an officer.  Therefore, people who work in offices are not officers.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, I wonder if the opinion that "it's stupid" would prevail if President/Trump was excluded from the operation of the removal statute?

(a)A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1)
The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof,

If  Trump was currently president, and thus an officer of the United States, he probably could and would (?did) make this argument. The fact is he is not currently president, and thus he is not currently an officer of the US, therefore.. its still stupid.

Edited by Horn Dog
Posted
7 hours ago, Captainant said:

Twice is doing his thing where he's twisting himself into knots to make it seem like the courts aren't humoring a farcical argument. We're all coming off a bye week and bad beat Astros game and aren't at our usual acuity 

Sir, it was not a bad beat.  It was a fantastic win, and having that cheater doubled up missing second made it oh so sweet.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Sir, it was not a bad beat.  It was a fantastic win, and having that cheater doubled up missing second made it oh so sweet.

I more mean that the stros left SO MANY people on base and couldn't make any runs. That's bad baseball when you've got bats like the Astros do

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Let's check in on how the latest gag order is going...

Post image

Biden Judge Chutney! (Well, Barack Hussein Obama appointed her.  But Trump judge Cannon is OK),

I thought this was America (hey, my favorite president like South Park!  The Rs are getting better at comedy!)

Monkeys (I wonder what he means by that?)

We have the 2A, too.  (Let's use our guns!!)

This douche should be in jail tomorrow.

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Thought that one has already been answered by the lower courts that 1) He was an officer but 2) the actions were not part of his duties as an officer.  Maybe it was Meadows and Trump dropped his because of the writing on the wall.

Nope, the officer issue wasn't litigated, because Meadows was one, effectively.  Nor was it litigated in NY in Trump's removal of the Manhattan case.

Posted
42 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Let's check in on how the latest gag order is going...

Post image

Bananna republic?  What's the extra 'N' stand for?  Dare I ask?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

He’s talking about the right to not quarter soldiers there obviously. 

Like we can even know what “quarter” means. Or “soldier”. Or “the right”. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Red Five said:

That has to be fake.

100% fake.  And I have no proof that it is fake, other than the fact it oozes fake.    Trumps most certainly thinks that, but I’m sure his lawyers sat him down and explained that if he keeps doing it, he’ll be watching the rest of the presidential campaign season from a holding cell when they revoke his personal recognizance.

Posted
17 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Spoiler: with pool noodles 

I'd pay good money to see Trump whacked with a pool noodle.   Not even a hard hit, just an undignified whack in the face.  His hair puffing out on impact.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2


×
×
  • Create New...