Wouldn’t someone running for President have to prove they were over 35 and a natural born citizen before they could get on any ballot?
Isn’t that what a citation is? A book/article that you claim supports the statekent you make? You know, “The average rainfall in the Congo is 60 inches per year.” (“The World Almanac of Rainfall, 2006 edition”)
I just gave a (made up and probably false) fact, and used as my support a citation to a (made up and probably false) source.
If the books/articles support his point of view, why shouldn’t he cite them?
Because he didn’t cite a specific quote from the book. Even Bricker sort of admits that a cite of a paragraph or two whould be helpful (he just didn’t have the time or perhaps, the patience to do this for DrDeth). Quoting a whole book is a bit too broad. It’s like saying I beleive in Global Warming based upon Al Gores movie and not going into further detail.
Si Amigo is right. And, your sample cite would be better with a page number.
Dude, yes, you are a lawyer and I am not. But as you can see by your articles/books and the Wiki article that I cited "Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense."- the question is not closed or open and shut. If it was, they wouldn’t have bothered to write those articles/books. Yes, I have conceded that the weight of expert opinion is on your side. But the weight of expert opinion is not that same this as “SCOTUS has ruled. It’s over now”. SCOTUS has not ruled. Those other cites you give are just expert opinion on what they think would happen if and when SCOTUS did rule.
But Nixon is worthless as a cite for “other high crimes and misdemeanors” as you know full damn well Nixon didn’t even touch on “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. You may be a a lawyer, but I did serve as a Paralegal, and I can read a SCOTUS dec too you know, and that dec is a worless cite for what you are attempting to prove.
That leaves your experts in their books, who I will also cheerfully concede in those books make a very strong case for what they beleive will happen should SCOTUS even get a case where “other high crimes and misdemeanors” is the critical factor. But as learned as their highly educated guesses are- they are just that; highly educated guesses.
So pleeeeeze, Bricker, don’t try and dazzle me with the “I’m a lawyer and youre not” line. That works fine when we are talking about known case law and what the law actually sez. If you tell me that the Penal Code in the state where you are admitted to the Bar sez “xxxxx”, I beleive you. 100%.
But in a matter of Constitutional Law, where the experts are debating it- your opinion is only a tad better than mine (I assume here you are not admitted to Practice before the US Supreme Court? Nor a well known Consitutional law expert?). Your experts- by giving their highly learned opinion are doing nothing more than admitting that they are just guessing, no matter how educated those guesses may be. By you appealing to those opinions, you are “appealing to authority”, a Logical Fallacy.
So, we agree: We both agree that the Senate has the sole power to try, BUT that SCOTUS certainly has the authority to rule if that trial has or has not met what is"constitutionally required", right?
I assume you now must concede that Nixon is not a valid cite for “other high crimes and misdemeanors”, right? I have asked you this thrice, and you still have not conceded.
“Other high crimes and misdemeanors” *is *a “consitutional Requirement” is it not? Thus, SCOTUS can rule on it.
Now you- and the experts whose books you cite- have the very educated opinion that if and when SCOTUS ever gets a chance to hear and rule on a case regarding "“other high crimes and misdemeanors” they will defer to the Senate and rule much as in Nixon. That’s fine too, and I agree that may well happen. But it hasn’t happened yet. And you well know, it’s not a good idea to provoke SCOTUS- although I agree that’s the way they *will likely *rule when and if that day ever comes- provoking “the Supremes” by “If Congress chooses to impeach the President for wearing bad ties, or being a Red Sox fan” might just get those nine dudes in black to react very badly. 
Not really. An “appeal to authority” occurs when the authority is spurious, e.g., if Bricker was citing to 50 Cent to prove his point on constitutional law. He’s citing to a former Chief Justice and former senior fellow in American legal history at Harvard, both perfectly acceptable authorities. Bricker isn’t saying that SCOTUS has ruled on what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he’s saying that current case law says it won’t get that far if the question ever does come before the Court - that they’ll refuse to decide the question on grounds of justiciability. On that issue, Nixon is dead on point.
Nixon didn’t rule on what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” (no case has), but it didn’t rule on what constitues “good behavior,” either. It ruled that impeachments were nonjusticiable. More specifically, Nixon ruled that the “political question” doctrine of Baker v. Carr applied as to the article one clause concerning the sole power of the Senate to try impeachments. In the language of Baker, it’s “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.” If the Supremes ever were to substantively review an impeachment of a President, it would have to be a departure from Nixon.
I’m not going to jump into the merits on this, other than to say that I agree with Bricker’s analysis and disagree with yours.
I will respond to this, though.
-
He’s done much more than just state an answer.
-
Even if that’s all he did, his background as a lawyer and background here as a knowlegeable poster on Constitutional topics is (while not dispositive) worthy of some weight. You need to do a little more than just argue your own counter opinion.
-
What Bricker is really saying to you is not ‘‘I’m a lawyer and you’re not’’, but (instead) ''I’m a lawyer, and you have a long track record as a serial gadfly who often posts bad information in legal threads, and I’m therefore not going to spend a lot of time on you. ‘’
And here’s a hint: what a concurring opinion that differs says is not worthy of much weight if the majority opinion that it partly disagrees from has enough votes to be a majority by itself. That is only one of the flaws in your legal analysis.
For those who may not be as familiar with DrDeth*s history on legal topics as Bricker and I(unfortunately) are, and may think our comments are coming out of nowhere:
See: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=381724&highlight=drdeth
[ Administrator Hat On]:
Random, there is a distinction between “offering legal advice” and “commenting on legal generalities.” There is no issue in this thread of “offering legal advice”; people are commenting on what they think the Constitution says or how they think the Supreme Court might rule.
In the link you provide, the question is “What happens to me when…” That involves a specific situation, and hence comments are potentially “legal advice” which cannot be offered (legally) except by a lawyer. That is to say: someone could have told that OP that it was OK to do something, and they might do it. samclem as moderator reminded folks not to give legal advice.
In this thread, the topic is not anything that will (or could) happen to anyone. No one will take actions on someone’s comments that the Supreme Court might rule on “high crimes.” There is a difference between “legal advice” and mere “general commentary.” This thread falls in the latter situation, and you are being somewhat snarky to provide that link to a completely different situation.
Meanwhile, for the other participants in this thread, please COOL IT. This is a hypothetical argument and there’s no need to get hot and bothered under the collar. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court could change its mind on any ruling at any time, so there’s no guarantee that past rulings will have any impact on future courts. However, that aside: there’s no reason for you to be slinging at each other over this. Calm down.