You’re right. I meant to convey the analogy between indictment/impeachment and conviction-removal/conviction-criminal.
It means that the people have other rights that are not of federal constitutional dimension.
I have two answers. One is my theoretical answer, arising from a best-practices framework of Constitutional interpretation from the beginning. The second is my answer about what the law actually is right now, and how I’d urge the document be interpreted now in light of past decisions.
(1) No, but Congress should secure that right by legislation as part of the Necessary and Proper Clause.
(2) Yes, because even though the right is not explicitly stated, it’s impossible to gain the functionality of the right that is stated unless ammunition is also considered.
Was any part of that answer “bananas?” If there were, can you identify which parts?
Maybe leave the self-satisfied gloating about someone going bananas until they, y’know, actually go bananas. Particularly if the person you are talking to is suspected of being an actual robot.
Bananas unite!
(Put hands together over head)
Bananas split!
(Hands at side)
Go bananas!
Go go bananas!
Go bananas!
Go go bananas!
(Turn in circle, moving arms up and down
during these four lines)
Bananas to the left
(Point left)
Bananas to the right
(Point right)
Peel your banana and, mmmmmm, take a bite!
(Motion of peeling banana and biting it)
That’s unless you completely disregard the first part of the right.
The Swiss, for example, let their citizen-soldiers (a well organized militia, if you will) hold onto their military rifles but IIRC either the ammo is also provided but they’re not allowed to use it unless given the go ahead, or the ammo is to be distributed if and when manure meets windmill.
Damn Autopun!
I typed, and you presumably read, that option (2) was “what the law actually is right now, and how I’d urge the document be interpreted now in light of past decisions.”
Right?
US v. Heller disposes of the argument that the prefatory clause operates as you describe, and explicitly establishes that the right is an independent one.
Very early on after the election, when giuliani said that trump did not need to divest his holdings, because the president was immune to conflict of interest issues, I said that he was able to get away with anything.
You then assured me that just because of this one thing, that trump would not be able to get away with anything.
At the time, I asked what the limits to what he could get away with were, and got no answer.
So, as I have seen him get away with quite a number of things that it would seem to a naive citizen of the country like myself that a president should not be doing, I would ask what limits there would be to his allowances.
the only answer that I have seen that addresses this is “It’s not illegal if the president does it.”
Is there anything, anything at all that is illegal if the president does it?
I m getting the impression the answer is “no”.
Ah, A trump supporter you are, kindly read the thread title.
So, if you feel that congress should be able to secure that right to ammo, does that also mean that you feel that it would be congress’s place to restrict the right to own and purchase ammo?
Who cares? This is not a gun control thread. This is a thread about people who will do anything to protect Donald Trump, like, for example, trying to derail conversations about what a shit head Trump supporters are with a Gun Control Tar Baby.
Where in the constitution is the right to own a potato?
Sam Stone, earlier in the thread I asked you to clarify what “conspiracy stuff” that people should drop to focus on the real criticisms of Trump. You posted later, but didn’t address my issue.
Are you referring to the Russia connections? If not, what did you mean by that?
You do not recall correctly, if you mean that they have rifles but no ammunition is available to shoot. They formerly issued a sealed package of rifle ammunition that the reservist was required to keep on hand. It is now to be distributed upon military activation. Swiss citizens can purchase ammunition to shoot from their military rifle and/or privately owned guns.See here.
I think you’re being too harsh on Little Nemo. His question was (I thought) a genuine effort to explore the boundaries of constitutional interpretation.
And that’s absolutely true, when discussing specific items that were under review during those conversations. Because the law regulating financial conflicts of interest specifically excludes the President, it’s not illegal for the President to have assets that would constitute conflicts of interest in other federal employees.
And because the President has the power to declassify or share classified information if, in his sole judgement, it serves his policy, it’s not illegal when the President shares classified information where any other person would be breaking the law by doing it.
So I’d opine that the only reason you’ve seen that answer is that the the times its been given are when it’s factually correct.
Then you’re getting an incorrect impression.
There are plenty of things that would be illegal even if the President did them. Carnal knowledge of child between thirteen and fifteen years of age; attempting to enter into a marriage while married to another person; falsifying any patient record with the intent to defraud; as a trustee knowingly and fraudulently appropriating any property belonging to the estate of a bankruptcy debtor; intimidating, threatening, or coercing any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose; directly performing a partial-birth abortion; and while under oath, knowingly making any false material declaration are all examples of things that would be illegal if the President did them.
Under which option? (1) or (2) ?
I don’t think it can ever be convened. Everyone would be too afraid of what it could do to vote for convening it.
And I am sure I will learn all the other things that aren’t illegal when a president does them either.
But, then, you are saying that the emolument’s clause is a vestigial organ of the constitution, and that even in a blatant pay for play that obviously benefits the president in a way that obviously harms the US, even if he nuked L.A. in exchange for money from north korea, there would be no law broken.
All of those would still need congress to actually impeach and convict, though, right? So it would still be legal, if the president who did it was from the same party as the majority in congress.
And, to be honest, I am more interested in abuses of power that are gained from having a position, than crimes that anyone at all can commit.
Well, under optn 1, in which congress needs to make a specific law to ensure that ammo is allowed. It would seem if they have that power, then they would have power to limit or even prohibit ammo from being possessed or sold.
Just because it is convened does not mean that whatever they come up with will be ratified.
True, but the convention could set its own ratification process (as the 1787 convention did).
Careful, man, you’re getting Donald’s water all over yourself.
Right, so going forward, you now acknowledge that you asked this:
And you acknowledge that you’ve now gotten a different answer that explains correctly that there are many many acts that are illegal if the President does them, yes?
It’s weird that on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance, you asked that question repeatedly and the only answer you ever got was that it’s not illegal when the President does it, so I’d like to explicitly confirm that now, finally, that misapprehension is put to rest.
No.
As I explained above, there are plenty of actions that are illegal even if the President does them, and nuking L.A. for pay is one of them.
It would still need Congress to impeach and convict, yes. But that’s a weakness of any law enforcement system. I can kidnap your neighbor, kill him, and roast his entrails on the Hibachi I stole from his garage, and it would not be punished if the prosecutor refused to prosecute me.
OK.
Under Option 1, they wouldn’t. And if they did, then the constitution is amended to correct the problem.
Is there any moment when you stop and ask yourself why you oppose someone who is offering reasoned commentary and debate, and the only things you can manage are attempts at snark?
If our positions were reversed, I’d be ashamed to be defending a position where the only thing I could offer amounted to snide, cutting remarks.
But it obviously doesn’t bother you. You’re seemingly not the least bit upset that the merits of your position are so weak that you can only compete with these kind of tactics.
So what I’m asking is: do you ever think about stuff like that? Or do you just sort of push it down in your mind? Turn it off, like a light switch?