Skip to main content
Recent Posts
1
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
Last post by Frenzie -
Quote
The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes
between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the
Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
This argument is shockingly weak. Obviously the president cannot appoint themselves; only dictators do that. They are appointed by the people (or perhaps we should say the electors, not that the distinction matters here). That the president appoints all other officers of the state makes them the highest officer of the state, not not an officer of the state. This clause is clarifying both the power and confines of their higher office.

Of course what matters most is contemporaneous language. Since the court saw fit to include 310 without any counterarguments, one might be strongly inclined assume there simply aren't any worth mentioning.

Quote
•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President
and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United
States:” “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.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 4.
A better argument than the above, though of course we can note they're explicitly held to the same standards by this text.

Quote
•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the
President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 3.
The same weak sauce as before.

Quote
•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is
explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to
take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.
It's more logical to conclude that the distinction simply isn't relevant here, the way it's relevant in the Appointments Clause and the Commissions Clause where the highest officer is granted those additional powers.

Nevertheless this could've looked impressively persuasive if they hadn't included that bit about contemporary usage by Andrew Johnson and earlier presidents. Of course anyone with half a brain cell would immediately check up on that, but still.
2
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
Last post by Frenzie -
The decision is quite hefty and can be found here: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

I haven't looked at it yet, but I'll note there's a footnote to that sentence.

Quote
The Court agrees with Petitioners that an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution encompasses the same duties as an oath to support the Constitution. The Court,
however, agrees with Intervenors that given there were two oaths in the Constitution at the time,
the fact that Section Three references the oath that applies to Article VI, Clause 3 officers
suggests that that is the class of officers to whom Section Three applies.

And for reference, section three:

Quote
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial
officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each
House, remove such disability.

I'll have to read through the argument in more detail, but I'd be surprised if the president weren't regarded as an officer of the state at the time.

The bulk of the argument seems to start on page 98.

Quote
310.
Magliocca further argued that contemporary usage supports the view that
the President is an “officer of the United States.” Andrew Johnson repeatedly referred to
himself as such in presidential proclamations, members of Congress both during the
39th Congress that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and during Johnson’s
impeachment several years later repeatedly referred to the President the same way, and
earlier presidents in the Nineteenth Century were referred to the same way. 11/01/23 Tr.
56:3–59:16, 69:21–71:21.

Quote
311.
On the other hand, Intervenors argue that five constitutional provisions
show that the President is not an “officer of the United States.”
•The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes
between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the
Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President
and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United
States:” “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.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 4.
•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the
President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 3.
•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is
explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to
take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.
•Article VI provides further support for distinguishing the President from
“Officers of the United States” because the oath taken by the President
under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 is not the same as the oath prescribed
for officers of the United States under Article VI, Clause 3.
4
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
Last post by ersi -
(It mentions senator, representative, elector and vice president, but not president. However, it also mentions anyone who has previously taken an oath, so there's no reason why this should not apply to the president.)
But it seems that people who think that the president is included there in Section 3 of 14th Amendment don't take on the case. The judges who take on the case are in line with the self-preservation instinct of the establishment. The principle is that laws don't apply to the establishment.

With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.

But Judge Wallace, a state district court judge in Denver, concluded that Section 3 did not include the presidential oath in that category.

The clause does not explicitly name the presidency, so that question hinged on whether the president was included in the
category “officer of the United States.”

Because of “the absence of the president from the list of positions to which the amendment applies combined with the fact that Section 3 specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to ‘support’ the Constitution whereas the presidential oath is to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution,” Judge Wallace wrote, “it appears to the court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section 3 did not intend to include a person who had only taken the presidential oath.”

[...]

Judge Wallace is the first judge to rule on the merits of whether Section 3 applies to Mr. Trump. Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire have been dismissed on procedural grounds, and a judge in Michigan recently ruled that the questions were political ones that courts did not have the authority to decide.
7
DnD Central / Re: What's Going On In Russia?
Last post by ersi -
Your post pretended to be an answer to my points. It wasn't, so I take the liberty to return the same service.

Your main thrust is that the West, and somehow Germany in particular, is some sort of security guarantee in Europe. The historical test of this assumption was how WWII unfolded. UK and France had promised to ensure Poland's safety and independence. They failed at their promises in 1939 and UK betrayed all semblance of such promises at Yalta.

This century, similar promises to Ukraine (Budapest memorandum) were put to the test and failed in 2014 and are failing right now. This is how much such promises are worth.

The best we, the betrayed countries, can do is to remind the fact that there were promises and can you please try better. Or at least not repeat the same mistake again. The result is that the mistakes are being repeated as we speak.

At any rate, there is no denial that such were the promises and that there was a complete and utter betrayal. Repeatedly. Oh, and what has Germany been doing all this time?  In 1939, Germany was Hitler. This century, Germany has been Schröder and Merkel and Scholz. Your only ground for assuming that Germany is any sort of security guarantee in Europe is absolute delusion.
9
DnD Central / Re: What's Going On In Russia?
Last post by ersi -
The Baltic States existed at the pleasure of whoever were the tsar of Russia (or not, when that tsar was Stalin). Without European friends they would not exist at all.
Russia kinda cares if Estonia exists or not. Namely, when Estonia exists, Russia wants it to cease to exist. In contrast, our Western "friends" don't care at all. And your entire line of reasoning is a solid proof of it.

Historically, there was a conference at Yalta. At that conference our Western "friends" gifted away to Stalin far more than Hitler had given. Moreover, Hitler really did not mean to gift away anything. He stabbed Stalin in the back and tried to take all Russia to himself. Whereas our Western "friends" casually stabbed in the back ALL countries between Germany and Russia, giving them away to Stalin, narrowly missing Austria. They gifted all those countries away and sincerely meant it so. This is how little they care about any of those countries, Estonia included. Our Western "friends" do not care whether any of those smaller countries exist, but they love to prop up Russia.

It is good to know facts and have no illusions. It's an illusion to think that Estonia has Western friends. Westerners are who they always were: colonists, just like Russia. They play the game they always played: the colonial game with Russia. Despite their rhetoric, Westerners don't care about the colonised. Their complete cold-heartedness is clear from the fact that Westerners pretend as if the colonial times were in the past and no longer happening, when they clearly continue to colonise even now. They pay more attention to Russia who is a potential competing colonist. Colonists care about each other. They don't care about the colonised. So no, Westerners are not friends.

Over the past decade we have seen how Ukraine is being fed to Russia. All other countries between Germany and Russia can reasonably expect the same fate, if they make the mistake of relying on Germany, France, UK, or USA.[1] The best Estonia can do is to stir up some historical conscience to invite Westerners to stop repeating their past mistakes, but thus far this has only resulted in consistent evidence that Westerners have no conscience and are hell-bent on repeating past mistakes.

Would NATO risk that, and a potential nuclear war, for a small, barely populated piece of land. A gambling tsar might just try.
Being a nuclear coward means that there are no principles and no conscience. The West only has colonial instincts and respects the instincts of other colonial countries, dictators, autocrats and despots. Countries and peoples who never harmed anybody do not matter to our Western "friends".

But that distraction, gaining Estonia, would not be worth it if Russia lost Kaliningrad, a naval base they actually need(ed).
Assuming that Russia gives a damn about what anything is worth is a persistent delusion in the West. In reality, Russia only thinks "it's mine/ours" ("Наша!") and that's it. And in the big picture they think everything is theirs, somewhat like USA thinks. Worth it or not does not enter their mind.

We are beyond that now. An invasion of Estonia would be risky on its own terms. They could, and probably would, try some form of hybrid warfare, but probably only with implausible deniability.
Yet another very sad delusion in the West, as if hybrid warfare by Russia could or would happen at some point, instead of having been constantly battled for the past 20 or so years, if not longer. Russia's plausible deniability is there only for the useful idiots. With our Western "friends" so fast asleep and so hopelessly blind, there really is nothing left to say.
The historical character and geopolitical nature of these countries is colonial. Their primary instincts and behaviour are colonial. One might dispute this for Germany, as Germany was late to the post-exploration era colonialism. The answer to this is that with the permanent conquest of Estonia, Latvia and Prussia in 13th century Germany actually had a good headstart in the colonial games.
10
DnD Central / Re: I'm bemused: No one here wants to discuss the Gaza-Israel war
Last post by Frenzie -
One might remember he once said the Holocaust wouldn't have happened were it not for Haj Amin al-Husseini talking Hitler into it. That in particular is a rather silly example, but it might serve to illustrate he's never looked for solutions. Or perhaps put another way, you're not a five year old child!  :devil:

Now as written in https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2015-10-20/why-israel-waits maintaining the status quo is not necessarily bad, but for a very long time it seems like Netanyahu has cared a lot less about Israel than about himself.

There are good terrorists, those who are useful for our geostrategic interests (call them moderate or freedom fighters) and bad terrorists, those who don't serve our geostrategic interests.
Is a term like "freedom fighter" even used anymore since the Wall fell? I've seen words like "guerrillas" my entire life, "freedom fighter" being some kind of quaint Cold War relic that primarily refers to guerrillas opposing oppressive communist regimes. Perhaps it's simply that the militants tend to instill their own dictatorship after emerging victoriously, but let's not forget that some insurgents never use the language of freedom at all. Some rather explicitly want to install dictatorships and/or theocracies. As such the term "freedom fighter" seems more naive than meaningless per se. A pretty common way to distinguish between "regular" insurgents and terrorists is whether or not they make a point of attacking non-combatants. So,

a. Hamas targeting Israeli soldiers is probably not terrorism, depending a bit on the specifics including e.g. treatment of prisoners.
b. Hamas targeting Israeli citizens is definitely terrorism.

Ergo, Hamas is a terrorist organization, clear as day. It's only when b is absent that things might get a bit muddier. In my experience, b is always present when calling something a terrorist organization.

Hamas is a terrorist organization and their rocket attacks should be unconditionally condemned. But this was also calculated political recklessness and opportunism by Netanyahu. His political end is nigh and apparently, cynically, a battle for Jerusalem during Ramadan is just the thing. Close the gate, close the Al-Aksa mosque without provocation, kick people out of their homes, wait for the Hamas deplorables to take the bait. Mission accomplished, even if presumably slightly more so than expected.

Also keep in mind Hamas has more popular support among Palestinians now because of that wretched wall and because of the increasingly apartheid-based state.

But I should also qualify that there were mass Palestinian protests against Hamas not long prior to their recent atrocities.