The Swamp

“Frankly this is a case that we would like to get to the Supreme Court,” he said. “So we're prepared in some of these cases to lose and to appeal and to get it to the Supreme Court.

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:32 pm I will remain skeptical until I see meaningful long-term results from the president hailing from Delaware.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:52 pm Wayne County now rescinding their certification of results.

cerrano wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:51 am

psunate77 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:52 pm Wayne County now rescinding their certification of results.

The deadline for certification had already passed when they signed this affidavit. Nothing to see here.

But will they? Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.

This edifice of extraordinary powers has historically rested on the assumption that the president will act in the country’s best interest when using them. With a handful of noteworthy exceptions, this assumption has held up. But what if a president, backed into a corner and facing electoral defeat or impeachment, were to declare an emergency for the sake of holding on to power? In that scenario, our laws and institutions might not save us from a presidential power grab. They might be what takes us down.

1. “A LOADED WEAPON”

The premise underlying emergency powers is simple: The government’s ordinary powers might be insufficient in a crisis, and amending the law to provide greater ones might be too slow and cumbersome. Emergency powers are meant to give the government a temporary boost until the emergency passes or there is time to change the law through normal legislative processes. Unlike the modern constitutions of many other countries, which specify when and how a state of emergency may be declared and which rights may be suspended, the U.S. Constitution itself includes no comprehensive separate regime for emergencies. Those few powers it does contain for dealing with certain urgent threats, it assigns to Congress, not the president. For instance, it lets Congress suspend the writ of habeas corpus—that is, allow government officials to imprison people without judicial review—“when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” and “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Nonetheless, some legal scholars believe that the Constitution gives the president inherent emergency powers by making him commander in chief of the armed forces, or by vesting in him a broad, undefined “executive Power.” At key points in American history, presidents have cited inherent constitutional powers when taking drastic actions that were not authorized—or, in some cases, were explicitly prohibited—by Congress. Notorious examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bush’s programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union.

The Supreme Court has often upheld such actions or found ways to avoid reviewing them, at least while the crisis was in progress. Rulings such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court invalidated President Harry Truman’s bid to take over steel mills during the Korean War, have been the exception. And while those exceptions have outlined important limiting principles, the outer boundary of the president’s constitutional authority during emergencies remains poorly defined.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:06 am

cerrano wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:51 am

psunate77 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:52 pm Wayne County now rescinding their certification of results.

The deadline for certification had already passed when they signed this affidavit. Nothing to see here.

That may be true, but there could be two issues..

1) They said they were force to certify under threats including those to their family. If they have proof of that, the courts can easily over turn this. If they don't this could be a way to get to the SCOTUS on an appeal. The one huge plus is Monica Palmer had an ethics hearing yesterday and is possibly facing jail time for a prior charge. She has another hearing on Jan 21st.

2) The more important issue, this could easily be a way for to put pressure on other districts not to certify the votes. We have already heard about Graham calling SOS and Gov. Now we get Arizona Gov who have said they will not certify until all legal options are off the table.

Either way, there is no way this grandstanding is good. It's just going to put more pressure on Biden when he gets into the WH, whenever that is. Seems like Senate is also involved in keeping this going as long as possible. The Dems better stop worrying about his cabinet and start paying attention here.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:32 am Amazes me how much illegal shit these guys get away with.

DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:16 am

I'm not a lawyer....but wouldn't that be like SUPER-DUPER illegal?

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:20 pm Vincent Gambini was a talented lawyer who understood finer evidentiary points at trial. Rudy would be honored to be mentioned with Gambini's acumen.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:23 pm

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:20 pm Vincent Gambini was a talented lawyer who understood finer evidentiary points at trial. Rudy would be honored to be mentioned with Gambini's acumen.

His direct examination of Marisa Tomei as an expert witness is held up as a perfect example of how to do it.

DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:30 pm Guys, guys, guys...they found the mastermind behind the Democrats stealing the Election!



Its Hugo Chavez! Who died in...2013?

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:03 pm In proof that we have entered the matrix, my YouTube feed just popped up with a lengthy clip from a lawyer extolling the virtues of My Cousin Vinny in terms of its legal accuracy.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:19 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:08 pmReally, really fucking wish Bill Maher had that when he was interviewing her.

She couldn't stop popping off about bullshit in that interview.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:45 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:08 pmReally, really fucking wish Bill Maher had that when he was interviewing her.

She couldn't stop popping off about bullshit in that interview.

Why wouldn't Maher have that?