Peter Wallison, Emeritus at AEI, offers absurd conclusion in TRUMP V. UNITED STATES

[johnwk]

.
.
See: “Private Acts” Open the Way for a Trial on Trump’s Election Interference (Part II)

With regard to TRUMP V. UNITED STATES, Mr. Wallison goes through a long-winded recount of the oral arguments before the S.C, which was limited to the following question:

"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE

Mr. Wallison finally concludes,

“ . . . because the Supreme Court will have agreed on what are “private acts” and what are not, there is little likelihood that the trial will be interrupted by interlocutory proceedings and delays. This should allow the trial to proceed with some dispatch before the election.”

The error of his conclusion however is found earlier in his rambling.

“ . . . who should decide whether the President’s acts are private or official, and whether that decision “should be undertaken in the first instance by the D.C. Circuit or the District Court?”

The truth of the matter is, our Founders addressed this very question when creating a special and unique due process procedure for a President who might commit "... political crimes, or offenses against the state...".

“While evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse, the evidence available indicates that they considered impeachment to be an essential tool to hold government officers accountable for political crimes, or offenses against the state. 70 James Madison considered it “indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,” as the President might “pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.”71 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”72 SOURCE

In fact, our founders concluded our ordinary judicial system was an improper venue to judge such matters, e.g. .in Federalist No. 65 Hamilton writes:

"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives.. .

. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."

And under our Constitution's due process procedure to deal with a President who is charged with acts violating his public trust, Trump was found "not guilty" by the SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE. And so, the D.C. Indictment of Trump is defective for lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction because Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7 commands:

”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Trump was acquitted and is thus not ". . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment . . . " under our ordinary judicial system.

So, as it turns out the historical evidence confirms the absurdity of the question, “ . . . who should decide whether the President’s acts are private or official . . . “

As concluded by Hamilton “ . . . the Supreme Court [our ordinary judicial system] would have been an improper substitute for the Senate..."

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[johnwk]

Peter J. Wallison at AEI is constitutionally illiterate

.


BTW, Peter J. Wallison, Emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute, who authored “Private Acts” Open the Way for a Trial on Trump’s Election Interference (Part II), is the same nitwit and constitutionally illiterate who asserts that Trump is ineligible to run for president.

See: The Colorado Court Decision on Trump Was Correct


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[johnwk]

Prosecutorial Jurisdiction: Trump’s private acts v those connected to his presidency

.
.

What many seem to avoid in a discussion concerning prosecuting a President for conduct considered to be criminal, is the distinction between acts which are public in nature and connected to a President’s office of public trust, and private acts and conduct, which are not connected to the presidency ___ the former intended to be dealt with under our Constitution’s impeachment due process, while the latter are to be dealt with under our ordinary judicial system and its allotted due process.


In the instant case concerning the type of charges found in the impeachment of Trump H. Res. 24, and charges found in the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP, both list charges directly connected to Trump’s acts associated with his public trust and fall under our Constitution’s impeachment’s due process, while the alleged charges found in NEW YORK’S INDICTMENT OF TRUMP are private acts and subject to a court of competent jurisdiction and its due process procedure.


So, the question is, does the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency? And if the answer is yes, then the United States District Court for the District of Columbia lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction, and the only court of competent jurisdiction is the United States Senate.

JWK

 

[acptulsa]

The impeachment process is clearly designed to remove crooks from office.

There's nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that says, implies, or even suggests that anyone can be criminally punished by Congress. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that says, implies or even suggests that anyone removed from an office can't be prosecuted for any crimes they commit by whatever jurisdiction the Official Miscreant was in when the crimes were committed. There's nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that says or implies that being fired from a job -- any job -- amounts to a criminal punishment.

In my opinion all this psyoap opera crap means nothing whatsoever in the real world.

Both Left and Right are trying to turn impeachment into something it isn't. Both Left and Right are on the same side in that. Both Left and Right are, as usual, wrong.

 

[johnwk]

The impeachment process is clearly designed to remove crooks from office.

There's nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that says, implies, or even suggests that anyone can be criminally punished by Congress. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that says, implies or even suggests that anyone removed from an office can't be prosecuted for any crimes they commit by whatever jurisdiction the Official Miscreant was in when the crimes were committed. There's nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that says or implies that being fired from a job -- any job -- amounts to a criminal punishment.

In my opinion all this psyoap opera crap means nothing whatsoever in the real world.

Both Left and Right are trying to turn impeachment into something it isn't. Both Left and Right are on the same side in that. Both Left and Right are, as usual, wrong.

I appreciate you posting that, but your generalizations leave me wondering what you mean.

 

[unknown]

Hey OP, what's your conclusion?

 

[johnwk]

Hey OP, what's your conclusion?

.

The D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP appears to me to list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency. What say you?

.

 

[acptulsa]

.

The D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP appears to me to list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency. What say you?

.

If that's a conclusion, why does it leave me wondering, "And...?"

 

[johnwk]

If that's a conclusion, why does it leave me wondering, "And...?"

I have no idea what you mean by that. So, does the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency?

 

[acptulsa]

I have no idea what you mean by that. So, does the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency?

What if it does? He's not president. Why impeach him if he's not in office? Indictments are for lawbreakers, and it doesn't make a damned bit of difference who the lawbreaker was working for at the time.

Yes, most or all of these legal actions are abuses of power, misuses of the system. Whether or not Trump committed actual high crimes in office doesn't seem to matter to anyone but his accomplices, who certainly aren't calling him to task for any of that. Only the b.s. charges have gone forward. This kind of thing has been going on for decades. Why the sudden concern? Was it less unjust when it just happened to average schmucks, or is it more unjust when it happens to your orange celebrity? It has been happening to normal people for years, happening for real, to people who can't afford lawyers. Why is your moral outrage so late to the party? Would it be more unjust if it happened to Britney Spears than if it happened to you?



The man's officially a civilian and he can be indicted. That's just the way life is. Get over it. It's not like that's not working for you. Republicans love voting for victims. If they weren't playing at victimizing him, some people might stop and look at his record in office, which by any conservative standard is abysmal.

 

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

So, does the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency?

What if it does?

Well, if it does, and those charges were committed by Trump while he was in office, our founders provided a specific due process procedure in our Constitution to deal with public servants who violate their office of public trust SOURCE, and that would include a President, who is accused of engaging in acts consider to be criminal and violate his office of public trust.

In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant who engages in criminal conduct while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (Federalist 65):

"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .

. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."


Our constitutional system is one of positive law, and since it is not silent on dealing with one who holds an office of public trust and violates that trust, we must follow the due process procedure provided.

.

 

[acptulsa]

Same statement, same link to the same "authoritative" opinion.

Impeachment is still just a mechanism for firing an elected official, and was never meant as a substitute for the criminal justice system. The same link posted over and over isn't going to change my mind.

 

[johnwk]

Same statement, same link to the same "authoritative" opinion.

Impeachment is still just a mechanism for firing an elected official, and was never meant as a substitute for the criminal justice system.

In that (impeachment is not a substitute for the criminal justice system) you are correct, and why our founders provided those convicted by the Senate "...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."


”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”(my emphasis) Article I; Section 3, Clause 7.
.

 

[acptulsa]

Well there you go.

 

[TheCount]

Our constitutional system is one of positive law, and since it is not silent on dealing with one who holds an office of public trust and violates that trust, we must follow the due process procedure provided.

He's not the president

 

[TheCount]

In that (impeachment is not a substitute for the criminal justice system) you are correct, and why our founders provided those convicted by the Senate "...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."


”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”(my emphasis) Article I; Section 3, Clause 7.
.

Do you remember how you learned in elementary school that "all squares are rectangles" did not also mean that all rectangles are squares?


This is like that.

 

[johnwk]

And that brings us back to the $64,000 question in Trump vs the U.S.

Well there you go.

.


Does the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency? If the answer is yes, then the United States District Court for the District of Columbia lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction, and the court of competent jurisdiction is the United States Senate.

In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant who engages in criminal conduct while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (Federalist 65):


"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?


Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .


. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."


Our constitutional system is one of positive law, and since it is not silent on dealing with one who holds an office of public trust and violates that trust, we must follow the due process procedure provided.

Are we not bound to adhere to our written Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted, which gives context to its text?

.

JWK

 

[acptulsa]

Impeachment is still just a mechanism for firing an elected official, and was never meant as a substitute for the criminal justice system. The same link posted over and over isn't going to change my mind.

Does the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency? If the answer is yes, then the United States District Court for the District of Columbia lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction, and the court of competent jurisdiction is the United States Senate.

No.

The United States Senate is not a law enforcement agency, nor is it a court system, and it has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

That's just the fact of the matter.

Now please stop quoting me and just repeating yourself. It bores me.

 

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
Does the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency?

No.

It most certainly does. The charges listed in the D.C. indictment of Trump are allegations of crimes committed by Trump, while Trump was President and are directly related to his Presidency.

Why do you reject an irrefutable fact?

.

 

[acptulsa]

It most certainly does. The charges listed in the D.C. indictment of Trump are allegations of crimes committed by Trump, while Trump was President and are directly related to his Presidency.

Why do you reject an irrefutable fact?

I don't reject that fact. I reject the entirely goofy-assed notion that Trump is too damned famous or too damned official or too damned good for a court of law. And you can't be so stupid that you didn't know that.

Lay off the childish gotcha games. Nobody's impressed.