Ok So

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: Ok So

#26 Post by kroxquo » Thu May 12, 2022 3:09 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 11:07 am
kroxquo wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 10:51 am
wbtravis007 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 10:19 am


The 22nd Amendment wouldn't prevent Obama from serving as President. It just would prevent him from being elected President. Nothing to stop him from being elected VP.
I stand corrected. It is not 22nd but the 12th that would forbid it. "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Again, he's not constitutionally ineligible to the office of President; he just can't be elected President again.
This has presented an interesting question and is not and cut and dried as I had assumed. According to the constitutional scholar quoted in this article from WaPo, it is theoretically possible according to the letter of the law, but would violate the spirit of the law. Either way, it would be a constitutional mess.

It's always a good day when my assumptions are challenged.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... e-yes-but/
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20632
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Ok So

#27 Post by Bob78164 » Thu May 12, 2022 3:26 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 2:23 pm
Realize he was suggesting Obama as VP and then for whatever reason Biden is sent out to pasture, enabling Obama to serve as acting prez for term remainder. Not eligible for actual pres reelection. WB, am I correct?

Disclaimer-obviously I wouldn't vote for them but it is interesting.
Yes, I realize that’s what he’s suggesting. It won’t work. Barack Obama is no longer eligible to serve as President, so he can’t be Vice President either. The language of the Twenty-Second Amendment will not be construed to limit disqualification to those who are elected to the office. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Ok So

#28 Post by wbtravis007 » Thu May 12, 2022 3:38 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 2:09 pm
Beebs52 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 1:54 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 1:06 pm
That theory was floated in connection with Bill Clinton. It’s not a credible reading of the amendment. —Bob
According to whom?
Anyone who knows anything about constitutional interpretation. Not all readings that are syntactically possible are credible. The obvious purpose of the Twelfth Amendment is to prevent anyone from serving as Vice President also to serve as President. The equally obvious purpose of the Twenty-Second Amendment is to prevent anyone from serving as President after serving two complete terms (or one complete term and more than half of someone else’s term). The proposed reading would make a mockery of that interpretation. —Bob
I disagree. If the 22nd Amendment wasn’t written well, I say: tough titty but the milk still flows. And, whose intent are you evaluating here? That's a lot of folks.

This sentence of yours: The obvious purpose of the Twelfth Amendment is to prevent anyone from serving as Vice President also to serve as President is reminding me of a movie -- (which I'm sure one of y'all Mr. or Miss know-it-alls will know and can name) -- in that it has me saying to myself: "Sorry, Sir ... I can't quite make that out!"
Last edited by wbtravis007 on Thu May 12, 2022 7:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 12843
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Ok So

#29 Post by Beebs52 » Thu May 12, 2022 3:54 pm

Bob, sometimes you might be mistaken. Just saying.
Well, then

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Ok So

#30 Post by wbtravis007 » Thu May 12, 2022 3:57 pm

Duplicate post
Last edited by wbtravis007 on Thu May 12, 2022 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Ok So

#31 Post by wbtravis007 » Thu May 12, 2022 4:04 pm

Doh! another one. Where's that dunce cap?

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 24884
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Ok So

#32 Post by Bob Juch » Thu May 12, 2022 6:04 pm

You can delete your own posts.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: Ok So

#33 Post by kroxquo » Thu May 12, 2022 7:20 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 3:26 pm
Beebs52 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 2:23 pm
Realize he was suggesting Obama as VP and then for whatever reason Biden is sent out to pasture, enabling Obama to serve as acting prez for term remainder. Not eligible for actual pres reelection. WB, am I correct?

Disclaimer-obviously I wouldn't vote for them but it is interesting.
Yes, I realize that’s what he’s suggesting. It won’t work. Barack Obama is no longer eligible to serve as President, so he can’t be Vice President either. The language of the Twenty-Second Amendment will not be construed to limit disqualification to those who are elected to the office. —Bob
Could you read the WaPo article I linked earlier. I would normally agree with you on this 100% but that article seems to say otherwise. Tell me what I am missing.
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
bazodee
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:23 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Ok So

#34 Post by bazodee » Thu May 12, 2022 8:13 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 8:10 am
earendel wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 7:54 am
bazodee wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 1:44 pm
Alternative scenario:

Kevin McCarthy is not loved by his party. The next Congress elects Donald Trump as the Speaker of the House (the Speaker does not have to be a member. It's never happened, but he is eligible.)

Maybe that will be enough to scratch his itch to be the center of attention and chief mischief-maker (and third-in-line).
This has been suggested before - and the follow-up is that the President and Vice-president resign (or are impeached and convicted) in order to make Trump president.
This is a tactic that the Democrats would consider if they were in the same situation. And I have no doubt they would implement it if they thought they could pull it off. Sort of like packing the SCOTUS and making new states so they would get more power in DC. The only reason they haven't done those two things yet is they know they don't have enough votes to do it.

The repubs don't have the spine to do this. Even if they gain control of the House and Senate. The only way they would do it is if the Dems did something like the above two examples and established the precedent, so they could say, we did it because the dems did it to us. That does not seem likely at this point. So this will never happen, IMO. And I think the whole idea stinks to high heaven. The approval rating of congress is lower than that of used car salesmen as it is. This would put its approval rating into negative numbers, if that's possible.

I was only suggesting Part 1 of the scenario-- that Trump be elected Speaker. I wasn't even contemplating that act as part of a larger plot to have him succeed to the Presidency. I don't think it far-fetched that gridlock within the House majority party might someday yield a Speaker from outside the House. I could also envision the minority party cooperating with a small faction of the majority to find an alternative candidate. Nothing seems off the table anymore.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20632
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Ok So

#35 Post by Bob78164 » Thu May 12, 2022 9:27 pm

kroxquo wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 7:20 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 3:26 pm
Beebs52 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 2:23 pm
Realize he was suggesting Obama as VP and then for whatever reason Biden is sent out to pasture, enabling Obama to serve as acting prez for term remainder. Not eligible for actual pres reelection. WB, am I correct?

Disclaimer-obviously I wouldn't vote for them but it is interesting.
Yes, I realize that’s what he’s suggesting. It won’t work. Barack Obama is no longer eligible to serve as President, so he can’t be Vice President either. The language of the Twenty-Second Amendment will not be construed to limit disqualification to those who are elected to the office. —Bob
Could you read the WaPo article I linked earlier. I would normally agree with you on this 100% but that article seems to say otherwise. Tell me what I am missing.
The article is an opinion piece that essentially adopts the old semantic argument that I think has essentially no chance of being adopted. The issue is whether the Twenty-Second Amendment limits qualification only to those people seeking “election” as President. What possible reason could anyone have for such a limit?

This is an argument that only a lawyer could love. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Ok So

#36 Post by wbtravis007 » Thu May 12, 2022 10:18 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 9:27 pm
kroxquo wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 7:20 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 3:26 pm
Yes, I realize that’s what he’s suggesting. It won’t work. Barack Obama is no longer eligible to serve as President, so he can’t be Vice President either. The language of the Twenty-Second Amendment will not be construed to limit disqualification to those who are elected to the office. —Bob
Could you read the WaPo article I linked earlier. I would normally agree with you on this 100% but that article seems to say otherwise. Tell me what I am missing.
The article is an opinion piece that essentially adopts the old semantic argument that I think has essentially no chance of being adopted. The issue is whether the Twenty-Second Amendment limits qualification only to those people seeking “election” as President. What possible reason could anyone have for such a limit?

This is an argument that only a lawyer could love. —Bob

This is kind of gobbledygooky.

I’m almost always on board with your takes here, and think that you’re brilliant, but in your last couple of posts in this thread I think you’re a little off your game.

You okay?

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20632
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Ok So

#37 Post by Bob78164 » Thu May 12, 2022 11:28 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 10:18 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 9:27 pm
kroxquo wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 7:20 pm
Could you read the WaPo article I linked earlier. I would normally agree with you on this 100% but that article seems to say otherwise. Tell me what I am missing.
The article is an opinion piece that essentially adopts the old semantic argument that I think has essentially no chance of being adopted. The issue is whether the Twenty-Second Amendment limits qualification only to those people seeking “election” as President. What possible reason could anyone have for such a limit?

This is an argument that only a lawyer could love. —Bob
This is kind of gobbledygooky.

I’m almost always on board with your takes here, and think that you’re brilliant, but in your last couple of posts in this thread I think you’re a little off your game.

You okay?
I’m saying that it’s a semantically permissible argument that no sane judge will buy because it utterly ignores the real-world purpose of the Amendment, which was to prevent anyone from serving more than two terms, as FDR had. There’s no way anyone actually intended that loophole and it’s easy enough to read the language of the Amendment to avoid the silliness, so that’s what any sane judge would do. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Ok So

#38 Post by wbtravis007 » Fri May 13, 2022 3:03 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 11:28 pm
wbtravis007 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 10:18 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 9:27 pm
The article is an opinion piece that essentially adopts the old semantic argument that I think has essentially no chance of being adopted. The issue is whether the Twenty-Second Amendment limits qualification only to those people seeking “election” as President. What possible reason could anyone have for such a limit?

This is an argument that only a lawyer could love. —Bob
This is kind of gobbledygooky.

I’m almost always on board with your takes here, and think that you’re brilliant, but in your last couple of posts in this thread I think you’re a little off your game.

You okay?
I’m saying that it’s a semantically permissible argument that no sane judge will buy because it utterly ignores the real-world purpose of the Amendment, which was to prevent anyone from serving more than two terms, as FDR had. There’s no way anyone actually intended that loophole and it’s easy enough to read the language of the Amendment to avoid the silliness, so that’s what any sane judge would do. —Bob
Well ... there you go again. Yeah, I've gotten your point all along. This time it's expressed with more clarity than the two that I quoted, but not more persuasively.

It's at least a little shrill to suggest that any sane person would see this your way. To me, it makes a lot more sense to just go with what the Amendment says, instead of what most people think that it says. I see plain English, not ambiguity. You've mentioned a couple of times that it is semantically possible (or permissible or whatever) to interpret it my way. I say it's almost impossible to support any other interpretation without employing tortured arguments. I can't help but wonder whether you have even read it. If there were contradictory clauses that would support the need to try to interpret the intent, that would be different, of course. There aren't.

And, if you were going to try to determine the intent of the hundreds of people involved in the drafting, passing and ratification by the requisite 36 states of that Amendment, shouldn't you consider that it's conceivable that a fair number of them might not have supported it if it included a provision that would prevent a party from nominating a candidate for VP that its nominee for president preferred, notwithstanding that that individual would not be allowed to run for the presidency again by virtue of the Amendment, even if that would result in this "loophole?"

It would have been easy enough to include a provision that the former presidents described in the Amendment would not be eligible to run for VP, either, or to specify that they could not serve (rather that that they could not be elected), if that was the intent, instead of having to rely on the very weak argument that the 12th Amendment would supply the rationale for that prohibition, notwithstanding that that Amendment clearly applies to age, residence and citizenship.

I get that you think that it should say what most people think it does -- (and that you and they want it to). So, I'd suggest getting behind an effort to correct the problem caused by the poor drafting, if that's what it was. Until then, I will continue to say: You don't like it? Tough titty.

Biden/Obama '24, baby!

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20632
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Ok So

#39 Post by Bob78164 » Fri May 13, 2022 5:09 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 3:03 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 11:28 pm
wbtravis007 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 10:18 pm
This is kind of gobbledygooky.

I’m almost always on board with your takes here, and think that you’re brilliant, but in your last couple of posts in this thread I think you’re a little off your game.

You okay?
I’m saying that it’s a semantically permissible argument that no sane judge will buy because it utterly ignores the real-world purpose of the Amendment, which was to prevent anyone from serving more than two terms, as FDR had. There’s no way anyone actually intended that loophole and it’s easy enough to read the language of the Amendment to avoid the silliness, so that’s what any sane judge would do. —Bob
Well ... there you go again. Yeah, I've gotten your point all along. This time it's expressed with more clarity than the two that I quoted, but not more persuasively.

It's at least a little shrill to suggest that any sane person would see this your way. To me, it makes a lot more sense to just go with what the Amendment says, instead of what most people think that it says. I see plain English, not ambiguity. You've mentioned a couple of times that it is semantically possible (or permissible or whatever) to interpret it my way. I say it's almost impossible to support any other interpretation without employing tortured arguments. I can't help but wonder whether you have even read it. If there were contradictory clauses that would support the need to try to interpret the intent, that would be different, of course. There aren't.

And, if you were going to try to determine the intent of the hundreds of people involved in the drafting, passing and ratification by the requisite 36 states of that Amendment, shouldn't you consider that it's conceivable that a fair number of them might not have supported it if it included a provision that would prevent a party from nominating a candidate for VP that its nominee for president preferred, notwithstanding that that individual would not be allowed to run for the presidency again by virtue of the Amendment, even if that would result in this "loophole?"

It would have been easy enough to include a provision that the former presidents described in the Amendment would not be eligible to run for VP, either, or to specify that they could not serve (rather that that they could not be elected), if that was the intent, instead of having to rely on the very weak argument that the 12th Amendment would supply the rationale for that prohibition, notwithstanding that that Amendment clearly applies to age, residence and citizenship.

I get that you think that it should say what most people think it does -- (and that you and they want it to). So, I'd suggest getting behind an effort to correct the problem caused by the poor drafting, if that's what it was. Until then, I will continue to say: You don't like it? Tough titty.

Biden/Obama '24, baby!
The history of the Twenty-Second Amendment is quite clear. It was a direct response to the length of FDR’s tenure in office. And I didn’t say no sane person would read the language that way. I said no sane judge would do so.

If you think I’m engaged in motivated reasoning, you’re mistaken. I’d be happy to see President Obama back at the helm. But 29 years of professional experience tells me that the legal case is a dead-bang loser. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Ok So

#40 Post by wbtravis007 » Fri May 13, 2022 6:00 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 5:09 pm
wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 3:03 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 11:28 pm
I’m saying that it’s a semantically permissible argument that no sane judge will buy because it utterly ignores the real-world purpose of the Amendment, which was to prevent anyone from serving more than two terms, as FDR had. There’s no way anyone actually intended that loophole and it’s easy enough to read the language of the Amendment to avoid the silliness, so that’s what any sane judge would do. —Bob
Well ... there you go again. Yeah, I've gotten your point all along. This time it's expressed with more clarity than the two that I quoted, but not more persuasively.

It's at least a little shrill to suggest that any sane person would see this your way. To me, it makes a lot more sense to just go with what the Amendment says, instead of what most people think that it says. I see plain English, not ambiguity. You've mentioned a couple of times that it is semantically possible (or permissible or whatever) to interpret it my way. I say it's almost impossible to support any other interpretation without employing tortured arguments. I can't help but wonder whether you have even read it. If there were contradictory clauses that would support the need to try to interpret the intent, that would be different, of course. There aren't.

And, if you were going to try to determine the intent of the hundreds of people involved in the drafting, passing and ratification by the requisite 36 states of that Amendment, shouldn't you consider that it's conceivable that a fair number of them might not have supported it if it included a provision that would prevent a party from nominating a candidate for VP that its nominee for president preferred, notwithstanding that that individual would not be allowed to run for the presidency again by virtue of the Amendment, even if that would result in this "loophole?"

It would have been easy enough to include a provision that the former presidents described in the Amendment would not be eligible to run for VP, either, or to specify that they could not serve (rather that that they could not be elected), if that was the intent, instead of having to rely on the very weak argument that the 12th Amendment would supply the rationale for that prohibition, notwithstanding that that Amendment clearly applies to age, residence and citizenship.

I get that you think that it should say what most people think it does -- (and that you and they want it to). So, I'd suggest getting behind an effort to correct the problem caused by the poor drafting, if that's what it was. Until then, I will continue to say: You don't like it? Tough titty.

Biden/Obama '24, baby!
The history of the Twenty-Second Amendment is quite clear. It was a direct response to the length of FDR’s tenure in office. And I didn’t say no sane person would read the language that way. I said no sane judge would do so.

If you think I’m engaged in motivated reasoning, you’re mistaken. I’d be happy to see President Obama back at the helm. But 29 years of professional experience tells me that the legal case is a dead-bang loser. —Bob
I know very well the history. And I know your “motivated reasoning” has nothing to do with Obama. I think the motivation is, if anything, your desire not to admit you might have been wrong in your first response here.

And I’m not impressed by the 29 years. I’m older than you.

I think that maybe I’ve been overestimating your analytical ability and objectivity. See … I can admit when I’m wrong.

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 7783
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: Ok So

#41 Post by tlynn78 » Fri May 13, 2022 7:26 pm

Just when I thought I couldn't find much amusement around here anymore..
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20632
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Ok So

#42 Post by Bob78164 » Fri May 13, 2022 8:01 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 6:00 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 5:09 pm
wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 3:03 pm
Well ... there you go again. Yeah, I've gotten your point all along. This time it's expressed with more clarity than the two that I quoted, but not more persuasively.

It's at least a little shrill to suggest that any sane person would see this your way. To me, it makes a lot more sense to just go with what the Amendment says, instead of what most people think that it says. I see plain English, not ambiguity. You've mentioned a couple of times that it is semantically possible (or permissible or whatever) to interpret it my way. I say it's almost impossible to support any other interpretation without employing tortured arguments. I can't help but wonder whether you have even read it. If there were contradictory clauses that would support the need to try to interpret the intent, that would be different, of course. There aren't.

And, if you were going to try to determine the intent of the hundreds of people involved in the drafting, passing and ratification by the requisite 36 states of that Amendment, shouldn't you consider that it's conceivable that a fair number of them might not have supported it if it included a provision that would prevent a party from nominating a candidate for VP that its nominee for president preferred, notwithstanding that that individual would not be allowed to run for the presidency again by virtue of the Amendment, even if that would result in this "loophole?"

It would have been easy enough to include a provision that the former presidents described in the Amendment would not be eligible to run for VP, either, or to specify that they could not serve (rather that that they could not be elected), if that was the intent, instead of having to rely on the very weak argument that the 12th Amendment would supply the rationale for that prohibition, notwithstanding that that Amendment clearly applies to age, residence and citizenship.

I get that you think that it should say what most people think it does -- (and that you and they want it to). So, I'd suggest getting behind an effort to correct the problem caused by the poor drafting, if that's what it was. Until then, I will continue to say: You don't like it? Tough titty.

Biden/Obama '24, baby!
The history of the Twenty-Second Amendment is quite clear. It was a direct response to the length of FDR’s tenure in office. And I didn’t say no sane person would read the language that way. I said no sane judge would do so.

If you think I’m engaged in motivated reasoning, you’re mistaken. I’d be happy to see President Obama back at the helm. But 29 years of professional experience tells me that the legal case is a dead-bang loser. —Bob
I know very well the history. And I know your “motivated reasoning” has nothing to do with Obama. I think the motivation is, if anything, your desire not to admit you might have been wrong in your first response here.

And I’m not impressed by the 29 years. I’m older than you.

I think that maybe I’ve been overestimating your analytical ability and objectivity. See … I can admit when I’m wrong.
I’m perfectly capable of admitting when I’m wrong. But I looked at this issue when it was first floated a bunch of years ago. The arguments weren’t persuasive then, and no one has come up with anything new so there’s no reason to change my mind.

Do you have a lot of experience anticipating for paying clients when statutory language will and will not be construed narrowly and when, instead, the courts will interpret the language using a modicum of common sense? Because that’s a pretty good chunk of how I’ve made my living for the last 29 years. So you might want to consider the possibility that I know what I’m talking about here. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 24884
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Ok So

#43 Post by Bob Juch » Fri May 13, 2022 8:04 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 8:01 pm
wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 6:00 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 5:09 pm
The history of the Twenty-Second Amendment is quite clear. It was a direct response to the length of FDR’s tenure in office. And I didn’t say no sane person would read the language that way. I said no sane judge would do so.

If you think I’m engaged in motivated reasoning, you’re mistaken. I’d be happy to see President Obama back at the helm. But 29 years of professional experience tells me that the legal case is a dead-bang loser. —Bob
I know very well the history. And I know your “motivated reasoning” has nothing to do with Obama. I think the motivation is, if anything, your desire not to admit you might have been wrong in your first response here.

And I’m not impressed by the 29 years. I’m older than you.

I think that maybe I’ve been overestimating your analytical ability and objectivity. See … I can admit when I’m wrong.
I’m perfectly capable of admitting when I’m wrong. But I looked at this issue when it was first floated a bunch of years ago. The arguments weren’t persuasive then, and no one has come up with anything new so there’s no reason to change my mind.

Do you have a lot of experience anticipating for paying clients when statutory language will and will not be construed narrowly and when, instead, the courts will interpret the language using a modicum of common sense? Because that’s a pretty good chunk of how I’ve made my living for the last 29 years. So you might want to consider the possibility that I know what I’m talking about here. —Bob
With the current Supreme Court, I wouldn't take any bets.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Ok So

#44 Post by wbtravis007 » Fri May 13, 2022 8:27 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 8:01 pm
wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 6:00 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 5:09 pm
The history of the Twenty-Second Amendment is quite clear. It was a direct response to the length of FDR’s tenure in office. And I didn’t say no sane person would read the language that way. I said no sane judge would do so.

If you think I’m engaged in motivated reasoning, you’re mistaken. I’d be happy to see President Obama back at the helm. But 29 years of professional experience tells me that the legal case is a dead-bang loser. —Bob
I know very well the history. And I know your “motivated reasoning” has nothing to do with Obama. I think the motivation is, if anything, your desire not to admit you might have been wrong in your first response here.

And I’m not impressed by the 29 years. I’m older than you.

I think that maybe I’ve been overestimating your analytical ability and objectivity. See … I can admit when I’m wrong.
I’m perfectly capable of admitting when I’m wrong. But I looked at this issue when it was first floated a bunch of years ago. The arguments weren’t persuasive then, and no one has come up with anything new so there’s no reason to change my mind.

Do you have a lot of experience anticipating for paying clients when statutory language will and will not be construed narrowly and when, instead, the courts will interpret the language using a modicum of common sense? Because that’s a pretty good chunk of how I’ve made my living for the last 29 years. So you might want to consider the possibility that I know what I’m talking about here. —Bob
I have definitely considered that possibility. I still totally disagree with your analysis here.

Not even sure when a court , or what court, would have standing. Are you?

I think you’re blind if you think it would be a slam dunk. If a majority of the electors were to go along with the election of Obama or somebody like that as VP, and Congress were to certify that, I’d bet money that it would stand.

Ain’t gonna happen, but I’d love to have the opportunity to try to take your money.

Like I said: I’m older than you. (Should have added that I’ve got better insurance, too.)
Last edited by wbtravis007 on Fri May 13, 2022 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Ok So

#45 Post by wbtravis007 » Fri May 13, 2022 8:34 pm

tlynn78 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 7:26 pm
Just when I thought I couldn't find much amusement around here anymore..
I figured you might enjoy this.

bbk, too. She chimed in earlier.

Part of why I’ve bothered to keep it going.

I’ll tolerate arrogance unless it involves me.

We’ll see who gets tired first.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20632
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Ok So

#46 Post by Bob78164 » Fri May 13, 2022 9:07 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 8:27 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 8:01 pm
wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 6:00 pm
I know very well the history. And I know your “motivated reasoning” has nothing to do with Obama. I think the motivation is, if anything, your desire not to admit you might have been wrong in your first response here.

And I’m not impressed by the 29 years. I’m older than you.

I think that maybe I’ve been overestimating your analytical ability and objectivity. See … I can admit when I’m wrong.
I’m perfectly capable of admitting when I’m wrong. But I looked at this issue when it was first floated a bunch of years ago. The arguments weren’t persuasive then, and no one has come up with anything new so there’s no reason to change my mind.

Do you have a lot of experience anticipating for paying clients when statutory language will and will not be construed narrowly and when, instead, the courts will interpret the language using a modicum of common sense? Because that’s a pretty good chunk of how I’ve made my living for the last 29 years. So you might want to consider the possibility that I know what I’m talking about here. —Bob
I have definitely considered that possibility. I still totally disagree with your analysis here.

Not even sure when a court , or what court, would have standing. Are you?

I think you’re blind if you think it would be a slam dunk. If a majority of the electors were to go along with the election of Obama or somebody like that as VP, and Congress were to certify that, I’d bet money that it would stand.

Ain’t gonna happen, but I’d love to have the opportunity to try to take your money.

Like I said: I’m older than you. (Should have added that I’ve got better insurance, too.)
It wouldn’t get as far as the Electoral College. Competing candidates would have standing to sue to keep him off the ballot in the first place. In some states, voters also would have that standing. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Ok So

#47 Post by wbtravis007 » Fri May 13, 2022 9:32 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 9:07 pm
wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 8:27 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 8:01 pm
I’m perfectly capable of admitting when I’m wrong. But I looked at this issue when it was first floated a bunch of years ago. The arguments weren’t persuasive then, and no one has come up with anything new so there’s no reason to change my mind.

Do you have a lot of experience anticipating for paying clients when statutory language will and will not be construed narrowly and when, instead, the courts will interpret the language using a modicum of common sense? Because that’s a pretty good chunk of how I’ve made my living for the last 29 years. So you might want to consider the possibility that I know what I’m talking about here. —Bob
I have definitely considered that possibility. I still totally disagree with your analysis here.

Not even sure when a court , or what court, would have standing. Are you?

I think you’re blind if you think it would be a slam dunk. If a majority of the electors were to go along with the election of Obama or somebody like that as VP, and Congress were to certify that, I’d bet money that it would stand.

Ain’t gonna happen, but I’d love to have the opportunity to try to take your money.

Like I said: I’m older than you. (Should have added that I’ve got better insurance, too.)
It wouldn’t get as far as the Electoral College. Competing candidates would have standing to sue to keep him off the ballot in the first place. In some states, voters also would have that standing. —Bob
Which states would those be, where the voters would have standing? Unless it would be a swing state, who would care?

Which competing candidates? You mean the other party’s? You really think that would be resolved between a convention and Election Day?

Any references — cases or whatever— to support either of those assertions?

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20632
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Ok So

#48 Post by Bob78164 » Fri May 13, 2022 10:12 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 9:32 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 9:07 pm
wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 8:27 pm
I have definitely considered that possibility. I still totally disagree with your analysis here.

Not even sure when a court , or what court, would have standing. Are you?

I think you’re blind if you think it would be a slam dunk. If a majority of the electors were to go along with the election of Obama or somebody like that as VP, and Congress were to certify that, I’d bet money that it would stand.

Ain’t gonna happen, but I’d love to have the opportunity to try to take your money.

Like I said: I’m older than you. (Should have added that I’ve got better insurance, too.)
It wouldn’t get as far as the Electoral College. Competing candidates would have standing to sue to keep him off the ballot in the first place. In some states, voters also would have that standing. —Bob
Which states would those be, where the voters would have standing? Unless it would be a swing state, who would care?

Which competing candidates? You mean the other party’s? You really think that would be resolved between a convention and Election Day?

Any references — cases or whatever— to support either of those assertions?
Based on the challenges to Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Mean, it appears that at least Georgia and North Carolina afford standing to voters. There won’t be a case until someone attempts to run who is constitutionally ineligible. If Donny the insurrectionist does try for the nomination, we may see scenarios in action. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

wbtravis007
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: Ok So

#49 Post by wbtravis007 » Fri May 13, 2022 10:29 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 10:12 pm
wbtravis007 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 9:32 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 9:07 pm
It wouldn’t get as far as the Electoral College. Competing candidates would have standing to sue to keep him off the ballot in the first place. In some states, voters also would have that standing. —Bob
Which states would those be, where the voters would have standing? Unless it would be a swing state, who would care?

Which competing candidates? You mean the other party’s? You really think that would be resolved between a convention and Election Day?

Any references — cases or whatever— to support either of those assertions?
Based on the challenges to Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Mean, it appears that at least Georgia and North Carolina afford standing to voters. There won’t be a case until someone attempts to run who is constitutionally ineligible. If Donny the insurrectionist does try for the nomination, we may see scenarios in action. —Bob
So, you were just throwing out those two assertions without basis?

And you’re now saying: we’ll see.

Pretty weak.

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10291
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: Ok So

#50 Post by Estonut » Sat May 14, 2022 1:29 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 8:01 pm
I’m perfectly capable of admitting when I’m wrong.
You have well over 20,000 posts here. Can you cite 5 where you've admitted being wrong about anything?
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

Post Reply