Thanks, Glen. It's great to hear your "voice" on this topic. I am particularly grateful for the ad hominem stuff. I want to read the district Judge's opinion but there are things I want to do more and age is really catching up with me.
Take care. The world needs you. Nick On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 8:08 AM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > The argument seems pretty clear to me. "Officer" is jargonal, not > intuitive. Were I to read it charitably, I'd agree. Appointees are not > elected. Electees should have more leeway than appointees ... like the > difference between an elected Sheriff and her deputies. But like all > dichotomies, this one is a bit false, especially given that the > [Vice]Presidents aren't really elected at all. The Electoral College > process feels more like a complicated appointment mechanism than an > election. > > Anyway, everything that document says is monastery quality sophistry. Were > the "rule of law" actually like an axiomatic system, running it forward > from start to finish would be formal and automatic. But it's just not that > formal. It's cafeteria/buffet style; you can make anything you want out of > it. Beware the monks claiming it's axiomatic ... and that they alone are > qualified to turn the crank. > > FWIW, I'm not familiar with Tillman. But Blackman's positions are one > reason I unsubscribed from the Volokh Conspiracy RSS feed: cf. > https://reason.com/people/josh-blackman/ > > At first, I read many of his posts with as much charity as I could. > (Analyses and opinions, not so much the historical ones. He's a competent > scholar.) Then I started skipping over them most of the time and focusing > on the other posters that were more reason-able (Ha!). Then I finally > couldn't take it anymore and removed the feed. [sigh] I'm not proud of > that. My charity muscles are fatigued. Blackman's opinions feel, to me, > similar the Johns' (Yoo and Rizzo) legal justification for waterboarding. > It all makes me a bit queasy. > > p.s. Here's a more reliable link: > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095 > > On 1/6/24 10:16, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, Everybody, > > > > I have been curious about how (on earth!) the president could not be > > considered to be an Officer of the United States. After all, the > > Constitution, Article II, tells us that "The President ...shall hold > > office..."etc. This law review article seems to be the source I > thought I > > would post in in case anyone wants to read it. I won't get to it until > later > > today. > > Nick > > > -- > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
