It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump's pick to be acting Attorney General does not qualify under the law

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: luthier

Still can't cite a law I see

Boo-ie Boo-ie 😃


And neither can you. The guy that believed two year old news was a current event. I'm not sure anyone should trust your judgement bud.

LINK to Thread




posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I hate to break the OP's heart, but please read this:

www.lawfareblog.com...

It's talking about whether the acting AG can sign FISA warrants (yes he can), but it quotes the legalese of the vacancies act. The president can appoint an officer or employee of the vacant position to act in a temporary capacity. Which he has done, as Whitaker was Sessions' chief of staff. A temporary appointment does not need to be Senate-confirmed. This would only be required if Trump intended Whitaker to be the AG in a permanent capacity.


The thing is that that Sessions can not have been fired for Trump to replace in this manner. Since Trump asked him to resign, then that is constructive discharge, which would then prevent the President from appointing a temporary successor. It has to go through Congress folks. I have no doubt that Trump will stamp and cry, but the law is the law and he will not be permitted to break this one. Hope Whitaker doesn't get too comfy.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

You must have me mistaken for somebody else because I don't watch Fox, or any TV for that matter.

I know I'm uncomfortable to deal with, but as long as you're still here spouting your hyperbolic nonsense, I'll be here to call you out on it until proven otherwise.

Didn't you say in another thread that you're going to ramp it up and we're just going to have to deal with it?

Okay cool, 2 can play that game.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Here comes the ground crew !!😆






Another non argument hiding behind memes.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: luthier

The intent of the law means zilch without an interpretation from the bench. The statute is just what the words are. And you have two competing processes and an ambiguous wording that leaves a hole until then.

So. What will happen?

Someone(s) in the Senate will hold a press conference, stamp their feet, declare the appointment "dangerous for our democracy", call Trump a dictator, and file a complaint. And Whitaker will perform the duties of acting AG until there is an actual nominee or until April 2019.

That's what will happen.


That would be illegal however, so I guess he is just cannon fodder.

I assume a law group has already started the process as it's been discussed.

And no it will be brought to the front of the line, we already have scotus opinions on the subject..

And then we have the changes from watergate..


We don't have a lateral precedent. The specific question has never been before the court. You have an opinion elaborated by Thomas of a question that was not specifically addressed or before the court, and that Thomas himself footnotes with an earlier conflicting SCOTUS decision in Eaton. Under the 1998 VRA, this power is granted to the President. It is not prohibited. DOJ argues it gives the POTUS additional authority. Detractors are arguing the Succession statute from 1953 supersedes the VRA and tye Presidential appointment must conform to the earlier. That means there are competing arguments for the criteria for appointment given by two different statutes that grant authority to the Executive. Having a basis for legal argument does not make an argument/interpretation applicable case law.

Notice all the "possible" , "may", etc in the article (which is a good one, btw) you cite. Because the question has never been before the court. It might well get before the SCOTUS and get cleared up if Whitaker takes the oath, but it will not impact Whitaker.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Sure, I dont disagree. In fact I said you could be right. However, it's pretty likely this will become an issue in today's politics, the line of succession is fairly clear for a reason as is the use of an EO in this case.


I picked the article. I know it's good and I fully understand the language and it's why I picked it.

However it also lays out the problems and that napolitano is likely correct.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your post history sings a different song.

Youre projecting yourself into ATS as apparently very different from what you think you sound like.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

A person acting in good faith with a reasonable legal standing is not "illegal" in the face of an ambiguous legal situation. Even if the SCOTUS later confirms the AG succession act as a higher, not ancillary statute. No more than the person(s) filing a complaint would be "illegal" acting to interfere with the appointment if the VRA is adjudged sufficient later.

It might make future appointments of kind "illegal", though.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Here comes the ground crew !!😆





You know, I haven't seen you add anything but jokes to any thread you have been in. Here is that law that you couldn't find. Straight from the constitution it is Article II Section 2 Clause 2


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


LINK

Also, if you want to claim that the Supreme Court needs to decide whether or not Whitaker can get the job. They already did. The Supreme Court examined this issue last year in the case of an appointment by Trump to the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board without Senate confirmation. Justice Clarence Thomas, whom President Trump once called his "favorite" sitting justice, agreed with the judgement that the appointment was invalid but wrote seperately that even if the statue Trump's team was attempting to use as their justification allowed it, the Appointment's Clause, listed above, would have prevented it.

LINK

That was a Supreme Court case for the National Labor Relations Board. No one in their right mind would believe the Supreme Court would be OK with the Attorney General being appointed without Senate confirmation but not the NLRB.

Again though, Trump and his Trumpets only care about laws when they want to. I suppose laws only apply to non-Republicans, right?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Your post history sings a different song.


No, it doesn't, I've been a Libertarian since before I started posting here. Only a rightwing nutjob would read my political views and think I'm a leftist.

But if you have any examples of my views not being those of a Libertarian by all means post them. I doubt you will since they will both prove I am and prove the above statement at the same time. Have fun, buckaroo.









edit on 8-11-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I sense a lot of fear today.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

My opinion is this is not in good faith. Which would bring up part two of Napolitano's recent interview.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: luthier

The intent of the law means zilch without an interpretation from the bench. The statute is just what the words are. And you have two competing processes and an ambiguous wording that leaves a hole until then.

So. What will happen?

Someone(s) in the Senate will hold a press conference, stamp their feet, declare the appointment "dangerous for our democracy", call Trump a dictator, and file a complaint. And Whitaker will perform the duties of acting AG until there is an actual nominee or until April 2019.

That's what will happen.


Did you not see that he provided you with an interpretation from the bench?


In a recent concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that such a temporary appointment would violate the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution, Art. II., § 2, cl. 2, which provides that such principal officers must be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.


Yes, and if you read the article, you'd see the statement was an ancillary opinion which was given of an issue that wasn't before the court, and the question that WAS before the court is not directly applicable to either of the legal arguments being made, because it was not a like situation. It was also footnoted by Thomas with the conflicting Eaton ruling.

The author makes it very clear it was not an opinion on the same statutes, only an opinion on a reasonably similar arguments given earlier which might inform your speculation of what direction Thomas might rule in this unprecedented case (which isn't even a case yet, if ever).

You should try actually reading the article. It's pretty good and it isn't even filled with legalese.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RadioRobert

My opinion is this is not in good faith. Which would bring up part two of Napolitano's recent interview.


The statutes are completely ambiguous as to supersedence of the statutes granting authority to POTUS in the matter. How see exactly are you going to demonstrate bad faith on the part of either party where both have a reasonable legal standing?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Swing and a miss.

Fedreal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998
edit on 8-11-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

And again, that case also has zero to do with temporary appointments of the AG under the auspices of the VRA, OR for the conflicting argument that the AG Succession act supersedes it.

You are the victim of misunderstanding if you think that establishes any sort of precedent here.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: BlackJackal

Swing and a miss.

Fedreal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998



AG Sessions specifically stated that he didn’t resign, he was asked to resign which means he was fired and the PVA doesn’t apply



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Breaking.... Trump will be switching to the DNC and can do whatever he wants since the law does not apply to the left.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RadioRobert

My opinion is this is not in good faith. Which would bring up part two of Napolitano's recent interview.


The statutes are completely ambiguous as to supersedence of the statutes granting authority to POTUS in the matter. How see exactly are you going to demonstrate bad faith on the part of either party where both have a reasonable legal standing?


It's fairly easy if you can follow their own writing and statements




top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join