The FBI is re-opening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

You could but you will not. Werds mean things counselor

I'll let the inestimable Volokh (my favorite Republican except for my long-dead great-great-great-great-great-uncle Chet) explain it -- he reproduces a letter from Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman that sheds some light on thing. Please note that Mukasey changed his tune after reading Tillman's article. (Footnotes available in article.)

Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman has an interesting — and, I think, likely correct — response to claims that, if Hillary Clinton is found guilty of violating federal document concealment/destruction laws, she would be statutorily ineligible for the Presidency.

Those claims have been most prominently made by Michael Mukasey, a former Attorney General and federal judge, whom I much respect but who I think erred in this instance. Prof. Tillman was kind enough to let me pass it along:

Michael B. Mukasey, a former Attorney General of the United States (and former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), has stated that if former Secretary of State (and former Senator) Hillary Clinton is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071,[1] then she is disqualified from holding the presidency.[2] Likewise, a Washington, DC think tank has just published a white paper taking the same position.[3] Mukasey’s and Cause of Action’s position is fundamentally misconceived; indeed, neither puts forward any authority for the position that Section 2071 or any other federal statute creates or could create a disqualification in regard to any elected federal position, including the presidency.

It is widely accepted that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Powell v. McCormack[4] and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton[5] have come to stand for the proposition that neither Congress nor the States can add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I. Importantly, the rationale of Powell and U.S. Term Limits — i.e., the primacy of the written Constitution’s express provisions setting fixed textual qualifications — equally applies to the qualifications for the presidency (and vice presidency) in Article II.[6] Indeed, this extension of Powell and U.S. Term Limits appears uncontroversial. For example, Chief Judge Posner opined:

The democratic presumption is that any adult member of the polity … is eligible to run for office… . The requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the President be at least 35 years old and Senators at least 30 is unusual and reflects the felt importance of mature judgment to the effective discharge of the duties of these important offices; nor, as the cases we have just cited hold, may Congress or the states supplement these requirements.[7]

Federal district courts, including those outside of Chief Judge Posner’s Seventh Circuit, have taken a similar stance.[8] So has persuasive scholarly authority.[9]

As a matter of constitutional structure, the case for exclusivity in regard to the Constitution’s express textual qualifications for the presidency is stronger than the coordinate case for exclusivity in regard to qualifications for House and Senate seats. The power to judge members’ qualifications is expressly and unambiguously committed to each house of Congress, but no such express power is unambiguously committed to Congress in regard to adjudicating a president’s (or presidential candidate’s or president-elect’s) qualifications. It would seem to follow that if Congress has no power to add to the standing qualifications of its own members, it cannot add to the standing qualifications for the other elected constitutional positions,[10] i.e., the President and Vice President. Any other result risks congressional aggrandizement at the expense of the presidency; any other result risks Congress’s manipulating qualifications for the presidency so that Congress chooses the President, rather than the People of the United States.[11]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/26/no-hillary-clinton-wouldnt-be-legally-ineligible-for-the-presidency-even-if-she-had-violated-government-records-laws/?utm_term=.d8bf783060f6

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I'll let the inestimable Volokh (my favorite Republican except for my long-dead great-great-great-great-great-uncle Chet) explain it -- he reproduces a letter from Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman that sheds some light on thing. Please note that Mukasey changed his tune after reading Tillman's article. (Footnotes available in article.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/26/no-hillary-clinton-wouldnt-be-legally-ineligible-for-the-presidency-even-if-she-had-violated-government-records-laws/?utm_term=.d8bf783060f6

I obviously I'd not learn my lesson the 1st time I asked you a legal opinion. ?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Voter fraud doesn't exist in any way that would make a difference. You said so yourself. Nothing to see there.

No, you are not "posting the truth". You are posting a smarmy version of YOUR truth. All parts of the constitution matter. Not just the 2nd.

Miss Duncan all you want. He was an a$$, plain and simple. Had no dog in the fight, but sure loved to stir the pot. Mostly a waste of bandwidth.

Thanks Dave, glad I could strike a nerve. Not proud, simply posting the truth. Time after time in this forum people who believe the 2nd amendment to be the Holy Grail and insist that it must never be taken away or altered, are all too quick to throw the rest of the Constitution out the window when it comes to something they don't approve of. I miss Duncan, I also miss most of the posters who have either been bounced out of here or left of their own volition. The forum isn't the same without them.

Btw have you seen the thread about the latest case of in person voter fraud? Someone was actually arrested for voting twice.............for Trump. I'd like to get your input on it seeing that voter fraud is your pet peeve and one of the very few cases in recent history where someone was actually arrested, it was a republican voter.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/615069-someone-was-actually-arrested-for-in-person-voter-fraud-shes-a-trump-supporter/

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Dude, it is absolutely applicable. Only a disciple would fail to see the truth.

Dude, if you don't understand why this statute is inapplicable, I really can't help you.

[Rob L 3,811]

 

Dude, if you don't understand why this statute is inapplicable, I really can't help you. 

what she said

[Rob L 3,811]

Dude, it is absolutely applicable. Only a disciple would fail to see the truth.

Dude, Maven is of the female persuasion and not a dude.

[TBoneTX 46,455]

And the multiple-great-niece of Chester A. Arthur -- an underrated president, I think.

Edited November 3, 2016 by TBoneTX

[Teddy B 17,252]

I also agree with Maven on this issue. There is no precedent to disqualify Hillary Clinton from the presidency based on her e-mail scandal, nor does the Constitution allow it. There is precedent that supports Maven's position in the quote below.

It is widely accepted that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Powell v. McCormack[4] and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton[5] have come to stand for the proposition that neither Congress nor the States can add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I. Importantly, the rationale of Powell and U.S. Term Limits — i.e., the primacy of the written Constitution’s express provisions setting fixed textual qualifications — equally applies to the qualifications for the presidency (and vice presidency) in Article II.[6] Indeed, this extension of Powell and U.S. Term Limits appears uncontroversial. For example, Chief Judge Posner opined:

I'll let the inestimable Volokh (my favorite Republican except for my long-dead great-great-great-great-great-uncle Chet) explain it -- he reproduces a letter from Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman that sheds some light on thing. Please note that Mukasey changed his tune after reading Tillman's article. (Footnotes available in article.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/26/no-hillary-clinton-wouldnt-be-legally-ineligible-for-the-presidency-even-if-she-had-violated-government-records-laws/?utm_term=.d8bf783060f6

Maves wins the award for most funny names used in one post.

[Ban Hammer 13,754]

one personal attack removed.

[smilesammich 10,727]

The only right you really have is to breath the air about a for around your body until someone stronger decides you don't.

um. murica?

[yuna628 9,758]

um. murica?

Survival of the fittest, second amendment style I guess.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Survival of the fittest, second amendment style I guess.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I wish the majority of voters were educated to the point where they knew that this goes for 99% of all promises that are made by presidential candidates. Too many people have no idea how our gov't works and yet they are voting based on promises made by candidates that will never be delivered. It amazes me how many people talk about what a president will do once he/she gets into office as if they will be a dictator. I shake my head at folks that walk around parroting the false promises made by candidates, acting like there's no process that must be followed for these changes to be made, just a snap of the finger and poof, it's done.

I remember Cruz saying he would repeal Obamacare his first day in office. People cheered . I shook my head

[Ban Hammer 13,754]

[natty bumppo 297]

must be in a hurry.

appears she dropped a bag.