Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Maybe some of you lawyer types can comment on this. This morning I've been reading Articles I and II of the Constitution along with a back and forth about the question of a sitting president being criminally liable between Phillip Bobbitt and Lawrence Tribe.

I am absolutely horrified by the position Bobbitt has taken. It appears to be consistent with what I've perceived in the past. We have people who call themselves conservatives creating something that's not actually in the Constitution based on their opinion the the President is just TOO important to have to be bothered by dealing with being criminally charged, indicted, prosecuted, ext.

The essence of what appears to be the rationale is in a quote at the start of the Bobbitt piece at https://www.lawfareblog.com/indicting-a ... -president.

Bobbitt also says this in the article at

Professor Tribe’s argument depends on an artful reading of Article I, Section 3, which provides that “the Party convicted [by the Senate in an impeachment proceeding] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment.” The natural import of these words—their textual meaning to the ordinary reader—would assume, I think, that “the Party convicted” must be someone who has in fact been convicted, i.e., who has gone through an impeachment process prior to being subject to indictment.

But the quoted Constitutional language, in context, does not at all say that a President HAS to be convicted by the Senate prior to indictment. This is what it says:

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.

That does not at ALL say that the subject must be impeached and removed from office prior to indictment. It just says that the impeachment process doesn't go beyond removal from office and disqualification. Then it says that the subject is still liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment. The textual reading to the ordinary reader is that the impeachment/removal process is not for criminal prosecution but the subject can always be criminally prosecuted through other means afterward. The idea that impeachment/removal is a CONDITION of criminal indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment is not in that language at ALL.

This is horrible. All my life I have railed at liberals for making up Constitutional requirements and/or prohibitions that don't exist in the language of the document. Now Conservatives are all in on doing that to the extreme with the Executive Power thing. And it's really bad because one a Conservative should NOT want is the concentration of power in one person.

NOBODY should want this.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, John.

And if you think that Philip Bobbitt is a doctrinaire conservative, I have a bridge in Opelousas to sell you.

Nice straw man. HORRIBLE!

JohnStOnge wrote:Maybe some of you lawyer types can comment on this. This morning I've been reading Articles I and II of the Constitution along with a back and forth about the question of a sitting president being criminally liable between Phillip Bobbitt and Lawrence Tribe.

This is horrible. All my life I have railed at liberals for making up Constitutional requirements and/or prohibitions that don't exist in the language of the document. Now Conservatives are all in on doing that to the extreme with the Executive Power thing. And it's really bad because one a Conservative should NOT want is the concentration of power in one person.

NOBODY should want this.

More evidence that lawyers are just highly credentialed bullshit artists. But I would look forward to CS's greatest legal minds breaking this down a bit for us laymen because I think we have some good ones around here.

John, entitlement to, and preservation of established power at the expense of everyone else is a big part of the conservative ideology and has been from the start. You see it daily on this board from the fear of "radical" left ideas regarding our serious issues to defense of monopolistic practices despite a rhetorical belief in competition and the free market.

I'll share again of the most honest political quotes in history...

"A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

Kudo's to you for being open minded enough to change your mind and consider all angles.

Open-minded, my ass.

JSO is using his monomaniacal hatred of Trump to project onto Bobbitt a belief he does not hold. There is room for honest disagreement between the doctrinaire liberal Larry Tribe (my Con Law professor at Harvard) and the iconoclastic constitutional thinker Philip Bobbitt (a guy who gave an interview to The Guardian ,by the way) about a sitting President’s amenability to indictment. I read the whole Bobbitt article and the related Tribe piece, and the debate is not about yielding meekly to blanket assertions of Executive power. There are conservatives who have fallen into that trap, but there are many others who have not. The National Review masthead is split: compare Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg, who are wary of Presidential power, with Victor Davis Hanson, who has embraced Trumpism.

Intellectually dishonest folderol from JSO.

Ivytalk wrote:Open-minded, my ass.

JSO is using his monomaniacal hatred of Trump to project onto Bobbitt a belief he does not hold. There is room for honest disagreement between the doctrinaire liberal Larry Tribe (my Con Law professor at Harvard) and the iconoclastic constitutional thinker Philip Bobbitt (a guy who gave an interview to The Guardian ,by the way) about a sitting President’s amenability to indictment. I read the whole Bobbitt article and the related Tribe piece, and the debate is not about yielding meekly to blanket assertions of Executive power. There are conservatives who have fallen into that trap, but there are many others who have not. The National Review masthead is split: compare Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg, who are wary of Presidential power, with Victor Davis Hanson, who has embraced Trumpism.

Intellectually dishonest folderol from JSO.

Your skirt is showing...

Ivytalk wrote:Open-minded, my ass.

JSO is using his monomaniacal hatred of Trump to project onto Bobbitt a belief he does not hold. There is room for honest disagreement between the doctrinaire liberal Larry Tribe (my Con Law professor at Harvard) and the iconoclastic constitutional thinker Philip Bobbitt (a guy who gave an interview to The Guardian ,by the way) about a sitting President’s amenability to indictment. I read the whole Bobbitt article and the related Tribe piece, and the debate is not about yielding meekly to blanket assertions of Executive power. There are conservatives who have fallen into that trap, but there are many others who have not. The National Review masthead is split: compare Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg, who are wary of Presidential power, with Victor Davis Hanson, who has embraced Trumpism.

Intellectually dishonest folderol from JSO.

Say this sentence to yourself:

“The framers intended for the president to be above the law”.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Open-minded, my ass.

JSO is using his monomaniacal hatred of Trump to project onto Bobbitt a belief he does not hold. There is room for honest disagreement between the doctrinaire liberal Larry Tribe (my Con Law professor at Harvard) and the iconoclastic constitutional thinker Philip Bobbitt (a guy who gave an interview to The Guardian ,by the way) about a sitting President’s amenability to indictment. I read the whole Bobbitt article and the related Tribe piece, and the debate is not about yielding meekly to blanket assertions of Executive power. There are conservatives who have fallen into that trap, but there are many others who have not. The National Review masthead is split: compare Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg, who are wary of Presidential power, with Victor Davis Hanson, who has embraced Trumpism.

Intellectually dishonest folderol from JSO.

Say this sentence to yourself:

“The framers intended for the president to be above the law”.

Nice deflection. Read the Bobbitt piece for a nuanced — I know you love that word— take on the “no man is above the law” maxim. Then read the Tribe approach. What you have is an honest intellectual disagreement based on prudential and ethical concerns as well as the text of the Constitution and the Declaration. Tribe may be correct, but the answer is not glaringly obvious. If it were, Trump would have been indicted several times by now.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Say this sentence to yourself:

“The framers intended for the president to be above the law”.

Nice deflection. Read the Bobbitt piece for a nuanced — I know you love that word— take on the “no man is above the law” maxim. Then read the Tribe approach. What you have is an honest intellectual disagreement based on prudential and ethical concerns as well as the text of the Constitution and the Declaration. Tribe may be correct, but the answer is not glaringly obvious. If it were, Trump would have been indicted several times by now.

I read the Bobbitt piece and his dismissal of the “no man” concept. That’s why I asked your opinion. I appreciate your open mindedness on this too. I can see the concerns of a president constantly being harassed by a hostile congress or even local prosecutors, but if he wants to look at it strictly through an originalist lens isn’t he skating on thin ice?

Reading Lawfare again. smh

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Open-minded, my ass.

JSO is using his monomaniacal hatred of Trump to project onto Bobbitt a belief he does not hold. There is room for honest disagreement between the doctrinaire liberal Larry Tribe (my Con Law professor at Harvard) and the iconoclastic constitutional thinker Philip Bobbitt (a guy who gave an interview to The Guardian ,by the way) about a sitting President’s amenability to indictment. I read the whole Bobbitt article and the related Tribe piece, and the debate is not about yielding meekly to blanket assertions of Executive power. There are conservatives who have fallen into that trap, but there are many others who have not. The National Review masthead is split: compare Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg, who are wary of Presidential power, with Victor Davis Hanson, who has embraced Trumpism.

Intellectually dishonest folderol from JSO.

Say this sentence to yourself:

“The framers intended for the president to be above the law”.

They also intended for the President to have certain immunities

I’m sure you didn’t mean to throw that straw man out there, but you did-

The executive having certain immunities does not = being above the law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Say this sentence to yourself:

“The framers intended for the president to be above the law”.

They also intended for the President to have certain immunities

I’m sure you didn’t mean to throw that straw man out there, but you did-

The executive having certain immunities does not = being above the law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Define “certain immunities”.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
They also intended for the President to have certain immunities

I’m sure you didn’t mean to throw that straw man out there, but you did-

The executive having certain immunities does not = being above the law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Define “certain immunities”.

I’m not the one throwing out absolutes and in need of a refresher


Here I’ll help you out (even though I should tell you to look it up)

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi ... fss_papers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Nice deflection. Read the Bobbitt piece for a nuanced — I know you love that word— take on the “no man is above the law” maxim. Then read the Tribe approach. What you have is an honest intellectual disagreement based on prudential and ethical concerns as well as the text of the Constitution and the Declaration. Tribe may be correct, but the answer is not glaringly obvious. If it were, Trump would have been indicted several times by now.

I read the Bobbitt piece and his dismissal of the “no man” concept. That’s why I asked your opinion. I appreciate your open mindedness on this too. I can see the concerns of a president constantly being harassed by a hostile congress or even local prosecutors, but if he wants to look at it strictly through an originalist lens isn’t he skating on thin ice?

Maybe. I have to consult my dog-eared copy of The Federalist, but I will concede that Article I, Section 3 is not as clear as it might be.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Define “certain immunities”.

I’m not the one throwing out absolutes and in need of a refresher


Here I’ll help you out (even though I should tell you to look it up)

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi ... fss_papers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn’t throw out an absolute. Bobbitt did. And you throw out a 14 page link.

C’mon...you were so quick with the certain immunities. There are either specific immunities or immunity from all crimes which is what Bobbitt was exploring.

Which crimes is the president immune from and where is that found in the constitution?

kalm wrote: John, entitlement to, and preservation of established power at the expense of everyone else is a big part of the conservative ideology and has been from the start. You see it daily on this board from the fear of "radical" left ideas regarding our serious issues to defense of monopolistic practices despite a rhetorical belief in competition and the free market.

If you truly believe your first sentence is purely a conservative approach, then you’ve lost all credibility with me.

And please define “serious issues”. This country has never been healthier. But I’d love to hear what these horrible issues are that are so bad that the left is willing to discard a system that’s worked for 250+ years for one that’s been tried and failed dozens of times across the globe in the past 120 years.

Ivytalk wrote:Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, John.

And if you think that Philip Bobbitt is a doctrinaire conservative, I have a bridge in Opelousas to sell you.

Nice straw man. HORRIBLE!

I had never heard of Bobbitt before. I do know that conservatives are backing the "President can't be prosecuted thing" and have used the argument about the President just being too important and busy.

Otherwise, here is one article that described him as a being one of two referenced "right-leaning legal scholars:"

https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smit ... ers-025560

The headline of the article, which was written in 2010, is "Conservative lawyers criticize attacks on DOJ lawyers" and Bobbitt is described as one of them. So, if nothing else, there is at least one person familiar with him who considers him to be a conservative. Now, I don't know about the "doctrinaire" part.

The concept appears to be coming from the conservative side. The Nixon Justice Department started it. Now we have Bill Barr being a big supporter of it.

AZGrizFan wrote:This country has never been healthier. But I’d love to hear what these horrible issues are that are so bad that the left is willing to discard a system that’s worked for 250+ years for one that’s been tried and failed dozens of times across the globe in the past 120 years.

I think the statement "this country has never been healthier" is very debatable. Also, I do not think the idea that a President is immune from prosecution is part of a system that's been in place for 250+ years.

I think that the system established has the President as the CEO of the Executive Branch. Not a God. Not a King. That person's job is to implement the laws. The laws are made by Congress. The President is not a ruler. This "Imperial Presidency" thing is not good.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote: John, entitlement to, and preservation of established power at the expense of everyone else is a big part of the conservative ideology and has been from the start. You see it daily on this board from the fear of "radical" left ideas regarding our serious issues to defense of monopolistic practices despite a rhetorical belief in competition and the free market.

If you truly believe your first sentence is purely a conservative approach, then you’ve lost all credibility with me.

And please define “serious issues”. This country has never been healthier. But I’d love to hear what these horrible issues are that are so bad that the left is willing to discard a system that’s worked for 250+ years for one that’s been tried and failed dozens of times across the globe in the past 120 years.

I didn’t say it was “a purely conservative approach” did I, snowflake? But it is a traditional value of the right. Go read up on Ivy’s hero Edmund Burke. Or perhaps re-read some of your own posts on here for reference.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I’m not the one throwing out absolutes and in need of a refresher


Here I’ll help you out (even though I should tell you to look it up)

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi ... fss_papers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn’t throw out an absolute. Bobbitt did. And you throw out a 14 page link.

C’mon...you were so quick with the certain immunities. There are either specific immunities or immunity from all crimes which is what Bobbitt was exploring.

Which crimes is the president immune from and where is that found in the constitution?

You didn’t?

Because I could swear the whole “President is above the law” was pretty absolutely hyperbolic

Maybe you can clarify

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, John.

And if you think that Philip Bobbitt is a doctrinaire conservative, I have a bridge in Opelousas to sell you.

Nice straw man. HORRIBLE!

I had never heard of Bobbitt before. I do know that conservatives are backing the "President can't be prosecuted thing" and have used the argument about the President just being too important and busy.

Otherwise, here is one article that described him as a being one of two referenced "right-leaning legal scholars:"

https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smit ... ers-025560

The headline of the article, which was written in 2010, is "Conservative lawyers criticize attacks on DOJ lawyers" and Bobbitt is described as one of them. So, if nothing else, there is at least one person familiar with him who considers him to be a conservative. Now, I don't know about the "doctrinaire" part.

The concept appears to be coming from the conservative side. The Nixon Justice Department started it. Now we have Bill Barr being a big supporter of it.

Bobbitt’s views are not those of right-wing ideologues. He is not an originalist in matter of Constitutional interpretation. Rather, as he argues in his Constitutional Fate, the document’s text is only one facet of its interpretation. He is an independent thinker. You could have picked someone other than LBJ’s nephew to make your blunderbuss attack on conservative legal thought in your Quixotic quest to exterminate all things Trump.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Open-minded, my ass.

JSO is using his monomaniacal hatred of Trump to project onto Bobbitt a belief he does not hold. There is room for honest disagreement between the doctrinaire liberal Larry Tribe (my Con Law professor at Harvard) and the iconoclastic constitutional thinker Philip Bobbitt (a guy who gave an interview to The Guardian ,by the way) about a sitting President’s amenability to indictment. I read the whole Bobbitt article and the related Tribe piece, and the debate is not about yielding meekly to blanket assertions of Executive power. There are conservatives who have fallen into that trap, but there are many others who have not. The National Review masthead is split: compare Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg, who are wary of Presidential power, with Victor Davis Hanson, who has embraced Trumpism.

Intellectually dishonest folderol from JSO.

Your skirt is showing...

Oh, shaddup, Dennis.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
If you truly believe your first sentence is purely a conservative approach, then you’ve lost all credibility with me.

And please define “serious issues”. This country has never been healthier. But I’d love to hear what these horrible issues are that are so bad that the left is willing to discard a system that’s worked for 250+ years for one that’s been tried and failed dozens of times across the globe in the past 120 years.

I didn’t say it was “a purely conservative approach” did I, snowflake? But it is a traditional value of the right. Go read up on Ivy’s hero Edmund Burke. Or perhaps re-read some of your own posts on here for reference.

I see. So democrats are NOT interested in consolidating and retaining power? Its not part of their ideology?

Hint: It’s a tradition value of POLITICIANS.

You’ve gone full retard.

JohnStOnge wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:This country has never been healthier. But I’d love to hear what these horrible issues are that are so bad that the left is willing to discard a system that’s worked for 250+ years for one that’s been tried and failed dozens of times across the globe in the past 120 years.

I think the statement "this country has never been healthier" is very debatable. Also, I do not think the idea that a President is immune from prosecution is part of a system that's been in place for 250+ years.

I think that the system established has the President as the CEO of the Executive Branch. Not a God. Not a King. That person's job is to implement the laws. The laws are made by Congress. The President is not a ruler. This "Imperial Presidency" thing is not good.

What imperial presidency thing is that? Please elaborate. As only you can....

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I didn’t say it was “a purely conservative approach” did I, snowflake? But it is a traditional value of the right. Go read up on Ivy’s hero Edmund Burke. Or perhaps re-read some of your own posts on here for reference.

I see. So democrats are NOT interested in consolidating and retaining power? Its not part of their ideology?

Hint: It’s a tradition value of POLITICIANS.

You’ve gone full retard.

I was replying too JSO's remarks regarding conservatives hence my Edmund Burke comment who thought it a great harm to allow the commoners the right to vote. He was OG conservative.

If you'd like another example it would be the Loyalists who supported the consolidated power of the British Monarchy (although not always eye to eye with Burke they were conservative)

During much of the 20th century, Republicans were known as the party of big business.

Of course both sides seek power, dummy. Many Democrats are not truly liberal as a result. Remember, Jefferson helped found the Republican Party which later became the Democratic Party but he was also opposed to centralized power.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote: John, entitlement to, and preservation of established power at the expense of everyone else is a big part of the conservative ideology and has been from the start. You see it daily on this board from the fear of "radical" left ideas regarding our serious issues to defense of monopolistic practices despite a rhetorical belief in competition and the free market.

If you truly believe your first sentence is purely a conservative approach, then you’ve lost all credibility with me.

And please define “serious issues”. This country has never been healthier. But I’d love to hear what these horrible issues are that are so bad that the left is willing to discard a system that’s worked for 250+ years for one that’s been tried and failed dozens of times across the globe in the past 120 years.

Pissing away blood and treasure to fight wars in half a dozen countries for twenty years?

Borrowing from China to make it continue indefinitely?