1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

USSC decisions

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by NewRoxFan, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,292
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    I'm not reading anything into it. Those are the words. Look at the placement of the militia clause in the context of the other enumerated powers. It comes right after the powers to make and regulate the army and navy and right before the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia and establish an officer corps when the militia is pressed into federal service. The militia clause is a comma separated list (and you have even admitted as much). What are the items on the list? I have asked you three times now. There is a reason you will not answer.
    Congress can control the Capitol police under their power to govern DC (that is two powers further down the list). This is a non-argument. They don't control the Capitol Police under the militia clause. The militia clause has nothing to do with the Capitol Police, and certainly nothing to do with congressional subpoena powers or how they interact with executive privilege.
     
  2. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,295
  3. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,295
    So the coat hanger court is succeeding at overturning Roe v Wade... one state at a time...

     
  4. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    42,820
    Likes Received:
    26,432
    Sorry I missed this but just to respond to one point.
    Yes it’s a list with items separated by a comma. Under English grammar rules that’s a list and not a causal clause. If I say “In basketball you can dribble, pass and shoot” that describes three separate actions.. That isn’t a limitation that the second and third actions are dependent on the first.
    Fair enough and I will grant you that Congress has the power to control the Capitol PD separate from the militia close but that just goes to my point that congress ha other powers to suppress an insurrection.
     
    Nook and adoo like this.
  5. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,292
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    If you say, a player in possession of the ball can dribble, pass, or shoot, it is a list of things that can be done with the ball. Just like the militia clause is a list of things Congress can call out the militia to do. You wouldn't say the rule book says a player can shoot, so that must mean they can pull out a gun and kill members of the opposing team, it is obviously a list of things the player in possession of the ball can do with the ball. But since you decided to quote it again and still failed to answer a very simple question:
    You agree that it is a list. What are the items in the list? This is now the fourth time I have asked this very simple question.
    Of course they do. They have the other enumerated powers in Article I. They can issue letters of marque. They can raise and army and a navy. They can levy taxes to pay for them. They can borrow money. They can establish tribunals inferior to the supreme court. There is no Constitutional provision for Congress to undertake their own criminal investigation outside of impeachment.
     
    #625 StupidMoniker, Apr 20, 2022
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2022
  6. txtony

    txtony Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,575
    Likes Received:
    12,230
    Since the Justices didn't explain in their shadow docker order...

    Has WSJ editor board explained the emergency nature of allowing states and tribes to restrict projects that they deem will damage the environment? Why is it an emergency to stop the state and tribes immediately? What is the emergency here?
     
    B-Bob, subtomic and Andre0087 like this.
  7. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,295
    justice thomas ruling on trump's attempt to overturn the election that is wife was actively involved in...


     
  8. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Trust the process
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    54,647
    Likes Received:
    78,959
  9. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,140
    Likes Received:
    2,885
    Legal realism in a nutshell" What is "Constitutional" is whatever 5 S.Ct Judges say it is.

    Lawrence Tribe, famous Harvard Law School Prof famous for his widely used Constitutional Law textbook. "You would be better to look to the latest GOP Presidential Platform for predicting rulings than looking into "intent" /the Federalist Papers or (I would add )precedents).

    That is what would the main funders of the GOP want.
     
    Nook, Deckard, mdrowe00 and 1 other person like this.
  10. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    42,820
    Likes Received:
    26,432
    I apologize for not responding but my time is limited.

    I've already gone through what you are asking in this post:
    https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/ussc-decisions.305529/page-30#post-14020790
    If you don't accept the response then we're at an impasse as we are not agreeing on what a comma means . At that point we've probably exhausted what can be debated on this particular topic.
     
  11. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,292
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    You have not gone through what I am asking in that or any other post. You said it is a comma separated list. We both agree about this. The comma is an and (because the conjunction at the end is an and, not an or). All I am asking is what are the items in the list. The only way to address that question is to provide a list of items in the list. Here, I will make it easy for you, just fill in the numbers:
    Congress shall have the power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to
    1.
    2.
    3.

    OR

    Congress shall have the power...
    1. To provide for calling forth the Militia to
    2.
    3.
     
  12. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    42,820
    Likes Received:
    26,432
    Seriously you want to keep in this?
    Fine. In the post I referenced Congress has the power to:
    1. Call forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union.
    That is what it says in the text.
    Further Congress in that clause can:
    Supremacy insurrections
    Stop invasions.
     
    Nook likes this.
  13. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,292
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Great, now we are getting somewhere. You left out the numbers so I will fix that for you. I assume you also meant suppress insurrections not supremacy insurrections. So you think the only thing Congress can call forth the militia to do is execute the laws of the union? What can Congress do to accomplish the goal of suppressing insurrections? What can Congress do to Stop invasions? Since you apparently believe this is unrelated to the militia, do they have unlimited power to do the other two things? Why was it included in a single sentence about the militia?

    By the way, Congress passed Chapter XXVIII in 1792 (full text here) entitled: An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
    Which allows for the President to call forth the militia to ... wait for it ...
    1. Stop invasions
    2. Suppress insurrections
    3. Execute the laws of the Union

    It sure seems odd that Congress, within three years of the ratification of the Constitution would pass a law using the exact same language in the Militia clause but have it mean something completely different.
     
  14. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    42,820
    Likes Received:
    26,432
    Sorry, my typing is bad and I'm dyslexic.

    Sure I will accept that that Congress passed legislation regarding use of the militia for those reasons.
    The central argument we're having is how Congress can address an insurrection. As stated before your argument boils down to that Congress can ONLY call out the militia to suppress an insurrection and doesn;t have the power to use other tools such as investigation. That is what originally started this.

    Now let me ask you since you want to keep this going.
    Do you believe that Congress has the power to conduct investigations? In other words do you think that the Warren and 911 commissions were Constitutional?
     
    Nook likes this.
  15. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,292
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Would you agree that the language of the militia clause is identical to the title of the legislation there, and that it pretty explicitly shows what they understood the militia clause to mean?
    I don't think there is any Constitutional support for Congress conducting criminal investigations for the purpose of recommending criminal charges. Congress has limited, enumerated powers. In order to implement those powers, there is the necessary and proper clause. So, to the extent that something may be helpful in levying taxes, borrowing money, raising an army, calling out the militia, establishing post roads, etc. Congress can participate in information gathering. The 9/11 commission, for example, was a study in how to prevent future attacks, not a criminal investigation of the terrorists. The 9/11 Commission was also not a Congressional investigation, it was an indepentdent body overseen by a Governor that included members of Congress. I would have preferred a purely executive body, but this was not an example of a Congressional criminal inquiry.

    The Warren commission I would say was both illegitimate and most likely came to the wrong conclusions (Katzenbach's memo to the president urging the formation of the commission specifically said, "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large."). It was also not a Congressional investigation. It was the President's Commission on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, established by executive order and included such people as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Earl Warren, hence the colloquial name).
     
    #635 StupidMoniker, Apr 22, 2022
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2022
  16. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    42,820
    Likes Received:
    26,432
    I will agree and it certainly clarifies what is meant in the Constitution. To note though that still doesn't say that Congress' only means of suppressing an insurrection is the Milita. It says that the militia can be used.
    Congress since it's earliest days have been able to conduct investigations and the USSC has supported that several times including in McGrain v Daugherty in 1927 that congressional committees can issue subpeonas and call witnesses.

    George Mason at the Constitutional Convention said, "“are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”

    Let me ask you since you are a lawyer. If you had a client who had a subpoena from Congress would you advise them not to appear on the basis that you think it's unConstitutional?
     
    rockbox likes this.
  17. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,292
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Article 1 Section 8 is not a list of some of the powers that Congress has, it is the list of ALL the powers Congress has. That was the point of having specific enumerated powers.
    I would say McGrain and its progeny were incorrectly decided. In the case itself, they mention that there is no Constitutional provision for the subpoena power of a select Committee of the Senate (or of the Senate or all of Congree itself). They read this power into the power to legislate and the necessary and proper clause.
    And yet, they did not choose to write that into the Constitution. Ben Franklin may have said his farts smell like elderberries, but that wasn't made part of the Constitution either.
    It depends on what my client's purpose is. Sometimes you are trying to challenge precedent to overturn cases because you believe they were wrongly decided. If my client was interested in doing that, then yes. Sometimes a client has no interest in fighting a subpoena, they are happy to go an testify and who cares what powers are being used, or the risk of losing is greater than what they hope to gain by challenging the subpoena.

    All of this is pretty far afield from my original claim, that Justice Thomas was not ignoring the text of the Constitution when he upheld executive privilege in the face of a subpoena from the 1/6 Committee. It is clear, even from the case you are relying on to make your point, that there is no Constitutional language which provides for Congressional investigations or subpoenas, so there is nothing for him to ignore.
     
  18. Commodore

    Commodore Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,912
    Likes Received:
    9,569
  19. J.R.

    J.R. Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    95,782
    Likes Received:
    120,309
  20. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,292
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    It is about time. Stop killing babies. Look into adoption.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now