Daily Archives: January 9, 2021

PATRICK SEMANSKY / AP

By Jose Orozco

President Trump is soon to leave office, and over the past month, he has begun to issue multiple pardons. Many of them are begging us to ask: Is this a continuation of power abuse? Some have already speculated that Trumps pardons will, without a doubt, backfire on him.

Notably, Michael CohenTrumps former attorneyrecently stated on MSNBC: Once you get that pardon, youre no longer able to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

All of these people may ultimately be his downfall simply because theyll be testifying against him.

Hence, it seems that Trump is placing himself in a precarious position by giving pardons to those who have been accomplices in illegal actions. This would seem like a fitting end.

Currently, attorneys are looking into Trump for evading tax-fraud and for many other criminal cases. The pardons Trump gave to Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, for instance, come from the Mueller investigation. Flynn lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty, while Stone was convicted for obstruction and witness tampering.

But criminal law experts say that this is not the case.

Business Insider reported that Cohens attorney Barry Spevack agreed to a point. Pardons might help prosecutors but only to a certain extent. Because pardons do not cover state crimes, they can still invoke the Fifth Amendment and say they want to avoid state-level prosecution. State-level charges will be the biggest obstacle then since it is difficult to imagine a case that would be entirely federal.

President Trump could even pardon himself or invoke the 25th Amendment making Vice President Pence take his position as president to pardon himself on his last day in office. Such an act would not give an edge to New York state investigations.

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor, and criminal defense lawyer, also agreed with this stance as he told Business Insider, If theres anything else that he could be prosecuted for other than what he was pardoned for, he still has the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment is hard to take away in a democracy, especially a right used to protect people from the government. Forced testimony is not an option for these people, whether they are guilty or not.

As fellow citizens, we should be happy to have the fifth, but what a hindrance it is to prosecutors.

However, they can still try to force testimony by striking a deal with the defendant and giving them immunity. Or the court can force a witness to testify by issuing a subpoena.

Therefore, Trump is not out of the waters quite yet. Only time will tell whether he will be found guilty, though. Once he is out of office, investigations will bombard the Trump household until something sticks. But, what kind of implications will that have?

For one, what an embarrassment to have a president put in prison as soon as he leaves office. The irony of having someone who bends the rules as our enforcer of the law is hard to ignore. And that is what worries me. Presidential status might be enough to avoid imprisoning Trump.

His investigations may warrant a need to consider the image of the nation. Imprisoning him would tarnish a country known to globally oppose corrupt leaders. From the outset, the hypocrisy behind the stance of the U.S. is clear because, if found guilty, President Trump may find leniency from this outcome.

It is a difficult position to be a prosecuting attorney when an individuals image directly influences how people view the nation. Either outcome in the trial leaves the country in a deplorable state.

And no matter the outcome of each case, there is no doubt that we will all experience a bad taste in our mouths in the aftermath. President Trumps actions will leave a bad image on the nation, where corruption and hypocrisy loom over everyones head. By being a president, Trump will most certainly receive special treatment in each case.

And although we can expect thorough investigations, it seems unlikely that the law will severely prosecute President Trump with the highest penalty for his actions. However, if his actions do warrant it, let us hope that he is treated as any other person would be under similar circumstances. Because, even if the culpability outcomes are similar, a more severe take on his tax fraud and criminal cases will be a more acceptable stance. There is an expectation that such people of power are held to a much higher standard.

Jose Orozco is a fourth-year student majoring in English at UC Davis. He is from the San Joaquin area.

Support our work to become a sustaining at $5 $10- $25 per month hit the link:

Read more here:
Student Opinion: Beg Your Pardon, the Fifth Amendment is Still an Option - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

By Ian J. Drake

President Trump urged supporters Wednesday to march on the Capitol and warned his supporters could never take back our country with weakness. After the march mutated into a riot at the Capitol Building, several Democratic members of the House of Representatives called for the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to be invoked to remove the president from power.

No matter what one thinks of Trumps actions or statements in urging the marchers-cum-rioters, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is not a tool that can be used in this instance to remove the president from office.

The amendments origins date back to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. Exhausted from a multistate tour to promote Senate ratification of the Versailles Treaty in 1919, Wilson suffered a severe stroke. He was partially paralyzed and almost blinded. For several weeks thereafter, he was seen only by his wife and physician.

The public was ignorant of the full extent of Wilsons condition for several months, during which time his wife and several close aides were gatekeepers who shielded Wilson from scrutiny and shepherded (and perhaps even made) policy decisions. Since there was no clear constitutional authority for replacing an incapacitated executive, Vice President Thomas Marshall was reluctant to assert any claim on the office absent a joint resolution from Congress or an official declaration from Wilson himself. Not only was Wilson literally partly paralyzed, but so too was the presidency.

Wilsons condition and the predicament into which it put the presidency was one of the historical examples congressional legislators had in mind when they proposed the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Ratified in 1967 and spurred on by the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, the amendment allows for the voluntary relinquishment of power by the president or the involuntary removal from power by the vice president and a majority of the cabinet, or by a specially designated body created by Congress.

The amendment requires that the president be unable to discharge the power and duties of his office. As the Wilson and Kennedy examples demonstrate, the kind of problem solved by the amendment is related to a disability or the incapacity of the president. President Trump may be unwilling to make good decisions, but he is not incapable of making them in the sense that the unable language anticipates.

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment also allows only for the removal from power, but not from office. Under its terms, the president remains the president and has the power to issue a declaration that no inability exists and can resume his ability to govern. The amendment provides a procedure for the vice president and cabinet or the specially-created congressional body to continue to object to the president exercising the powers of his office, and ultimately if Congress can muster a two-thirds majority in both houses, the removal from power can continue. At a minimum, the procedures and plain language of the amendment demonstrate that this is simply not the proper constitutional tool for this presidents opponents.

If Congress dislikes Trumps behavior, impeachment is the most appropriate route. As we were reminded during the debate surrounding Trumps first impeachment in late 2019, impeachment does not require a criminal offense under statutory law. It involves a political offense, which Trump has arguably committed in urging his supporters to march on Congress. There is, however, likely too little time remaining in his administration the inauguration of President-elect Biden occurs on Jan. 20 for a trial in the Senate. Yet, the House can note its strong disapproval by voting to impeach, leaving President Trump as the only president to be twice impeached.

Constitutional powers like those allowed under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment should be exercised only when clearly appropriate. In this case, President Trump is not unable to be president in fact, the premise of the anger against him is that he knew full well what he was doing and made bad or immoral choices. The only viable constitutional tool left is impeachment, and the clock is running out.

Ian J. Drake, an associate professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University, appears as an expert in an Amazon Prime documentary titled Safeguard: An Electoral College Story.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Heres how to submit an op-ed or Letter to the Editor. Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow us on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and on Facebook at NJ.com Opinion. Get the latest news updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.coms newsletters.

See the article here:
Were likely stuck with Trump until the very end | Opinion - NJ.com

8 January 2021

Wia dis foto come from, Getty Images

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi don tell Vice President Mike Pence to immediately invoke di 25th Amendment to remove President Trump afta di violence wey happun for capitol Hill on Wednesday.

Madam Pelosi say she and di Senate Minority (soon to be Majority) Leader, Chuck Schumer don call oga Pence and dem dey wait for e reply.

Wia dis foto come from, TW

Before now, three US Democrats lawmakers bin circulate Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump afta di violence wey happun for Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

Democratic Reps. David Cicilline, Jamie Raskin and Ted Lieu share di Articles of Impeachment for dia twitter handle and call on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke di 25th Amendment to remove Donald Trump from office.

Wia dis foto come from, TW

Wia dis foto come from, TW

Di four-page Articles of Impeachment wey dem circulate charge oga Trump with abuse of power for "willfully inciting violence against di goment."

Also several politicians, oda lawmakers don begin call on di Vice President to invoke di 25th amendment to remove Trump from office.

Wetin be di "25th Amendment"?

Chart flow of 25th Amendment

Professor of law, Brian Kalt share flow chart of di 25th amendment wey im carry from im book so dat America pipo go beta understanding of di law.

Wia dis foto come from, Twitter/@ProfBrainKalt

Flow chart of di 25th Amendment from Professor Brain Kalt

25th Amendment fit comot Trump from Office before January 20th afta Capitol Hill Violence?

Plenti experts for law and politics mata don tok say e dey possible to invoke di 25th before Inauguration Day wey be January 20th.

One Professor of law for Michigan State University, Brian C. Kalt say di VP and Cabinet fit invoke 25th Amendment (4) if things get out of hand.

Prof Kalt go further to explain say if dem invoke 25th Amendment and give power to di VP, then later di president declare "no inability exists," e no fit retake power back immediately, di VP go still remain as acting president during di four-days waiting period according to di law.

Wia dis foto come from, TW

Base on di 25th Amendment, afta di waiting period, if di deciding group (VP and cabinet) no agree say di president dey 'fit' to carry out im duties, di decision go then dey for Congress hand.

At dis point, Congress get 21 days to decide who go exercise presidential powers, di president or di vice president.

As e be say na only 12 days remain for President Trump to leave office, Congress fit no need to do anything sake of di 21 days grace wey di law give dem. Di vice president fit continue to serve as acting president through Jan. 20, wey dem go swear in Biden.

Sources: Brian C. Kalt and David Pozen; Di Twenty-Fifth Amendment published by di National Constitution Center.

More:
Wetin to know about di 25th amendment and if e fit remove Trump from office afta Capitol Hill violence - BBC News

On January 1 the minimum wage in many U.S. states and cities increased. As reported in the New York Times "in 27 of these places the pay floor will reach or exceed $15 an hour."

These pay increases are intended to help low-income people, who obviously could use the help. It is hard to imagine how anyone could live on the current $7.25 federal minimum. But intent is one thing and actual consequences may be quite different. According to standard microeconomics, when labor's price increases the amount employers will buy decreases.

Experts at the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that increasing the minimum wage to $15 would lift 1.3 million people out of poverty and increase paychecks for 27 million--an excellent result! But they also predicted that the increase would render 1.3 million people jobless, with young people, part-time workers, and those with no education beyond high school disproportionately hurt.

How do we calculate the net benefit of such legislation?

Oddly enough, though, dramatic increases in the minimum wage offer a golden opportunity to lawyers. It invites them to bring class action lawsuits that , while increasing their own incomes, will also help those poor people who otherwise would be getting the short end of the stick.

The lawsuits would be based on the Fifth Amendment's Eminent Domain clause, which says that that "private property" may not "be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Poor people generally have little property in the narrower sense of the term: real estate, stocks, bonds, bank accounts. Their most important possession is therefore their ability to earn a living by working. As Benjamin Franklin famously observed, "He that hath a trade hath an estate."

A minimum wage law which drives someone into unemployment deprives that person of his or her most valuable property. Government may justify this damage on the grounds that it benefits people fortunate enough to retain their jobs, who will be earning more---certainly an important public purpose. But the Fifth Amendment requires government to give "just compensation" to people injured by that law.

"Just compensation" here must do more than replace what people could have earned if they could find a job. Income, although very important, is not the only reward for working. Working is educational. It helps employees learn new skills--- leading to better opportunities ---and to develop habits and dependability that employers value. A job also reinforces the employee's self-respect and community standing.

The "just compensation" required by the Fifth Amendment therefore will be for government to hire everyone who can't find other work, to pay that person the minimum hourly rate that its own laws require, and to include all legally required fringe benefits.

A democratic government probably wouldn't do this without external pressure, since the taxes to pay for it would be unpopular. But a successful class action on behalf of all unemployed people could force government to choose between guaranteeing jobs for everyone or repealing the popular minimum wage laws.

Lawyers do very well financially when they win class action lawsuits. Even a tiny percentage of the results of this class action would make the lawyers rich. But they would have earned it.

Two major benefits for the general public would result. It would destroy unemployment, thereby increasing everyone's security--- no small achievement in a dynamic economy where nobody with a good job today can count on being employed tomorrow.

The public would also benefit from the services performed by the people employed by the government. Unemployment has never rested on a lack of things that need to be done. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the Great Depression, why pay people for doing nothing when there is lot of useful work to be done?

Let it be done!

Paul F. deLespinasse is professor emeritus of political science and computer science at Adrian College. He can be reached at pdeles@proaxis.com.

Link:
Minimum wage increase creates opportunity for lawyers and all Americans - Sentinel-Standard

President Donald Trump has never bothered to hide his contempt for the Constitution. By my count, he has openly trashed the principles and safeguards contained in the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and 14th Amendment, plus the doctrine of enumerated powers and the constitutional separation of powers. To that sorry list we may now add Trump's attacks on the Electors Clause and on the peaceful transfer of constitutional power after a presidential election.

Let's walk through it, starting with the First Amendment.

As a presidential candidate in 2015, Trump argued that the federal government had "absolutely no choice" but to close down mosques in the name of fighting terrorism. The First Amendment, of course, protects religious liberty and stands against such assaults on houses of worship.

The federal government must enact "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," Trump argued that same year. His own running mate, Mike Pence, described that idea as "offensive and unconstitutional." Trump's reply? The Constitution "doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide as a country, OK?"

The notion that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" has always been the last refuge of those who are scheming to violate the document. Mr. President, you can't declare war unilaterally! Well, you know, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Mr. President, you can't ban private gun ownership! Aw, come on, we all know the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Speaking of the Second Amendment, Trump enjoys the rare distinction of having been benchslapped twice by his own judicial appointees over his administration's cavalier attempts to expand federal gun control. After 2017's mass shooting in Las Vegas, Trump vowed to ban bump stocks, a type of firearm accessory that the shooter reportedly used. "We can do that with an executive order," Trump asserted. "They're working on it right now, the lawyers."

What the lawyers at the Department of Justice concocted for Trump was a new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulation "to clarify that [bump stocks] are 'machineguns' as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968." In other words, at Trump's behest, the federal government would reinterpret the federal ban on machine guns to ban bump stocks too.

Not so fast, said Justice Neil Gorsuch. The executive branch "used to tell everyone that bump stocks don't qualify as 'machineguns.' Now it says the opposite," Gorsuch wrote in a statement respecting the denial of certiorari inGuedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2020). Yet "the law hasn't changed, only an agency's interpretation of it," the justice complained. "How, in all of this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up.And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?"

A few weeks later, Judge Brantley Starr, a Trump appointee who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, accused the federal government of abandoning basic constitutional principles in its defense of Trump's bump stock ban. The administration claims that the ban is a lawful exercise of the "federal police power," Starr wrote in Lane v. United States. But "the federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself," which grants no such power to the feds.

The Fifth Amendment has fared little better in Trump's hands. Among other things, that provision says that if the government wants to take private property, it may do so only for a legitimate "public purpose." Trump, by contrast, has tried to personally profit from eminent domain abuse. In 1994, Trump joined forces with New Jersey's Casino Reinvestment Development Authority in an effort to kick an elderly widow named Vera Coking out of her Atlantic City home in order to clear space for a new limousine parking lot for the nearby Trump Plaza hotel and casino.

That attempted land grab lost decisively in court. "What has occurred here is analogous to giving Trump a blank check with respect to future development on the property for casino hotel purposes," declared the Superior Court of New Jersey in a sharp ruling against Trump and his government partners. Coking kept her home.

The 14th Amendment is best known for placing a host of fundamental rights beyond the reach of infringing state and local officials. It also placed birthright citizenship squarely in the constitutional firmament. As I've previously detailed, "the text and history of the 14th Amendment are clear: If a child is born on U.S. soil, and that child's parents don't happen to be diplomats, foreign ministers, or invading foreign troops, then that child is a U.S. citizen by virtue of birth."

Trump's views on birthright citizenship amount to an unconstitutional twofer. First, he has insisted that the text of the 14th Amendment does not mean what it says (Trump's own judicial appointees disagree with him about that). Second, Trump has argued that the president has the unilateral power to abolish birthright citizenship with the stroke of a pen. So much for the doctrine of limited and enumerated executive power.

Which brings us to Trump's behavior during the past two months. Rather than acknowledge the fact that Joe Biden won the presidential election in November, Trump has loudly championed one lawsuit after another in the always-doomed hope that he might somehow remain in the White House.

To put it mildly, the post-election lawsuits promulgated by Trump and his allies were practically laughed out of court. And it was not just "liberal" judges who were doing the laughing. "The Campaign's claims have no merit," ruled Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Trump for President v. Pennsylvania. "Calling an election unfair does not make it so," Bibas wrote. "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." Trump was the one who appointed Bibas to the 3rd Circuit in 2017.

"We will be INTERVENING in the Texascase," Trump tweeted on December 9. "This is the big one." Texas v. Pennsylvania was a big one all right, possibly the biggest joke of them all. Bypassing the lower courts, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton went straight to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to directly intervene in the presidential election by tossing out the results in four key statesPennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsinthat went for Biden. It should probably go without saying, but no state had ever succeeded in a stunt even remotely like overturning the results of a presidential election by going straight to SCOTUS to challenge the results in another state.

"The big one" soon suffered the unceremonious legal death that it deserved. "The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution," the Supreme Court declared in a terse order. "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."

His judicial humiliation now complete, Trump turned to one last-ditch crackpot constitutional theory. Namely, he argued that Vice President Mike Pence had the unilateral authority to overturn the election by rejecting pro-Biden electoral votes. "If Mike Pence does the right thing," Trump said. "We win the election."

Pence did do the right thing. "It is my considered judgment," the vice president said, "that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not."

Unfortunately, Trump's undermining of the Constitution did not end there. On Wednesday, a mob of his supporters, who had just listened to Trump peddle yet more conspiracy theories and baseless allegations about a "stolen" election, stormed the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead.

Trump will soon be out of office. He deserves to be remembered for what his words and actions have repeatedly shown him to be: no friend to the Constitution.

Read more from the original source:
Trump Never Bothered To Hide His Contempt for the Constitution - Reason