Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

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.

Read the original post:
Minimum wage increase creates opportunity for lawyers and all Americans - Monroe Evening News

Litigation arising out of Hurricane Harvey (Harvey) has been ongoing since the first lawsuit was filed within days of Harvey making landfall onAugust 25, 2017, inundating Houston with an unprecedented amount of rainfall and flooding. The litigation, which is pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, centers around the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision to release the Addicks and Barker reservoirs after Harvey made landfall. These reservoirs were constructed in the 1940s to reduce the potential of catastrophic flooding in downtown Houston and the Houston Ship Channel.

After Harvey made landfall, the reservoirs began filling up at an alarming rate and water began to flow around the edge of one of the dams. On the morning of August 28, 2017, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers was forced to begin releasing water to ensure that the reservoirs did not experience catastrophic overflow and/or failure. Those properties that were affected by flooding due to the reservoirs overflowing pre-release are referred to as the upstream claimants in the litigation. The properties that were flooded after the reservoirs were intentionally released are referred to as the downstream claimants.

With respect to the status of the litigation, Judge Charles F. Lettow overseeing the upstream claimants actions heard testimony and received evidence for certain test or bell-weather claims in May 2019. He issued his opinion and order in December 2019, finding that the governments conduct relating to the reservoirs and the attendant flooding of various properties constituted an unconstitutional taking of a flowage easement under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that the upstream claimants therefore were entitled to compensation from the government. Judge Lettow then ordered the test cases to proceed with discovery on damages, providing that he would receive testimony related to the test properties damages in November 2020. Unfortunately, it appears that the damages phase has been continued for the time being, presumably because of COVID-19 related issues.

Conversely, Judge Loren A. Smith overseeing the litigation involving the downstream claimants actions granted the governments motion to dismiss effectively finding that neither Texas law nor federal law creates a protected property interest in perfect flood control in the face of an Act of God. The final order was executed in September 2020 and the downstream claimants have formally begun the appellate process.

The upstream claims obviously have the most viable subrogation potential at this time since Judge Lettow overseeing those claims has already issued an affirmative finding of liability against the government. While the downstream claims present more of a challenge given the adverse ruling and pending appeals process, we nevertheless recommend that such claims be referred to ensure the viability of the claims are protected should the adverse ruling ultimately be reversed.

See the original post:
Hurricane Harvey Litigation Update: Conflicting Opinions Spur Trial on Damages and Appeal - JD Supra

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 labors 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, increasing the minimum wage to $15 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 Amendments 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.

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 employees self-respect and community standing.

The just compensation required by the Fifth Amendment therefore will be for government to hire everyone who cant 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 wouldnt 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 everyones 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 deLespinasse

News Max

Excerpt from:
Increasing the Minimum Wage: Big Opportunities for Lawyers - LA Progressive

Vincent J. Napoleon, a retired US Air Force Colonel, a former partner at Nixon Peabody LLP and a 1984 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law discusses the urgency of removing President Donald Trump from office...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I bear true faith and allegiance to the same

As a young newly minted second lieutenant in the United States Air Force and through each promotion to the rank of Colonel, I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, Foreign and domestic [and] that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion Similarly, the President and the Commander in Chief of the United States also swears to the best of [his] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In supporting and defending the constitution, the President as Commander-in-Chief and his military officers, in short, agree to preserve our democracy, to defend against insurrection, sedition, and any action, conduct, and behavior that would upend our form of Government.

Much like December 7, 1941, January 6, 2021 will be a date that will live in infamy the date on which President Donald J. Trump engaged in an attempted overthrow of the United States Government through his inspired siege of the U.S. Capitol building. The interruption of our democracy in action as Congress engaged in the business of confirming electoral votes, which would ultimately make President-Elect Joe Bidens defeat of Donald Trump official, through Trumps inspired seditious and riotous activity was a failed coup. The riots on the U.S. Capitol, the sacred temple of democracy where the peoples business is conducted, as instigated by the President raises the question as to whether Donald Trump supports the Constitution. In fact, it has been argued that Donald Trump does not care about the Constitution and what it represents. Certainly, any Commander-in-Chief whose conduct is such that it compromises our democracy and diminishes our leadership position in the world does not support the Constitution.

In inspiring the siege on the U.S. Capitol and therefore our democracy while launching an attack on our legislature and our electoral process, Donald Trump exhibited a severe lack of reverence for the Constitution and our system of government and the related institutions. Acting much like an authoritarian leader and dictator, Donald Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President of the United States to engineer a coup, tried to pressure the Secretary of State of Georgia to reverse the 2020 Presidential election results, encouraged acts of sedition and insurrection, incited riots against the Government, and in all acted in a way to subvert the Constitution and our democracy which has been in place for more than 200 years. Given the Presidents propensity to exhibit seditious behavior, given his current mental state and with only twelve days remaining in his presidency the most pressing question to be resolved by our leaders in Congress and in the Executive is whether the President is capable of engaging in activity that will dangerously place our democratic system and our national security in grave jeopardy given his conduct. To what extent can we remove this danger to our country?

To avoid the carnage resulting from the Presidents action and his failure to support and defend the constitution and therefore our democracy, calls throughout the hallowed halls of Congress and from all corners of the country have been made for the removal of Donald Trump from office. The question is how? Which mechanism should be used to immediately remove this threat to our democracy and our national security? While impeachment is an avenue, it is not the most expedient approach. Perhaps, the invocation of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution could more expeditiously result in Donald Trumps removal from the Oval and more quickly restore global prominence to the Office of the President. Some commentators and pundits believe that invoking the 25th Amendment may send the wrong message to Donald Trumps treasonous followers. However, invoking the 25th Amendment under the circumstances where the President has engaged in seditious conduct could be precedent setting; it sends a message to the world that treasonous conduct especially by a sitting U.S. President will not be embraced in this democracy. It, moreover, sends a message to future leaders that any thought of a coup or related conduct by a President will result in immediate removal from office.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution was approved by Congress on July 6, 1965 and ratified by the States on February 10, 1967 in the wake of President John F. Kennedys assassination to resolve issues around what happens upon the death, removal, resignation of the President or his inability to fulfill his responsibility. In its simplest terms, the 25th Amendment is a tool to remove the President from office if he becomes unable to do his job. This could be for a limited period or for the remainder of the Presidents term depending on the circumstances. But it is Section 4 of the 25th Amendment which is most relevant in determining whether Donald Trumps recent conduct of encouraging a coup on this Government should result in his removal from office. More specifically, Section 4 of 25th Amendment states that:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President

It is Vice President Pence and a majority of the Cabinet or some other body the Congress may designate who decides whether the 25th Amendment ought to be invoked. Recognizing that President Trump is unfit and therefore unable to perform his presidential duties House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and others have on a bipartisan basis called for Donald Trumps removal by invoking the 25th Amendment. According to the Senate Minority Leader, the quickest and most effective wayto remove this president from office would be for the vice president to immediately invoke the 25th Amendment. Some have called for Trumps removal from office by impeachment if the Vice President and the Cabinet refuse to act. This approach, which lacks immediacy, would require two steps impeachment by the House of Representatives and a trial by the Senate for removal. Whichever approach is used, there is a consensus that removing Donald Trump as president is urgent. Invoking the 25th Amendment will involve Vice President Pence and members of the cabinet coming together in agreement to move forward to remove Donald Trump from office. While the law would support Donald Trumps removal from office by invoking the 25th Amendment given his seditious conduct and his apparent diminishing mental state, other factors may drive a different result. Factors such as politics, loyalty, fear of reprisal, and retribution may cause cabinet members and Vice President Pense not to invoke the 25th Amendment. Worst case and as one CNN commentator intimated, we may be better served by keeping Donald Trump on the golf course at Mar-a-Lago until January 20th where his influence and involvement in significant decisions may be minimized. Knowing that the invocation of the 25th Amendment is looming over him and the embarrassment of being forced out of office, may compel Donald Trump to voluntarily resign.

Donald Trumps action, his seditious activity, his effort to lead a coup and overthrow the Government while causing our teetering democracy to fall into disarray is sufficient for our Congressional and Executive leaders to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Donald Trump from office. Donald Trump has failed this country and he has failed his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The most expedient path to end this danger to our republic and to remove the president immediately is to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. Vice President Pence, members of the Cabinet, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, invoke the 25th now! Donald Trump must be removed, post-haste!

Vincent J. Napoleon is a seasoned C-suite business leader, legal executive, and retired U.S. Air Force Colonel with substantial experience representing global Fortune 100 and 500 companies in a number of business sectors. He serves as an Arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association and is the author of numerous, articles, book chapters, and the book Pan-African Infrastructure Development and Public-Private Partnerships. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and his BSBA from Georgetown University McDonough School of Business.

Suggested citation: Vincent J. Napoleon, Invoking the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution: The Removal of President Donald J. Trump, JURIST Professional Commentary, January 8, 2021, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/01/vincent-napoleon-25-amendment/.

This article was prepared for publication by Brianna Bell, a JURIST Senior Editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at commentary@jurist.org.

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.

View original post here:
Invoking the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution: The Removal of President Donald J. Trump - JURIST

When Congress convened on Wednesday to certify the results from each respective states electoral college votes, from the previous month, it was clear there would be contention among representatives on the upcoming votes, however, few could have anticipated the actions that were about to be taken.

The siege on the U.S. Capitol would result in the death of a police officer, a woman being shot and killed, as well as damage to the historical building and its artifacts.

As with the following of each presidential election, Congress began Wednesday with the historical and ceremonial process of accepting each states certificate of votes from their respective Electoral College convenings.

In Ohio, for example, appointed members met on Monday, December 14 under the direction of Ohio Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted to affirm the states vote for president.

Ohio is a winner-take-all state, which means whichever candidate for president wins the popular vote within the state becomes the recipient of all of its states electoral votes.

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, divide their Electoral College votes by districts allowing for proportional allocation of electorates in selecting who will ultimately become the next president and vice president of the country.

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia pledge their electoral votes not on who wins the popular vote within their state, but who nationally wins the popular vote.

At the completion of the convenings on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December, electors sign and record their votes on six certificates.

One certificate is sent to the President of the Senate, two are sent to the U.S. Federal Archivist, two are sent by registered mail to their own states Secretary of State and one is sent to the Chief Judge of the closest United States District Court.

Each certificate, which was sent to the Senate, is the official set of documents seen Wednesday in which is used to officially certify who will become the new leaders of the Executive Branch of the United States come January 20.

Numerous Senators and Members of the House of Representatives had publically stated before Wednesday their intent to challenge certain states allocation of electors.

Local Muskingum County U.S. Congressman Troy Balderson (R) said he would not contest the vote while the countys other U.S. Congressman Bill Johnson (R) said he would.

Due to the drawing of districts following the 2010 U.S. Census, Muskingum County is split and residents, depending on where they live, have either one of the two aforementioned representatives.

Both of Ohios U.S. Senators, Rob Portman (R) and Sherrod Brown (D), made clear before Wednesday that neither of them would contest the vote.

While rare, and often lacking the necessary momentum to move forward, votes have been contested before such as in 2000 following issues within counties in Flordia having complications with hanging chads on voting cards.

In many cases, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives will object but lack a sponsoring Senator, which is required to allow further discussion on the topic.

In 2004, Democrats were able to delay the final certification process by objecting to Ohios selection of electors alleging numerous, serious election irregularities that led to an alleged significant disenfranchisement of voters.

That issue was overturned by a full vote of each chamber of Congress.

This year was different however in that while Democrats controlled the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate likely would have been split on partisan lines leaving Vice President Mike Pence in a precarious position to overturn the election.

Had that occurred on Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives would have chosen the next President and Vice President of the United States, however, each state would each only receive one vote, likely securing the next term for the incumbents, President Donald Trump and Vice President Pence.

The last time Congress selected a president was in 1877 soon after the Civil War.

As history would have it however while the certification process was ongoing individuals began to storm the U.S. Capitol.

During that siege, Capitol Police and other law enforcement officers were overrun as large groups broke past barriers and onto the Capitol steps before breaking windows and doors to gain access to the physical building.

One concerning sign of trouble, individuals chanting their intention to hang the Vice President on Capitol Grounds as they advanced, coincided with a noose and structure that had recently been constructed nearby.

Secret Service quickly extracted the Vice President and within the following minutes other congressional leaders, such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D), was taken away to a secure bunker under the Capitol Building.

Some members, including local representative Johnson, were unable to escape, forced to shelter in place as attackers got closer.

In an interview shortly after the incident, Johnson spoke on Fox News about his experience.

According to Johnson, during debate security came in and took Pelosi as well as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D) and Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R) out of the House Chambers.

Soon after, security informed the representatives that the capitol had been breached and asked them to remain quiet.

Tear gas was being deployed in the Capitol rotunda and members were instructed to reach under their seats and retrieve masks.

The special CBRN Escape Hoods, designed to protect wearers from chemical, biological and radiological events was one of many security enhancements installed after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In a photo retrieved by Y-City News, Johnson can be seen sitting on steps in the House Chamber holding his escape hood.

You could actually hear the beating on the door, said Johnson, who spent a large portion of his career in the U.S. Military.

Johnson elaborated to the host on Fox News that the door that was being attacked was the very one the President of the United States would enter through when coming to present the yearly State of the Union address.

Soon after members were also extracted from the chamber, while Johnson didnt disclose where he was taken, other members he was near reported being taken to an underground bunker beneath the Capitol building, which until that day had yet to been publically proven to even exist.

Both Balderson and Johnson issued public comments, like many of their colleagues, condemning the act of violence and destruction.

Balderson, who did not respond to a request for comment from Y-City News on his experience during the siege, said he was deeply disheartened by the violence that occurred.

While I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and Americans right to protest, what our nation has witnessed on Capitol Hill today is not protected by the First Amendment, said Balderson in a written statement. These behaviors are deeply un-American and threaten the very foundation of our Republic.

Following his statement, Balderson issued another letter Friday where he called for a full investigation into how the events Wednesday were allowed to transpire and request for assurances that they would never occur again.

Johnson, like Balderson, thanked the heroic actions of Capitol Police and gave their sympathies to the family of Officer Brian Sicknick, who was killed Wednesday.

Following the events Wednesday afternoon, Congress reconvened and finalized the certification of the election.

The siege caused many representatives who had previously said they would contest the election to cease their objections citing the need for a peaceful transition of power.

Johnson however continued to object to the certification of both Arizonas and Pennsylvanias certifications citing what he said he saw as an unconstitutional act in those states.

Further explained during his interview with Fox News, Johnson said his constituents felt their voices were being silenced by officials and judges in other states.

It was not about an attempt to overthrow or overturn the electoral college election, said Johnson. It was about bringing light to the fact that some states had violated their own constitution and that is wrong.

Citing Trump as the reason for the siege on the Capitol, almost every digital account held by the president was suspended or removed.

Most notably his Twitter account, which had the largest following, was one such account taken down, often the presidents chosen medium of communication.

Multiple members of his cabinet and staff resigned in protest, with the possibility of the invoking of the twenty-fifth amendment being enacted by the Vice President being alleged to be considered by Pence.

Sunday evening, Pelosi said the U.S. House of Representatives would move forward on Monday with a resolution giving Pence 24-hours to take control of the presidency.

If action is not taken, Pelosi said the House would move to impeach Trump by mid-week.

View post:
Local leaders respond to siege on capitol - Y-City News

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