U.S. Judges Call Emergency Meeting Over Fears About William Barr And Trump

Of course, going by your support for him getting his friends off prosecutors, being 'the prosecutor', then he should also be able to chase after and prosecute anyone who is a rival to him (go the whole hog - let him do this in both business, and politics), or prosecute them even if he just sees an advantage to himself in prosecuting. After all, you say he is the prosecutor.

And I wonder if. along with your support for him getting his friends off prosecution charges... you also think he should be able to:
- shortcut the government tender process and give all the contracts to his friends (after all, he is the boss, or whoever chooses these, by whatever means)
- put his family in charge of government departments (after all, he's the selection panel, and the boss)
- accept the tax revenue personally (after all, he's a tax man, and the boss)
- change the tax structure to favour his own personal business/investments (same, he's a tax man, and the boss)
- make it known that absolutely no person that does not agree with him will get a job (same, he's the boss)

Keep in mind though that in order for someone to be convicted, they must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Is the president a king? The question may sound absurd, but you’d be surprised: A great many lawyers, politicians, judges, and policy experts think the U.S. Constitution builds from exactly that starting point. Their argument relies on the first sentence of Article II, which gives the president “the executive power.” That phrase, they claim, was originally understood as a generic reference to monarchical authority.

After years of research into an enormous array of colonial, revolutionary, and founding-era sources, I’m here to tell you that—as a historical matter—this president-as-king claim is utterly and totally wrong.

As a historical matter, my research shows that this claim is dead wrong. “The executive power” granted at the American founding was conceptually, legally, and semantically incapable of conveying a reservoir of royal authority. The real meaning of executive power was something almost embarrassingly simple: the power to execute the law. Overwhelming evidence for this point pervades both the Founders’ debates and the legal and political theory on which their discussions drew.

Listen to how Gouverneur Morris framed the problem for his fellow delegates in Philadelphia. The central challenge of constitutional governance, he said, was to safely distribute each of “the three powers” that everyone knew so well: “one … the power of making[,] another of executing, and a third of judging, the laws.”

In a famous 1774 Election Day sermon, Gad Hitchcock stated the consequence plainly: “The executive power is strictly no other than the legislative carried forward, and of course, controllable by it.”

The constitutional text on this point could scarcely be more explicit: The national legislature is expressly authorized to make “all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” any of the “Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.” The first Congress took up that invitation and ran with it, just like its successors have ever since—conveying those powers to the executive branch by statute that the constantly evolving democratic process deems necessary for the president to have.

It’s not like this vision of the presidency leads to weakness or irresolution. Under the modern administrative state, a vast statutory framework authorizes a spectacular range of presidential authorities.

You cannot be convicted if you cannot be prosecuted, because you never make it to the court of law. As you are a supporter of friends of the president never making it to court, please don't pretend to hold up the decisions of the court as an example of where your concept of justice occurs.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,....

This is the obvious intent of your constitution - it says so. Justice doesn't exist in the face of favouritism, hence the concept that all people are equal before the law - this concept goes right through the criminal justice system system, from police, to prosecutions/defence, to the courts. Something that is broken when your President interferes to get his friends off prosecutions.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

And yet your constitution provides no explanation as to the meaning of that.

The so very obvious meaning is that he is the head of the Executive.

Your opinion that it also makes him able to interfere in the justice process is still just that - your opinion.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This says the president is not immune from the law, and provides Bribery as an example - which isn't so different from getting his friends off prosecutions.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

It was quite obvious that your constitution intended that people be equal before the law...perhaps they never immagined that a President would interfere with his friends being prosecuted before it got to the courts.

Don't forget too, that the actions of Dictators and Kings etc are likely 'legal' when it comes to their friends not facing prosecutions (if they have the power to change the laws rather than just ignore them)...that doesn't make it right.

A Head of State, in any country, getting their friends off prosecutions, no matter the legalities, is interference in the criminal justice system.

This last is why you won't find agreement with your 'assertion' - ever.

I believe that our courts strive for justice for the most part.

"A decision to not prosecute someone" is hardly "interference to get someone off a prosecution."

It doesn't really require explanation.

Which is a complete an utter avoidance of the fact the courts can't do anything to achieve justice if specific individuals (in this case friends of the president) cannot be brought before the courts.

That was the very obvious point of my post you replied to. You know this, so your avoidance speaks volumes.

And yet another utter avoidance, phrased in a way to avoid the issues:

- A decision by the prosecutor who has looked at the evidence that there is not enough evidence to prosecute is fine

- interference by a politician is not fine

no, you can't argue that the President isn't a politician

rofl. No doubt why there is so much argument over it, in courts, amongst politicians, scholars, the press, here...

In your 'reality' a politician getting his friends off charges isn't political interference.

Very, very few (as a percentage of the population) would ever argue the same (a few people with limited mental capacity, a few with mental health issues...hence why its incredibly strange you argue this point)

As I mentioned several times now - I was under no illusion that you would change your mind.

I was rather however, curious how you justified your position to yourself.

To my way of thinking it is incredibly weird,

and quite supportive of dictatorial behaviours.

At one stage Slavery was fact in the U.S. That it was legal was true. That didn't make it right. The reason it wasn't right was argued based on concepts, rather than the law itself. In fact, when the concepts supporting the 'fact' of slavery fell apart (were no longer commonly accepted) it went from being a true fact, to no longer being a fact. The nature of such facts...being based on concepts...are transient. And that such facts (like slavery) are true, does not make them right. The argument for right or wrong was conceptual, rather than factual.

The same goes for every role that is based on a concept. If I employ someone, using a job description that I wrote, then that job description is fact. If circumstances change, and that role requires modification, then I change the job description, and the old fact (the old description) is no longer true...because the concept of what the role needed to be changed.

These of course apply even to the position of head of state (hence why there are so many differences in roles, because the concepts differ).

That concepts underpin your supposed 'facts' is something you seem unable to grasp.

Your promoted 'reality' (as opposed to actual reality) is nothing more than common acceptence of an idea or ideas....and some of your ideas don't even have common acceptance...just your opinion.

But even here, I don't expect you to understand this. You have a vested interest in not doing so.

Not really. Neither of you can come up with a concept that I am unable to understand.

I don't dispute the factual accuracy of anything that you wrote here, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

- It's quite amazing that oralloy doesn't appear to realise that to create the constitution, they had to develop, argue, and refine the concepts before they could write it.

The right and wrong of them are argued before they are enacted, and can still be argued after they are enacted (as seen by debates in parliaments/congress over laws, and the changing or repealing of laws)

Odd that by his standards, he wouldn't have argued against slavery, because it was a fact that they could have slaves.

Not at all. I strongly object to slavery.