Is the holder of an "office" called an officer when it comes to the president? (1 Viewer)

[Taylor]

The Presiident holds the office of POTUS in the Oval Office. Officially.

Yep. That doesn't mean he's an "Officer of the United States."

 

[diz]

Where in the 5th Amendment is eligibility to hold office mentioned?

The issue is with the term “Officer of the United States” - when this term is used in the Constitution it does not include the President.

If you read Joseph Story I think people who gain their offices from state processes (like the state electors) are not “Officers of the United States”

 

[diz]

Story for reference:

§ 791. A question arose upon an impeachment before the senate in 1799, whether a senator was a civil officer of the United States, within the purview of the constitution; and it was decided by the senate, that he was not; and the like principle must apply to the members of the house of representatives. This decision, upon which the senate itself was greatly divided, seems not to have been quite satisfactory (as it may be gathered) to the minds of some learned commentators. The reasoning, by which it was sustained in the senate, does not appear, their deliberations having been private. But it was probably held, that "civil officers of the United States" meant such, as derived their appointment from, and under the national government, and not those persons, who, though members of the government, derived their appointment from the states, or the people of the states. In this view, the enumeration of the president and vice president, as impeachable officers, was indispensable; for they derive, or may derive, their office from a source paramount to the national government. And the clause of the constitution, now under consideration, does not even affect to consider them officers of the United States. It says, "the president, vice-president, and all civil officers (not all other civil officers) shall be removed," &c. The language of the clause, therefore, would rather lead to the conclusion, that they were enumerated, as contradistinguished from, rather than as included in the description of, civil officers of the United States. Other clauses of the constitution would seem to favour the same result; particularly the clause, respecting appointment of officers of the United States by the executive, who is to "commission all the officers of the United States;" and the 6th section of the first article, which declares, that "no person, holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office;" and the first section of the second article, which declares, that "no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." It is far from being certain, that the convention itself ever contemplated, that senators or representatives should be subjected to impeachment; and it is very far from being clear, that such a subjection would have been either politic or desirable.

Impeachment Clauses: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 758--69, 771--78, 780--803, 810--11

If you’re not familiar with Story he’s about was respected a source as you can find on the meaning of the Constitution. Maybe second to James Madison.

Story was nominated by Madison and served on the Supreme Court for 30 plus years, and in 1833 wrote his Commentaries on the Constitution, from which the above is quoted.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Of course it does. It's called the Appointments Clause...

he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law

The President is not an "Officer of the United States" he appoints Officers with advice and consent of the Senate.

It's like you didn't even read what you were posting before posting it. That says the exact opposite of what you are trying to say.

It says that the President does not appoint all the Officers of the United States, but only those Officers whose Appointments are not "otherwise provided for."

The president is an Officer whose Appointment is "otherwise provided for." It is provided for in Article II, Section 1.

 

[Taylor]

It's like you didn't even read what you were posting before posting it. That says the exact opposite of what you are trying to say.

It says that the President does not appoint all the Officers of the United States, but only those Officers whose Appointments are not "otherwise provided for."

The president is an Officer whose Appointment is "otherwise provided for." It is provided for in Article II, Section 1.

The President is elected, not appointed.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The President is elected, not appointed.

Which only means that the appointment of the Office of the President is provided for by an electoral process.

 

[Ishm]

Immunity, what does 'officer of the US mean, what does the 14th actually say, should it say that, what about 'democracy' ............? Seems like very few are trying to argue that Trump is actually innocent now. Just focussing on whether they can find a legal loophole to let a guilty man go free!! End of the day we are all waiting on the conservative (maga?) majority SCOTUS to share what are likely to be very convoluted arguments with us saying why the 14th doesn't apply to Donald Trump because he is so special.

 

[diz]

Immunity, what does 'officer of the US mean, what does the 14th actually say, should it say that, what about 'democracy' ............? Seems like very few are trying to argue that Trump is actually innocent now. Just focussing on whether they can find a legal loophole to let a guilty man go free!! End of the day we are all waiting on the conservative (maga?) majority SCOTUS to share what are likely to be very convoluted arguments with us saying why the 14th doesn't apply to Donald Trump because he is so special.

There are a variety of reasons why the 14A disqualification can’t or shouldn’t be applied to Trump. To me the most obvious one is he’s never been charged, let alone convicted of “insurrection."

The 14th Amendment section 5 says: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Not the Secretary of State of Maine.

The intent of these provisions was to limit the power of states during reconstruction not to give them special unchecked powers to mess up federal elections.

The Congress has passed a statute that outlaws insurrection. Trump has not been convicted under that statute. That doesn’t mean any random court or state official can just decide he’s done it anyway if you believe in a system of laws.

It’s really pretty sad our country has descended to the point where people view court abuses with nothing but partisan lenses. If this is not a 9-0 in the Supreme Court it will be a pretty sure sign we have some justices who don’t belong there.

 

[Ishm]

There are a variety of reasons why the 14A disqualification can’t or shouldn’t be applied to Trump. To me the most obvious one is he’s never been charged, let alone convicted of “insurrection."

The 14th Amendment section 5 says: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Not the Secretary of State of Maine.

Is there an appeal in progress based on your understanding? It would seem by far the most obvious appeal if the argument has any merit? If that isn't already the basis of an appeal, I assume that you misunderstand the legal situation.

The intent of these provisions was to limit the power of states during reconstruction not to give them special unchecked powers to mess up federal elections.

Is there formal documentation to confirm this that was produced at the same time as the constitution by those who wrote the constitution? If so, that may reasonably impact the SCOTUS decision. If not, then your statement is just a worthless assumption.

The Congress has passed a statute that outlaws insurrection. Trump has not been convicted under that statute. That doesn’t mean any random court or state official can just decide he’s done it anyway if you believe in a system of laws.

It's not about beliefs. It's about the literal wording of the constitution. As I understand it, the literal wording doesn't require either a formal charge nor a conviction.

It’s really pretty sad our country has descended to the point where people view court abuses with nothing but partisan lenses. If this is not a 9-0 in the Supreme Court it will be a pretty sure sign we have some justices who don’t belong there.

I'm waiting to see what the SCOTUS argument is that goes against (if it does) the pretty clear wording in the Constitution. If there is a clear and logical case, I expect a 9/0 decision. If though the conservative majority get into a convoluted and questionable tangle trying to protect Trump, that isn't consistent with some of their other rulings, then it will be 6/3 and it won't be the 3 that are to blame. Let's wait and see what SCOTUS come up with before we make further judgements. SCOTUS's job is to interpret the Constitution as it is written. Not change the meaning to something that they like better, or better fits todays circumstances etc

 

[diz]

Is there an appeal in progress based on your understanding? It would seem by far the most obvious appeal if the argument has any merit? If that isn't already the basis of an appeal, I assume that you misunderstand the legal situation.

Uh, yes? The Supreme Court has taken the case.

Is there formal documentation to confirm this that was produced at the same time as the constitution by those who wrote the constitution? If so, that may reasonably impact the SCOTUS decision. If not, then your statement is just a worthless assumption.

The 14th Amendment was not around at the time they wrote the Constitution. It was passed after the civil war. The article in question was clearly and obviously intended to limit the power of the southern states.

It's not about beliefs. It's about the literal wording of the constitution. As I understand it, the literal wording doesn't require either a formal charge nor a conviction.

I provided you the literal wording of the Constitution. It says the power to implement the 14th Amendment lies with Congress. Does not even mention the Secretary of State of Maine.

I'm waiting to see what the SCOTUS argument is that goes against (if it does) the pretty clear wording in the Constitution. If there is a clear and logical case, I expect a 9/0 decision. If though the conservative majority get into a convoluted and questionable tangle trying to protect Trump, that isn't consistent with some of their other rulings, then it will be 6/3 and it won't be the 3 that are to blame. Let's wait and see what SCOTUS come up with before we make further judgements. SCOTUS's job is to interpret the Constitution as it is written. Not change the meaning to something that they like better, or better fits todays circumstances etc

There are a whole handful if issues with this one. I hope even Sotomayor is not so dense that she’d set this bad a precedent.

Tell me what you think would have happened if the Secretary of State of Alabama said US Grant couldn’t run for President because he was an insurrectionist?

Everyone would have just been like “yeah, I guess that’s your call”?

 

[Ishm]

Uh, yes? The Supreme Court has taken the case.

The appeal is specifically against the standing of the Sec of State of Maine to make that ruling?

The 14th Amendment was not around at the time they wrote the Constitution. It was passed after the civil war. The article in question was clearly and obviously intended to limit the power of the southern states.

Fair point. Let's see the supporting documentation that is contemporary with the writing of the amendment and makes clear what the authors were intending.

I provided you the literal wording of the Constitution. It says the power to implement the 14th Amendment lies with Congress. Does not even mention the Secretary of State of Maine.

Does it explicitly prevent States from following the constitution?

There are a whole handful if issues with this one. I hope even Sotomayor is not so dense that she’d set this bad a precedent.

Tell me what you think would have happened if the Secretary of State of Alabama said US Grant couldn’t run for President because he was an insurrectionist?

Here's a link to a discussion from someone who seems to know more than either of us on this topic
https://theconversation.com/why-14t...e-behind-colorado-supreme-court-ruling-219763

Everyone would have just been like “yeah, I guess that’s your call”?

 

[Taylor]

Which only means that the appointment of the Office of the President is provided for by an electoral process.

You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

Insults in lieu of arguments are the last refuge of the defeated.

gg

 

[Taylor]

Insults in lieu of arguments are the last refuge of the defeated.

gg

Perhaps this can help you...

https://study.com/academy/lesson/elected-vs-appointed-us-leaders-definition-examples.html

What is an appointed official?​

An appointed official is someone who is chosen by some higher authority. One example is the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.

What does elected Official mean?​

An elected official is someone who is chosen by the people in an election. Elected officials have the power within a democratic government.

What are alternative names for elected officials?​

Here are some alternative names for elected officials:

• Representative
• Dignitary
• Elector

Here are some examples of elected officials:

• President
• Governor
• Mayor
• Senator

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What is an appointed official?​

An appointed official is someone who is chosen by some higher authority. One example is the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.

The President is chosen by the American people, and answerable to them.

What does elected Official mean?​

An elected official is someone who is chosen by the people in an election. Elected officials have the power within a democratic government.

Which is to say that they are collectively appointed by the people, by way of an election.

What are alternative names for elected officials?​

Here are some alternative names for elected officials:

• Representative
• Dignitary
• Elector

Electors are explicitly appointed according to the Constitution in Article II, Section 1.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

 

[Taylor]

The President is chosen by the American people, and answerable to them.

I.e. elected.

Which is to say that they are collectively appointed by the people, by way of an election.

Yes. Very good.

Electors are explicitly appointed according to the Constitution in Article II, Section 1.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Electors make up the Electoral College. They are who technically vote for President. Most states require electors to vote according in accordance with the state's popular vote, but there is no constitutional "right to vote" for President. Elected officials are not electors.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I.e. elected.

Yep. Now you're getting it.

Yes. Very good.

Excellent. Glad I could help sort that out.

Electors make up the Electoral College. They are who technically vote for President. Most states require electors to vote according in accordance with the state's popular vote, but there is no constitutional "right to vote" for President.

Yes. Very good.

Elected officials are not electors.

I am glad that you now see your error in claiming that "elector" is an alternative name for an elected official. Although, electors are, in fact, generally appointed by election, so I can see how you got confused.

 

[Taylor]

Yep. Now you're getting it.



Excellent. Glad I could help sort that out.


Yes. Very good.


I am glad that you now see your error in claiming that "elector" is an alternative name for an elected official. Although, electors are, in fact, generally appointed by election, so I can see how you got confused.

No they aren't. You're really struggling here.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

No they aren't. You're really struggling here.

I know which one of us is struggling, and it isn't me.

Which individual do you believe appoints the electors?