Ad hominem attacks on the Federalist Papers? lmao
Sun Mar 3, 2019 7:41am

"The Federalist Papers ill serves judicial opinion writing when cited for anything but analyzing the largest constitutional
structures and their purposes
"...yeah, like impeachment and how a sitting President could be held to account for his actions.

I like your argument. Very interesting. So if:

(1) Someone quotes the Constitution, where it lays out the very detailed process of impeachment, and if
(2) Someone notes that there are NO OTHER PROCESSES even MENTIONED in the Constitution, much less laid out in detail, and if
(3) Someone QUOTES one of the framers of the Constitution, who says TWICE that a sitting President COULD BE indicted AFTER being impeached, and if
(4) It would have been HUGELY BENEFICIAL to the framer to have CLAIMED that a sitting President COULD BE indicted BEFORE impeachment, to help get
the Constitution ratified, but
(5) Neither HE nor ANYONE ELSE at that time EVER SAID, HINTED, OR IN ANY WAY INDICATED that the intent of the Constitution was to leave a sitting
President vulnerable to indictment....

...instead of providing your arguments against that very logical and sourced and backed-up-with-evidence line of reasoning, you attack the Federalist
Papers, and scream "SCHOLARS DISAGREE AAAHHH!!!"

You argument very clearly is that

(1) if it is NOT spelled out in the Constitution, that means that it was NOT prohibited, and
(2) scholars disagree about whether or not "indictment" has to be PROHIBITED in the Constitution otherwise it's still on the table, and
(3) there's a President in office that you would DESPERATELY like to see removed from office and you know that impeachment is impossible so
(4) you're willing to go along with the idea that a sitting President can be indicted, even though
(5) YOU YOURSELF have NO argument supporting your position other than "SCHOLARS disagree" and "The Federalist Papers aren't perfect".

Your only response is "P*ss off".


  • are somehow the be all and end all of discussion just because one of them wrote something in particular that bolsters your argument ??? The... more
    • Ad hominem attacks on the Federalist Papers? lmao — SES, Sun Mar 3 7:41am
      • Your Analysis Ignores...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 9:56am
        ...a glaring hole. What if the President were indicted, but refused to leave office? What recourse would we have? The whole government could collapse! We need a way to remove a President from office, ... more
        • Amadeus: "I would wager that the Federalist Papers offer no argument about the prosecution and indictment of the President for two reasons." That's incorrect. In TWO PLACES, the Federalist Papers say ... more
          • Thanks For The Correction...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 11:25am
            The first reference (#65) actually uses "still be liable" which indicates a continuing state of vulnerability to prosecution. The second (#69) presupposes that impeachment would come first, and then... more
            • Ah, and there's the rub, as they say.SES, Mon Mar 4 11:36am
              I can point to what the Constitution actually says, and to the words of Alexander Hamilton, to support my position. The other position can only SPECULATE based on what is NOT in the Constitution, and ... more
              • Ironically...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 11:46am
       are not pointing to what the Constitution says. You are pointing to a blank spot. The Constitution does NOT say, for example: "The President must be impeached and removed from office before... more
                • with the diametrically opposed arguments of the experts... Some who believe impeachment MUST be first before indictment and others who believe the order is NOT spelled out specifically. In the end,... more
                  • Nope. Not correct.SES, Mon Mar 4 12:11pm
                    Sia: "Some who believe impeachment MUST be first before indictment and others who believe the order is NOT spelled out specifically ." The argument isn't that the order of impeachment-indictment... more
                    • Ooooh, Don't Play Fast And Loose...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:32pm
                      ...there with the words. We already went over that it was only ONE reference that was specific about the order. Amadeus
                      • It's in both #65 and #69. Your bad.SES, Mon Mar 4 3:42pm
                        The Federalist Papers : No. 65 - "After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution ... more
                        • "Will Still Be" vs "Will Then Be"Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 4:01pm
                          Words have meaning. "Will still be" means that he already was "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law" but the state of being liable to such continued after impeachment... more
                    • She's not wrong, some do believe that.HeavyHemi, Mon Mar 4 12:33pm
                      And again, you're making claims about you you concede IS NOT in the Constitution. The full circle is you sitting on your thumb, spinning around.
                • ...slam dunk to me is that in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton was trying to assure Delegates that a President would not be immune to punishment and removal from office, as the British King... more
                  • You Keep Repeating The Same Arguments...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:34pm
                    ...even after they've been countered. I don't see a reason to keep repeating the counterarguments. You can go back and reread them if you've forgotten them. Suffice it to say that you are no more... more
                    • ...Hamilton DIDN'T Use "The President COULD BE indicted" to assure New York's Delegates that a President could be held to account for wrongdoing?
                      • Why Couldn't A President Be Indicted?Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:58pm
                        Why don't meteorologists tell us when it isn't going to rain orange juice? Amadeus
                        • ...what COULDN'T happen, as it is to expect a Weatherman to say "It isn't going to rain Orange Juice". It's as stupid to expect the Constitution, which contains VERY DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS on how a... more
                          • You're So Close...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 10:16pm
                            Is the President a citizen? Yes. The President must be a citizen according to the Constitution. Are all citizens bound by the law? Yes, all citizens are bound by the law. Is the President, then,... more
                            • ...probably tell you to "P*ss off!" Since she thinks that "experts" "vehemently" and "enormously" disagree, you are not allowed to claim that you are correct... ...according to the Admin.
                              • Actually no she's not disagreeing with opinions.HeavyHemi, Tue Mar 5 12:31pm
                                Here again we can read the posts and see that you are in fast being dishonest about the content of them. You have in fact claimed quotes that were not made to make your arguments. That is dishonest... more
                          • Nope, this is complete nonsensiscal babbling.HeavyHemi, Mon Mar 4 5:35pm
                            I mean if you understood whether the Constitution is prescriptive or proscriptive. Or perhaps if you quit conflating the concepts in your *arguments' in mid stride... You're really quite inept.
                  • Then you get even more silly by changing it to 'discussing facts' while using the word 'intent'. Do you have a dictionary?
      • Ad hominem attacks? Do you have a dictionary?HeavyHemi, Sun Mar 3 12:41pm
        Good lawd....when you 'went to college', did you have to take remedial English classes?
Click here to receive daily updates