They considered themselves to be Englishmen, and have the rights of one, even after the Battle of Bunker Hill for some time. Also you’re thinking of Sam Adams, who was a brewer. But Franklin is pretty much dead on the money. Didn’t even wear a wig just showed up all slovenly and slayed.
The blade was inside a sheath and could be released from the sheath with the press of a button.
And approached could simply be he was intent on walking past them on the sidewalk.
Brandish is a stretch nothing in that article noted an intent to intimidate others, it is simple possession of a tchotchke. Unless you count the author’s flavor text.
4 months in prison for having a novelty pocket knife
To be fair they used to have a right acknowledged in the 1689 Bill of Rights
The problem with that is Korematsu v. US was decided in 1944 and is technically still the law as no subsequent cases have come up to overturn it.
He’s been writing about it long before 2016 so I’d imagine so.
TLDR: It may be unconstitutional in his opinion because of the Non Delegation Doctrine stemming from:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…
Basically Congress can’t just go and let the Executive branch do their job. The Executive can’t make new laws only enforce the existing ones.
Not speaking to policy but law, he’s probably hinting that this is a violation of the non delegation doctrine.
You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can’t. About halfway down pg 4.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If it explicitly says the president can do something any law stopping him from doing that would be unconditional and voided, at least as applied.
Otherwise it would be like they amended the Constitution without going through the correct process.
Just because national security is the domain of the Executive doesn’t mean they can use lethal force on anyone they wish in any scenario they wish in lieu of effecting arrests for alleged crimes.
That’s just due process of law. The lower court can’t just wax seal issues of constitutionality with out looking at them. Doing so would be a fantastic grounds for appeal.
I don’t think assassinations of political rivals would be covered under the president’s constitutional duties.
They sent it back down to the lower courts because they need to determine if he was acting officially. If he was acting outside of an official constitutional capacity he is criminally responsible. If he was doing his official duties with in the constitution he’s alright.
It’ll probably end up with him hit with some charges and avoiding others.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.
one of the arguments you used.
It decidedly is not.
I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate.
I didn’t contend that if you follow a linear political view they’d be on the right side. I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.
My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.
The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.
Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three cases didn’t. Which I consider you don’t given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.
If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn’t be on the same sides.
I’m not even sure why you’re bringing it up.
I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.
On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other.
Inorder as above:
NG, JR, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v SA, CT, & BK
NG, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v JR, SA, BK, & CT
NG, RBG, SB, SS, BK, & CT v SA, JR, & EK
That’d only be true if you consider Gorsuch, Roberts (for him fair), and Thomas as swing votes siding with the left.
The overturn of Chevron is only significant in that courts, particularly lower appeals courts, won’t be forced to accept agency interpretations on law. They still can if that’s the better of the two. It’s a big development in APA law but it is just on how laws get reviewed when contested.
Having not looked into the drug scheduling system much I can’t say for certain on that particular topic. But I wouldn’t be shocked if something like an interpretation on paraphernalia by the DEA got shot down.
If you want some good from the Loper Bright case keep in mind that it limits new presidents from coming in and appointing biased ‘experts’ to agencies to create new interpretation of law to aid their causes. This is a double edged sword. But I think with time we willl benefit from the end of the practice and we will settle in to a more stable set of administrative rulings that doesn’t shift every 4 years.