[FRIAM] "SSRN-id3978095.pdf" was shared with you

[glen]

The argument seems pretty clear to me. "Officer" is jargonal, not intuitive. Were I to read it charitably, I'd agree. Appointees are not elected. Electees should have more leeway than appointees ... like the difference between an elected Sheriff and her deputies. But like all dichotomies, this one is a bit false, especially given that the [Vice]Presidents aren't really elected at all. The Electoral College process feels more like a complicated appointment mechanism than an election.

Anyway, everything that document says is monastery quality sophistry. Were the "rule of law" actually like an axiomatic system, running it forward from start to finish would be formal and automatic. But it's just not that formal. It's cafeteria/buffet style; you can make anything you want out of it. Beware the monks claiming it's axiomatic ... and that they alone are qualified to turn the crank.

FWIW, I'm not familiar with Tillman. But Blackman's positions are one reason I unsubscribed from the Volokh Conspiracy RSS feed: cf. https://reason.com/people/josh-blackman/

At first, I read many of his posts with as much charity as I could. (Analyses and opinions, not so much the historical ones. He's a competent scholar.) Then I started skipping over them most of the time and focusing on the other posters that were more reason-able (Ha!). Then I finally couldn't take it anymore and removed the feed. [sigh] I'm not proud of that. My charity muscles are fatigued. Blackman's opinions feel, to me, similar the Johns' (Yoo and Rizzo) legal justification for waterboarding. It all makes me a bit queasy.

p.s. Here's a more reliable link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095

On 1/6/24 10:16, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, Everybody,
> 
> I have been curious about how (on earth!) the president could not be
> considered to be an Officer of the United States.  After all, the
> Constitution, Article II, tells us that "The President ...shall hold
> office..."etc. This law review article  seems to be the source  I thought I
> would post in in case anyone wants to read it. I won't get to it until later
> today.
> Nick


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ