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

Nicholas Thompson thompnickson2 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 8 14:06:17 EST 2024

Thanks, Glen.  It's great to hear your "voice" on this topic. I am
particularly grateful for the ad hominem stuff.   I want to read the
district Judge's opinion but there are things I want to do more and age is
really catching up with me.

Take care.  The world needs you.


On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 8:08 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240108/25bc7c18/attachment.html>

More information about the Friam mailing list