On the topic of all these Amicus briefs, do you have an opinion on the argument presented in the Binkley one? I might have missed it somewhere in the vast scope of discussion on the case, but I can't remember seeing any argument on it
I kinda liked this one, though I can see why nobody's touching it.
(Full disclosure: I very vaguely know Binkley's lawyer, Erik Kaardal, from back in the days when we were both active Republicans, and I'm pretty sure I voted for him for something. I can't remember whether he lived in Edina at the same time I did, but I think so? This was years ago. Muscle memory tells me I'm fond of the guy, though I couldn't tell you why.)
Binkley's overall argument, it seems to me, is pretty bats. I can't access the SCOMN briefs filed by him and the MN Secretary of State, but I can see his 204B.44 petition (https://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/view/publicCaseMaintenance.do?csNameID=103346&csInstanceID=119579), and his core argument is that his right to run for President overall guarantees him a right to appear on the state ballot for a party's primary, because the Electors Clause (which gives states plenary power to decide how to allocate their own electors) bars states from letting political parties have vast discretion in selecting their own candidates for the general election. That's batty. He goes on at great length about all the ways the current system is a dire perversion of the system the Founders envisioned -- which it is! I'm with ya Binkley! delegating important state electoral functions to party chairs is unhealthy! -- but that doesn't have any *legal* traction. He's not totally wrong, but, even where he's right, he's way outside the Overton window, and none of what he's asking for is going to be granted.
In his SCOTUS brief for Trump v. Anderson, Binkley adds a new argument, which doesn't hook on to his original argument all that well. He argues that, because D.C. has made a quo warranto action available against disqualified officials... I think he's saying that, because of that, nobody can challenge electoral qualifications *before* an election? But, first, Binkley is fully qualified (as everyone agrees), so what does this stuff about disqualification have to do with him?
And second, way more importantly and obviously... why would the existence of a quo warranto post-inauguration option to *remove* a disqualified candidate have any impact at all on *pre-election* ballot access restrictions to *prevent* a disqualified candidate being elected at all? Minnesota itself has a quo warranto action. It ALSO has extensive restrictions on ballot access. This is true today, and it was true in 1868 when the 14A passed as well. Does Binkley mention this? If he did, I missed it.
More importantly yet, lots of states in 1868-1870 ALSO had quo warranto actions that lived ALONGSIDE other actions that could deny office to unqualified candidates. The idea that a quo warranto post-inauguration option pre-empts every other state and federal remedy for a disqualified candidate, both pre- and post-election, without even expressly saying so... is nutty in the coconut! The quo warranto action in D.C. that he points out has no relevance whatsoever to his (or Donald Trump's) demand to be placed on a state ballot.
At least, that's my view. I should read it more carefully, at some point. I often sympathize with an argument more the second or third time I read it.
Nevertheless, I find this brief intriguing. I didn't know there was a quo warranto in the D.C. code. If Trump wins and is seated and sworn in, I'm now wondering whether a quo warranto action could be brought against him in the D.C. Circuit for invalidly exercising the office of President. (Probably not, because power to remove the President seems firmly vested in Congress. But it's interesting to think about!)
I think impeachment and quo warranto are very different things, but I think the 20th amendment makes it more complicated, maybe it implies you can't do this.
I am happy to say that my two "pocket" editions of the Constitution -- Bantam Classic (1998, reissued 2008) and U.S. Capitol Historical Society (no publication date printed) -- have the correct text. Jonathan Swift's remark, "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it," was a prophetic statement about the Internet. (BTW, there are various versions of this quote, referring to the truth putting on its boots etc., that have been falsely attributed to Mark Twain -- he at least survived into the 20th century, while Swift said it in 1710.) The internet is also a dandy way to make the misattribution of quotes to famous people all but universal...
Ah, but my more serious hardcover book, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (The Heritage Foundation 2005), has the misquote. Et tu, Heritage?
Oops, I have one more book with the text of the Constitution: The United States Constitution and Other American Documents (Fall River Press 2009), a small hardcover from, I think, a very small press. Correct quote. Only the weighty tome featuring expert commentary from a conservative perspective was wrong. Go figure.
After reading Richard Doerflinger's posts, I dug out the pocket copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, issued by the Cato Institute (and sent to me asking for money). I am pleased to report that both Cato's 2004 edition and 2019 edition have the correct text, "power" not "the power".
Who knows, I might give Cato some money after all. Kudos to them!
On the topic of all these Amicus briefs, do you have an opinion on the argument presented in the Binkley one? I might have missed it somewhere in the vast scope of discussion on the case, but I can't remember seeing any argument on it
I kinda liked this one, though I can see why nobody's touching it.
(Full disclosure: I very vaguely know Binkley's lawyer, Erik Kaardal, from back in the days when we were both active Republicans, and I'm pretty sure I voted for him for something. I can't remember whether he lived in Edina at the same time I did, but I think so? This was years ago. Muscle memory tells me I'm fond of the guy, though I couldn't tell you why.)
Binkley's overall argument, it seems to me, is pretty bats. I can't access the SCOMN briefs filed by him and the MN Secretary of State, but I can see his 204B.44 petition (https://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/view/publicCaseMaintenance.do?csNameID=103346&csInstanceID=119579), and his core argument is that his right to run for President overall guarantees him a right to appear on the state ballot for a party's primary, because the Electors Clause (which gives states plenary power to decide how to allocate their own electors) bars states from letting political parties have vast discretion in selecting their own candidates for the general election. That's batty. He goes on at great length about all the ways the current system is a dire perversion of the system the Founders envisioned -- which it is! I'm with ya Binkley! delegating important state electoral functions to party chairs is unhealthy! -- but that doesn't have any *legal* traction. He's not totally wrong, but, even where he's right, he's way outside the Overton window, and none of what he's asking for is going to be granted.
In his SCOTUS brief for Trump v. Anderson, Binkley adds a new argument, which doesn't hook on to his original argument all that well. He argues that, because D.C. has made a quo warranto action available against disqualified officials... I think he's saying that, because of that, nobody can challenge electoral qualifications *before* an election? But, first, Binkley is fully qualified (as everyone agrees), so what does this stuff about disqualification have to do with him?
And second, way more importantly and obviously... why would the existence of a quo warranto post-inauguration option to *remove* a disqualified candidate have any impact at all on *pre-election* ballot access restrictions to *prevent* a disqualified candidate being elected at all? Minnesota itself has a quo warranto action. It ALSO has extensive restrictions on ballot access. This is true today, and it was true in 1868 when the 14A passed as well. Does Binkley mention this? If he did, I missed it.
More importantly yet, lots of states in 1868-1870 ALSO had quo warranto actions that lived ALONGSIDE other actions that could deny office to unqualified candidates. The idea that a quo warranto post-inauguration option pre-empts every other state and federal remedy for a disqualified candidate, both pre- and post-election, without even expressly saying so... is nutty in the coconut! The quo warranto action in D.C. that he points out has no relevance whatsoever to his (or Donald Trump's) demand to be placed on a state ballot.
At least, that's my view. I should read it more carefully, at some point. I often sympathize with an argument more the second or third time I read it.
Nevertheless, I find this brief intriguing. I didn't know there was a quo warranto in the D.C. code. If Trump wins and is seated and sworn in, I'm now wondering whether a quo warranto action could be brought against him in the D.C. Circuit for invalidly exercising the office of President. (Probably not, because power to remove the President seems firmly vested in Congress. But it's interesting to think about!)
I think impeachment and quo warranto are very different things, but I think the 20th amendment makes it more complicated, maybe it implies you can't do this.
I am happy to say that my two "pocket" editions of the Constitution -- Bantam Classic (1998, reissued 2008) and U.S. Capitol Historical Society (no publication date printed) -- have the correct text. Jonathan Swift's remark, "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it," was a prophetic statement about the Internet. (BTW, there are various versions of this quote, referring to the truth putting on its boots etc., that have been falsely attributed to Mark Twain -- he at least survived into the 20th century, while Swift said it in 1710.) The internet is also a dandy way to make the misattribution of quotes to famous people all but universal...
Ah, but my more serious hardcover book, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (The Heritage Foundation 2005), has the misquote. Et tu, Heritage?
Oops, I have one more book with the text of the Constitution: The United States Constitution and Other American Documents (Fall River Press 2009), a small hardcover from, I think, a very small press. Correct quote. Only the weighty tome featuring expert commentary from a conservative perspective was wrong. Go figure.
Nice soyjak face
Soyjak is prettier
After reading Richard Doerflinger's posts, I dug out the pocket copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, issued by the Cato Institute (and sent to me asking for money). I am pleased to report that both Cato's 2004 edition and 2019 edition have the correct text, "power" not "the power".
Who knows, I might give Cato some money after all. Kudos to them!