In Trump v. United States, a handful of judges who were hand-picked by presidents contended that “Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine” some of Trump’s “actions” to change the outcome of a presidential election because such actions were within the “conclusive and preclusive” scope of “authority” granted to the president by our Constitution. They represented, “We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that” Trump “have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts” undertaken to change the outcome of a presidential election and “with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers” to change the outcome of a presidential election “this immunity must be absolute.” So I propose that anyone who wants to lead the Federalist Society be asked to state their views on how actions of an incumbent president to prevent his elected successor from replacing him could constitute an “official” act or an “exercise of” the president’s “core constitutional powers.” I'd really like someone to help me understand how changing the outcome of a presidential election is one of the “core constitutional powers” granted to presidents by our Constitution.
In Trump v. United States, a handful of judges who were hand-picked by presidents contended that “Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine” some of Trump’s “actions” to change the outcome of a presidential election because such actions were within the “conclusive and preclusive” scope of “authority” granted to the president by our Constitution. They represented, “We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that” Trump “have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts” undertaken to change the outcome of a presidential election and “with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers” to change the outcome of a presidential election “this immunity must be absolute.” So I propose that anyone who wants to lead the Federalist Society be asked to state their views on how actions of an incumbent president to prevent his elected successor from replacing him could constitute an “official” act or an “exercise of” the president’s “core constitutional powers.” I'd really like someone to help me understand how changing the outcome of a presidential election is one of the “core constitutional powers” granted to presidents by our Constitution.
Considering what's become of FedSoc, it'll be Newman.
It seems that other professional associations assert themselves in the political arena these days.