14th Amendment, Section 3 Apply to Trump?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 січ 2021
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
#eaglebrief #shorts
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Legal Eagle’s vids remind me that I’m not crazy, I’m just surrounded by idiots.
Yup, it sucks to be sane and live in Florida right now, especially when you see Rick Scott open his mouth.
ua-cam.com/video/SDGyPRr9-AE/v-deo.html
@@Najolve
Amen 🙏
Scar has entered the chat
The problem is that non idiots are not as rare as it seems.
Idiots tend to be louder than rational people
Their is still hope
I just love how he tells us he'll see us in court. Always sounds like a threat, said with a smile.... very lawyerly. 😂
This is the not-a-novice version of “objective” analysis that every U.S. law graduate has been taught to do, as well as advocacy (see Giuliani, Dershowitz), through years of school.
Indeed
I very much don't want to see him in court, that would be bad news for me!
Its like my mechanic when he says he'll see me again soon. Although he's probably not wrong since I drive a 20yo Land Rover..
@@elegantbiscuit2771 my mechanic says he's the last person you want to know well, and I say he's the last one you wanna be a frequent customer of.
Me: I don't really like the shorts. Long form content is so much better.
Also me: watching every short the second I see it.
I'd say both are good. The shorts don't seem like they take away from his time working on his normal/long form videos or anything, so they're a nice addition if nothing else.
IKR? Every time I see a new one, it’s like a reflex action for me to click on it 😂
Every good Lawyer eventually must disclose their Breifs. 😉👍
I also prefer the long form videos but I don't know how he could possibly produce that kind of content at the rate that it's needed right now!
@@alicev1500 it belays the question: ''when is he going to talk about________?"
Law: let’s look at what we previously did
History: you’ve never done this before
Law: crap
Scholars: History repeats.
History: Not this time; you’re on your own!
@@UGNAvalon If history repeats itself than how is history made?
@@chasemoss4484 The entirety of events occuring are not complete repetitions.
@@kadenhobbs8161 Ya don’t say?
@@chasemoss4484 I don’t think you understand the saying
"Stay tuned for more election coverage." Literally a week before the next guy takes office. God we are in a horrible timeline.
No we’re not it’s not over with yet Trump hasn’t played his card yet he’s going to slam their ass
The year is 2024. The GOP is fielding two candidates for President: Donald Trump's 2024 re-election campaign and Donald Trump's 2020 re-election campaign.
@@debrabutler2644Make sure you post it on Facebook
@@SuperSmashDolls Just turn them into corporations that legally qualify as people and you can have a primary full of Trump subsidiaries.
@@debrabutler2644 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
There's something amazing* about going through all the trouble of passing a Constitutional Amendment to prevent former Confederate members from being able to hold office... and then going up to almost all of them and going "except for you. You're fine."
Andrew Johnson sucked.
@@ElevatorEleven There's a reason he was the first president to be impeached.
Yeah seems the democrats somehow manage to get in power when they shouldn't but America gets what it deserves...
@@brazenh2836 What do you mean? Most impeachment proceedings were brought against Republican presidents (Nixon, Trump, and Trump versus Johnson and Clinton)
@@chasemoss4484
Yeah, but also, when you look at history democrat presidents have started nearly all the wars, continued wars or armed Middle Eastern countries.
Biden introduced the crime bill that sent thousands of black men to prison unfairly. And kept jailing them for pretty minor crimes and made it near impossible for previously incarcerated men to start new lives.
They also tried to stop slavery from being abolished.
And just recently republicans tried to get stimulus checks up to $2,000 but democrats said that $600 was "sufficient"
So yeah, when you really look at history it's democrats who have caused the most damage to Americans.
(I'm not a Trump or Biden supporter, just fyi)
Im learning so much from this channel
Save i'm glad he came onboard youtube n discovered his channel. he makes learning fun even with shorts.
Yes, like how we amended our Constitution to barr literal enemy combatants from running the country they fought against and then immediately invalidated that very specific and sensible rule.
This place sucks
I love the way this channel handles teaching law. From the intensely heated topics to the lighthearted movie reviews, he does a very good job focusing on how to law works.
No wonder he's a teacher huh? he's really good at this.
If you like this type of legal analysis, I highly recommend the podcast "Opening Arguments"
Devin has made a guest appearance on that show and that episode was great
I would love to see CNN, ABC and other news invite the eagle on their TV studios to talk about the legal side of political events.
He is actually more qualified than half the cardboard commentators we hear all day on US news
Considering these shorts, he's very good at distilling information down into a couple of sentences.
obviously. He's a lawyer. they're journalists. Did someone need to explain that to you?
That's just going to give conservatives more ammo to use against him. They already don't like him because he points out facts that go against their worldview and they are unwilling to set aside their biases, instead of accusing him of being biased and doubling down on their own flawed beliefs.
@@bored_person Conservatives more ammo to use against whom? I seriously believe your response was supposed to be in another thread.
@@asher6657 you clearly haven't seen how much conservatives attack him for daring to point out the facts. Like I said, they constantly call him biased just because he points out facts that go against their worldview and they cannot accept it.
#LockHimUp
Some day, when we aren't confident we are living in the worst timeline, I'd love to see you do a lawyer review of the movie Dark Waters from 2019 to check its accuracy vs the real case and how accurate the film portays being a lawyer.
Should never of rolled that dice to determine who gets the pizza.
That is a good movie. But I am not sure how much he can say since he was not on the case. He would read up on the transcript and stuff. But I am sure there is dramatization or creative liberties.
@@brianng3414 It wouldn't be any different than his breakdown of The Trial of the Chicago Seven, then.
"hen we aren't confident we are living in the worst timeline"
We live in the best of all possible worlds - Dr Pangloss.
Trump’s president. We have to be in the 2nd worse timeline (only worse one is one where he got re-elected)
There's a whole lot of "Can this happen?", "Iunno, maybe?" going on
That's the point of this UA-cam channel. It's meta-law.
There’s a bunch of maybe questions because no body thought a president would gobthis far or a bunch of politicians will let him.
Funny I always thought we hung people who committed treason.
it's only happened a few times, and not since the Civil War
Traitors weren't always hanged, some were sent before a firing squad.
@@claymiller8171We use a chopping block and a large axe here in England. 😊 🏴
No reason not to, especially corruption this large. Put them right on the lawn where the insurectionist left the equipment.
Yes
Imagine being impeached twice. COULDN’T BE ME.
Imagine being not convicted twice and Dems still talking about it
How could it be you? Are you the President ?
my mans lookin like every disney movie dad
No, the true experts have spoken. No trial needed.
Objection!!! I’ll see you back on this UA-cam channel, I hope to god I don’t see you In court
He's a civil lawyer anyway. Nothing to be scared of unless you didn't pay child support or owe someone less thank 10k in restitution... and also live in DC or Cali.
XD
America ascended to the top of the ladder in the mid-20th century and now we're seeing the fall is quicker and less graceful than the climb. By 2050 I expect the term "American Refugee" will be ubiquitous.
Well, you had Okies in the 1930s, which is a mere 20 years from "mid-20th century"...
@Eddy G. - 8. The rise and fall of civilizations, inevitable, except we rose and fell faster than the ones in the past. The Communists predicted it in the late 1950s. They said that the capitalist system would destroy itself, "rot at it's foundation and fall like a house of cards". Verbatim.
@@marisadallavalle393 they didn't predict their own collapse, though, did they?
@@RonJohn63
I'm sure many Soviets did.
And Stalin had them silenced.
This is the fate of every nation that chooses to subsist on exploitation rather than co-operation.
@@kjj26k Stalin died 36 years before it collapsed.
And ousting the seditionist Representatives and Senators as well. Especially those who tried to help the domestic terrorists find congress members.
That would include the kamala harris and the majority of democrats as well who spent 7 months pandering to, encouraging, and funding BLM domestic terrorism
@@fernandoleamshake7031 There’s a huge difference between supporting peaceful protests against violence and giving a guided tour of the Capitol to people planning on rioting and perhaps even kidnapping and murdering other members of Congress. Yes, there was violence at some BLM protests. But I haven’t seen any evidence that Democrats like Harris did anything to encourage violence. If you have evidence then please give it to the FBI and Republican leaders.
@@willdejong7763 harris literally funded violent rioters, i mean violent terrorists bail funds. Democrats called for jihad against trump, they literally said that. They called to harrass and assault trump admin members, said the riots need to not let up, said protests are supposed to make you feel uncomfortable, rioting is the language of the unheard, who said protests need to be peaceful anyway
@@fernandoleamshake7031 So helping poor folks post bail, when judges rule that they are eligible for release on bail, which saves taxpayers money I might add, is just as bad in your opinion as what happened at the Capitol?
You rock D. Ty so much for keeping it real.
Please don’t call him president! It’s so depressing!
I am starting to think there is no way of ever preventing something like this from ever happening again. 😐
It's only because no one wants to stop it. Throughout history, Congress has ceded more and more power to the President and Trump has taken full advantage of that fact. The very fact that they were unwilling to hold him responsible for asking for foreign intervention in an election, refusal to go after the fact that he could be in violation of the emolument clause, and if what is true about interfering in the response to what happened on January 6, possibly aiding in an armed insurrection shows how dangerous it is to cede so much power to one person. Someone has to be willing to hold the President accountable, but it is clear that the Republican Party has no intention to as they are STILL unwilling to support impeachment or condemnation of Trump's actions.
@@ohnosmoarlulcatz trumps actions being? he didnt want his supporters to mob capitol hill; he didnt directly tell them to turn to violence. he hasnt done anything worth impeaching him.
@@goosegoesquack you seem to have a lot of time on your hands
@@goosegoesquack If he didn't want it to happen, he would have called in the national guard right away and treated the situation like the coup it was. But he didn't. He said, "I love you guys," got knocked off Twitter, and Virginia had to handle the crisis themselves. If he's not guilty by direct action, he's guilty by permission and negligence.
Representative government requires constant vigilance.
Legal Eagle on January 13th 2021: "Stay tuned for more election coverage..." I felt that....
He at least gave aid and comfort. He didn’t call them off for hours. He said “we love you, you’re special” when he finally addressed them. To me that alone is enough.
Subscribed to his channel to see the laws broken in my favorite movies, stayed subscribed for insightful education about the law! Love these! Thanks so much for making them!
Okay, now I realize that this theory of invoking the 14th amendment is a long and difficult shot. First, I’m thankful that at least a Republican has currently grown a moral compass and has taken this action. And for those who say that technically Trump himself has not been legally charged with inciting an insurrection, I would advise them to look at and honor the letter of this amendment. ‘having engaged in an insurrection or REBELLION against the same (also known as the government)’. And yes, several instigating participants have been directly charged with insurrection, and claimed Trump as the instigator, there is seriously NO DOUBT that Trump actively incited, inspired, abetted, and allowed this direct rebellion to occur. There should literally be no doubt here. I say this as a wholehearted former Republican. 😳
Thank you
No one is above the law! Not even Trump!
Nowhere does it say president
The only bad part about these daily shorts is that they aren't full episodes. Keep up the great videos, these snack-sized chunks keep me wanting more!
These shorts are great! They provide super timely information as soon as an issue is brought up without worrying about the editing/lighting/sound delays a long video would require. We know a more detailed explanation video usually follows.
When he said he’ll see me in court I got scared I was going to court for a sec lmao
Thank you for spending so much time to tell us what’s going on. I have a feeling you can’t not do it because you’re driven by an intense sense of justice, but thank you anyway. You’re a good man.
Thank you for posting these shorts during this high revolution of news! Also thank you for starting this youtube channel!
Does it apply now with Proud Boys conviction?
Resolution Pertaining to the Enforceability of the 14th Amendment, Section 3 Following Recent Verdicts on Seditious Acts
Whereas, the stipulations of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution dictate that no individual who has taken a pledge to defend the Constitution, and later opposes it or supports its adversaries, can occupy a position within the U.S.;
Whereas, key figures within the Proud Boys organization have faced legal judgments for engaging in seditious collaboration, an act closely tied to rebellion and insurrection;
Whereas, in their legal defense, these figures highlighted the guidance and impetus from the previous President as instrumental to their courses of action;
Whereas, every official at the federal level, including the previous President, has promised to uphold the Constitution's principles;
Whereas, declarations such as “stand back and stand by” have been conveyed to the public, potentially signaling endorsement or encouragement of insurgent intentions;
Whereas, hints of bestowing pardons upon those convicted of such grave misconduct adds to the gravity of the situation;
Therefore, given these facets and the accumulating evidence associating inducement with acts contrary to the Constitution, a substantial case exists for referencing the 14th Amendment, Section 3, to consider the eligibility of the former President for future federal assignments.
If the last 2½ months have taught us *anything*, it's that our system has utterly failed to define its protections against authoritarianism in any meaningful way.
Nice. Two shorts in a day!
I like how efficiently you convey the information. Thanks for that
Passing an amendment specifically to stop Confederates from holding office, then granting a waiver to the Confederates is the epitome of that classic phrase, "Gotcha!"
If trump pardons himself for insurrection that is equivalent to a “guilty” plea. Then the 14th amendment should automatically apply, even without a conviction in the senate.
Nowhere does it say president
Wrong. If he pardons himself... Then that means he's free and clear from any wrongdoing. And other guy is right. Chief Executive isn't the same as "Officer of the Law". Does not apply to Trump
@@Endersgamejp I’m a girl jsca is Jessica
it’s in article 2 section 2 clause 2 that a president appointed officer of the US with approval from the Senate. The senate does not appoint the president. The house votes for the president. Colorado has violated the constitution
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other *Officers of the United States,* whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
read it again president appoint which mean the president appointed that person as an officer not someone appointing the president as an officer you completely read that wrong. Under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the principal officers of the U.S., such as federal judges, ambassadors, and "public Ministers" (Cabinet members) are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, but Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers to the president. No one appoints the president period@@JescaML
@@Socom-lm5nu you read it. A president cannot nominate himself stupid
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and *all other Officers of the United States,* whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Impeachment clause
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil *Officers of the United States,* shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
A President is not appointed by the senate according to 12th amendment
It would be cool to see a review of the castle!
It’s a 1998 Australian legal comedy, about forced acquisition & the Australian constitution.
Nah mate yer dreamin”
@@ianb9028 Yes but if he did it would go straight to the pool room.
@@harrybetteridge7532 lol
Dereliction of duty, failed to protect capitol
I'm really digging these short form videos.
A possible good question to investigate...
"Does Joe Biden have the power as president to eliminate student loan debt"
Of course he does. Trump unilaterally decided to build a wall, without congressional endorsement...
I object - You really should wear shorts in these #shorts!
I appreciate all the videos you've done during this time. It's good to know what the Law says about the "self-coup" we have been going through, particularly its most recent and loudest expressions
Thank you so much for your insights. You really help us process these intense times.
*Writes amendment to bar Confederate officials from serving in the government* Oh... JK! Welcome back!
hi bucko :)
Hello
Yes he is disqualified. !
These are the best. Short and sweet and full of useful content.
When I hear "almost never" about something, I want to know what the exceptions were.
I think this is the earliest I have caught one of your videos. These Legal Shorts are really interesting. Please keep sharing!
Loving these shorts!
He should call them briefs!
thanks for the shorts (small aside, it sounds like the audio is coming out very right side heavy, if there's an option to record/ to convert to mono sound that would probably be just fine)
Yeah, it comes out of only one ear with headphones.
I like the shorts, and the longs! Thanks
I really like these shorts, and I appreciate the work you do
I love the short videos in addition to the long ones, especially now that the news goes so fast.
I think this is the timeline where the hero failed.
Trump lost re-election. The hero succeeded. America succeeded.
please don’t see me in court oh god please don’t see me in court
Loving these shorts spread around your main posts. learning a lot or more importantly purhaps, thinking a lot.
@ Legal Eagle and community... thank you ❤️ Take care everyone
I love this whole proove youre not! Later....😂
That's great,but I'd love to see you cover an episode of Bull. Lawyer, trial science, you're mostly a defense attorney, it'd be perfect
Man I loved that show
Again, which Confederates were not given waivers? The amnesty act of 1872 did not apply to Jefferson Davis, the President of the CSA. Also, a Trump supporter was removed from office under this amendment in New Mexico as a county commissioner. His name is Couy Griffin.
Thank you! It's good for society when experts admit that the answer to a specific question is not yet known.
Why’d they create that section of that amendment and then give the confederate soldiers a waiver anyways?
Why did they pass the amendment if they them waived using it? It's like buying a new car, taking it home and never driving it again because you just kept using your old car.
They probably intended to use it, but since it applied to functionally everyone who could hold office in the south (except african americans, who they probably thought wouldn't be able to hold office), it would have left southern states without enough representatives in the House and Congress.
I like the shorts. While I also get a lot out of the long-form videos, it's a bit of a time commitment that I can't always afford. Times being what they are (and, boy, are they), high frequency updates are great.
Really love the shorts. Amazing work!
Objection! 14th amendment section 3 was used in 1919 to prevent Victor Berger from becoming a senator
Interesting, I've actually really enjoy getting the shorts as a quick update and explanation of the issues that are being brought up and could be a useful tool to identify subjects that would be good for full length videos as well.
Yes we do. We literally have recourses outlined in the Amendment. One is Congress, by a 2/3 majority vote in each House. And Congress would be who gives the waiver, by 2/3 majority vote. Unless they suddenly want to not follow the letter of the law and make it a simple majority, which it would only pass one House, not both. Trump himself said he did not believe his oath was to support the Constitution, so Trump may have committed insurrection by saying he is above the Constitution and by saying he wanted to terminate the Constitution. Then he gave aid and comfort to people convicted of sedition.
Yes it applies !
Convict him !
I like the locker room chat format.
14th amendment doesn’t apply to presidents and vice presidents the way it’s written.
This is really simple folks. Since every Secretary of State in all 50 States has a deadline when they need to know who to include on the next voting ballots, they need to know whether or not Congress is going to remove this qualifying requirement for a candidate. Since that would then REQUIRE that candidate to be on the ballots. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says this qualifying requirement may be removed from a candidate by a 2/3rds vote in both Houses. In Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, it states Congress "shall" enforce this Amendment, requiring Congress to take action. Since Congress has to know who needs to be voted on whether or not to remove this qualification, it seems like it is up to the 50 Secretary's of States to send a list of candidates who may be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to Congress, so they can vote on each and every one of them. Congressmen/women would then go down the lists, voting yes/no to remove this qualifying requirement for this or that candidate. It should be a written, silent, vote, to prevent any filibustering/grandstanding, and to get it done before the 50 Secretary's of States ballot deadlines.
This has actually been used before to allow people who were on the wrong side of the Civil war to continue to serve in Government.
Boom! Second Impeachment is a go!
trump is not getting impeached; he has not committed sedition. he didnt tell his supporters to mob the capitol directly, therefore he is not responsible. He is an idiot and did escalate the situation, but he certainly didnt want a minority of his supporters of half the country to commit an insurrection
Really like these short videos...keep it up!!
Hi Legal Eagle Chanel,
I'm sure many of us; -the viewers (present company included), would love to hear your analysis of Kyle Ritterhouse's case, at the Kenosha shooting.
I've been searching for that within your recent videos and I found many other great videos around this time but I was surprised this topic has not been discussed, -and yet it seems to be one of the most popular headlines of recent months as well.
I believe it should be based on political doctrine.
When I see the context of that part of the 14th Amendment, I see something that American citizens have to decide upon themselves.
In an absolute sense, where legislation is passed to support this. Any Congressman or government officials that was a part of the mob should be revoked of their duties and tried for treason under this part of the 14th Amendment.
In regards to a POTUS like this situation here. Let the Americans people decide if Trump wanted to become a Julius Cesar in Congressional hearing. Whatever majority is needed to make it happen, make that majority necessary to convict a POTUS next time. If Congress passes an indictment based on it now, I think the margin for which that POTUS is tried is a high enough bar for any future office holders considering this is a snapshot of what it is like when a POTUS is trying to do so, and we don't want Congress to use this authority on a simple majority to be abused.
Sweet. I was very curious of this subject. Thanks for covering it DJ!
What is missed in this argument is that this is not specifically about Trump, but more about the Office of President. If Trump is provided immunity by order of court or no action from the courts law is enacted. The crux of the situation is that Trumps actions set precedence. If there is no punishment then any president past, current, or future is ok to act in the manner that he has. Given that, if I am Biden I am stating my intention to drive a stake in Trumps heart using similar tactics.
Hell yeah it Applies
Thank you for addressing it!
How many people have to be outraged by Trump’s actions before we stop dealing in technical details and start serving the American people some justice
LETS HAVE A TRIAL BY COMBAT.
Exciting new areas of law.
Thinking this might apply to the congressmen who gave tours of the building the day before.
Liking the 45-60s wee bits. Entertaining.
Hey LegalEagle!
Will the people charged in the attempted coup have to be extradited back to DC to face trial, or can they be tried in any federal court?
Why do they even have these Amendment's and laws exist if lawmakers don't use them when literally textbook examples of the violations occur? Is it laws they just forgot they even wrote collecting dust?
How many laws are like this??? “It’s on the books but we don’t know how it works...”
It's America, so probably most of them to one degree or another. Devin talks about mens rea a lot, which gives criminals a lot of wiggle room to avoid prosecution by failing to appear intentional by committing crimes in roundabout ways and Trump is particularly gifted at sounding sincerely batshit enough that it's hard to pin knowing and willful intent on him. So there's a lot of, "We know what this law is supposed to be for, we just don't know if or when to apply it."
My sister the law student says most of them
There are a lot of laws written, but many are never actually enforced or challenged. Most laws are based on precedence; so, if you get an inventive lawyer or judge, laws can be applied differently. That is why they get the big money -to establish the case.
No. It doesn’t mention the word president.
Objection! Point of order! I look fFor your content on Nebula, entirely, at this point. Posting these shorts only on UA-cam, making me come look fFor them here? Nuts!
Thanks for the update.
I am appreciating these shorts. Quick explanations for us mortals.
We should ask him to call them Briefs
He's telling us he didn't read the amendment without telling us he didn't read the amendment
You people are so simple.
My Great Great Grandfather was a confederate soldier and a US Senator after the war.
It's amazing to me that lawyers talk about unresolved law as some objective universal truth to be "discovered." Law is interpreted based on beliefs, opinions, experiences and rationalizations of human beings who could render totally different answers to legal questions based upon who is answering the questions as well as when and where the resolution occurs.
I don't think he is implying that. Lawyers are generally relativists as the answer to "is it illegal" is not truth engraved in stone but rather what a judge or jury will conclude at a specific moment in time. The strongest guide we have is precedent, not principle, and in this case we have no precedent to guide us.
@@rsmith02 Yes, I am sure that is what they all mean but when they talk about open questions like "Can the President pardon himself?" it sounds to me like they are implying there is only one unique possible answer that can be revealed in court.
Not necessarily referring to Legal Eagle specifically.
Can you sue and convict someone of a crime using ongoing lawsuit against them as your main argument of their crime?
"Your honor, the murdered was going to get convicted and sentenced to execution anyways so I decided to convict him myself of that crime based on your law case where he obviously was the murderer and killed him."
That's it. I'm getting into bird law.
I love the portrait video! Looks so niiice