Why I think we drop again on Monday or Tuesday....

Russell still looking really bullish, but stopped at prior high from middle of September.
RTY.png


NQ recovered, but failed to break Friday's high. Still looking weak. (Note the dates are off on the chart, need to fix that).
NQ.png


S&P got stopped right at last week's highs. Maybe it can break through later in the day. Otherwise, probably sideways to down.
ES.png
 
piezoe said:
Thanks for posting this nice analysis of Constitutional law. I would guess that Professor Yoo's analysis may be in error in two places.

Consider: (underlining mine)

Mr. Pence has tested negative for the coronavirus. But suppose that changes and both he and Mr. Trump are too sick to perform the presidency’s duties. Article II of the Constitution states that in “the case of removal, death, resignation or inability” of both the president and vice president, Congress has the authority to declare “what officer shall then act as president” until the disability ends or a new president is elected. The term “officer” poses a problem for the current law. ​

The "current Law" referred to here is is both Statutory (The Succession Act of 1947) and Constitutional (Amendment XX). Both of these laws post date Article II. And certainly Amendment XX would trump Article II. Thus the argument over how "officer" in Article II is to be interpreted in a post Twentieth Amendment America, in the instance of succession to the Presidency, would seem to have been unequivocally settled by these later laws, and in particular by Amendment XX.

Consider also:

Further, the Incompatibility Clause of Article I provides that “no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office.” That implies that neither Mrs. Pelosi nor Mr. Grassley could become acting president without resigning from Congress, which would remove them from the statutory line of succession. ​

I'm quite sure Mr. Loo is already regretting having written this. He knows this situation arises regularly in law and is handled by coincident acts. Resignation from one post and accedence to another are treated as coincident, simultaneous acts; not successive acts. Example: A Vice President can not also be President. If the President dies, The Vice President becomes President coincident with his resigning the office of Vice President.

After considering this nice Yoo article, I am reminded of one of my favorite Justices, who's often tortured opinions I read with delight. The brilliant and insufferable Judge Scalia was constantly confronted with a dilemma of his own making. He insisted he was an "originalist" -- but of course only when such insistence served his immediate purpose. Thus he maintained that the Constitution should be interpreted as the founders would have interpreted it at the time of its adoption. In other words he presumably wanted us to interpret our Constitution today as we would have in the past at a time when nothing moved faster than a horse. A little reflection on this absurdity will reveal why he was often having to abandon his "steadfast" insistence on originalism. A conflict arose every time an amendment to the constitution was central to a case before the court. He would then insist that he means by originalism that both the original document and the amendments are to be interpreted as the respective drafters would have interpreted them. So far so good. But of course the Amendments regularly trump the thinking behind the original document when drafted. The irony of the Constitution itself paying little heed to originalism, seems never to have dawned on Scalia. If it did, he never let on.
More...
 
In Response to JSOP, marc82much posted this reply.

marc82much said:
Just so you know, the "Succession Amendment" (25th Amendment), which is what you are basing your Nancy Pelosi comment on, is likely unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly says the line of succession will come from "OFFICERS" (like VP, Secretary Of State, etc.) and members of Congress are not "OFFICERS". If Orange Man and Pence are sidelined, I would expect to see Mike Pompeo take the initiative to make sure Nance is cut out and he becomes acting President. No that would be a Battle Royal!!!
More...

The 25th Amendment IS the Constitution. It cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional. All of the Amendments become part of the Constitution once ratified. If they are in conflict with wording in the original document, the Amendment supersedes, i.e., takes the place of, the original wording. For example when the Constitution was signed, Senators were to be appointed. This is in conflict with a later amendment that specifies Senators are to be elected. The later Amendment prevails.

Having said this, even when the Constitution seems crystal clear, and its correct interpretation seems unquestionable to the average person, the Courts may take a different view. And, or course, in our everyday lives the Constitution is regularly trampled on. But we are inured to that.

Most of us would have thought that our Constitution is about individual human rights and their protection. But this turns out to be naive. For example, who would have thought that Corporations are guaranteed certain rights under our Constitution. But it Turns out Corporations have at least one of the First Amendment rights you and I have. And who knew?, until five Justices told us so.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top