The Supreme Court made quite a few Decisions this week, of which at least two came in support of Trump's ... controversial ... decisions back in January 2021. For current Right dissidence, I give you: Bob Zimmerman on the Presidency's powers, and David Cole\Stein on the meaning of obstruction. This post will start with the latter.
On that, that Sarbanes-Oxley law of the Enron Age aimed to criminalise obstruction of corporate proceedings. For Cole, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 (c) applies to the US government also, as (by nature) a sovereign corporation. Cole implicitly observes that the Roberts-Jackson decision has assumed this as well. The dispute then moves to (c)(2), otherwise... obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceedings, or attempts to do so
.
Personally I never did like SOX. It stuck a lot of unnecessary paperwork upon corporations. And here, what if someone honestly if partially (still not corruptly
) believed that an official proceeding was rigged. Like: what if Trump disagrees with that Manhattan railroad which Bragg and Merchan just conducted. Can he not... say, as much? That would be an "attempt" to "influence".
Trump's lawyers should concentrate instead on corruptly
. That, I take it, brings us to the former case, on whether the President be king. Nixon denied he was a crook; in SOX terms, he didn't involve himself in Watergate... "corruptly". (Contrast Agnew.) He did however exert his power to aid friends after-the-fact, which most in the 1973-4 Congress deemed impeachable. (The upcoming 1974 elections would ratify that decision.)
Whether or not Nixon was impeachable, now SCotUS is saying he wasn't criminally-liable. So the Executive is now (in theory) where FDR was at up to 1945. Which should make Moldbug happy, as a political-scientist. Whether any of us lot will be happier under a Severan Presidency will depend on the competence and charisma of the Severan. Do we trust the Biden family? Should we trust Trump?
BACKDATE 7/4
No comments:
Post a Comment