jazzup @ jazzup @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

16

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, that’s fair - ‘new’ is probably not wholly accurate.

I think that immunity for explicitly delineated powers makes sense purely from a logical point of view: the constitution says the president can do a thing, therefore a law saying they can't do that thing is either unconstitutional, or doesn't apply to the president.

You are effectively implying this, but I will say it explicitly - you don’t need immunity to reconcile the logical conflict. The courts can simply find that that law is unconstitutional facially (if it is specifically directed at an enumerated executive power) or as-applied (if it is a general law that sweeps in executive conduct that falls under an enumerated power). In other words, it’s not that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for violating a criminal statute, but instead Congress violated the separation of powers when passing the law and it therefore can’t be enforced because it is unconstitutional. In that situation, this would be a defense to the prosecution, with the burden being on the President to raise and prove the unconstitutionality of the law just like any other defendant. We don’t need to invent a new immunity to protect the President against Legislative excesses.

The feeling of helplessness is overwhelming.

Yeah. It’s incredibly frustrating that we are at this point.

Expanding the court doesn't require congressional approval

That is incorrect. Changing the size of the Court is understood to be a power that Congress has because of the Necessary and Proper clause, and not a power of the Executive.

For an act changing the size of the Court to pass the Senate, you first need 60 Senators to break the filibuster. This means that 10 Republican Senators need to vote for increasing the size of the Court for any such legislation to pass. That’s not going to happen.

Biden could not have expanded the court. That requires an act of Congress. Even if the Democrats passed such an act in the House, it would have been dead in the Senate because they have never had the needed supermajority and none of the Republicans would have voted for it.

I really liked Grounded.

I haven’t tried it yet, but Abiotic Factor looks pretty fun and has great reviews. It’s early access though.

This is one of my personal favorites and the one that introduced me to the crafting/survival genre. I highly recommend it.

If you enjoy games like divinity original sin, you should definitely consider picking up pathfinder: wrath of the righteous.

It seems the confusion is that you think whatever the total amount the item sells for is a “gain.” A gain is the profit - the difference between what you sell the asset for and your cost basis in the asset.

In your car example, the cost basis is 50000. If you then sell it for 10000, you then have a capital loss of 40000. You don’t pay taxes on the 10000 because it is not earned income and it is not a gain - it’s part of your original capital. And you obviously don’t pay taxes on the 40k loss. And since it is a car, you can’t even deduct the loss.

If you sell the car for 55000, then you have a gain of 5000 (the difference between your cost basis of 50000 and what you sold it for). You are taxed on the capital gain of 5000, not on the entire 55000.

Your explanation is wrong.

Here is an explanation of capital gains directly from the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409

You need to read more about how capital gain taxes work.

In your car example there would be a capital loss, so no taxes would be owed.

If you sold it for 55000, then there would be a capital gain and you would owe tax on the 5000 profit.

Here is an article that explains it relative to your example:

https://www.dmv.org/articles/income-tax-implications-of-selling-a-used-car/

However, I still think you're going too far by claiming there's no consequences while literally linking to attempted convictions.

I agree. I think he seriously underestimates the risks. If the person is here unlawfully, they have now caught the attention of the authorities and are more likely to be subjected to removal proceedings. If they are here lawfully, they now become deportable and, even if not removed for some reason, may decrease their chances at obtaining a green card or naturalization, depending on the circumstances. All of that on top of the criminal penalties.

and according to the law deporting them isn't on the table for attempting to vote illegally (check the second link)

I’ll repeat here what I said to you above in case others didn’t see my earlier comment and think your assertion is accurate:

Deportation is absolutely a risk for unlawful voting.

If the non-citizen is here unlawfully, they are always subject to deportation if ICE becomes aware of them, which may happen by referral during a criminal prosecution.

Even if they are here lawfully, they become deportable if they vote unlawfully per 8 USC 1227(6)(A): "Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable."

The reason "deportation" is not mentioned in the press release you cite is because removal is a separate proceeding, not part of the criminal proceeding (which is what the press release is about). They have to be convicted of the crime first, and then removal proceedings can be initiated.

Even if removal proceedings are not brought against them for some reason, they will still potentially suffer consequences for a conviction (in addition to the criminal punishment). For example, unlawful voting may prevent naturalization of a lawful non-citizen under 8 USC 1427 because they do not have the requisite good moral character.

Moreover, if they falsified documents to vote unlawfully, they may be found to have committed an aggravated felony, which means they face expedited removal proceedings, they can never get a green card, never become naturalized, can not be eligible for asylum, and can never reenter the US. See 8 USC 1158, 1182, & 1228.

Like I said in a previous response to you, removal is definitely on the list for unlawful voting. It is just a separate proceeding from the criminal prosecution. If prison time is warranted for a crime, time is typically served before removal proceedings are initiated.

Here is a case where a green card holder was being deported when, at least according to her, she mistakenly believed she was allowed to vote when she could not: https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/peru-native-who-voted-illegally-two-u-s-elections-now-n746721

If her account is true, that looks like a lot of ignorance on both sides to me, not necessarily malice or gross stupidity.

Deportation is absolutely a risk for unlawful voting.

If the non-citizen is here unlawfully, they are always subject to deportation if ICE becomes aware of them, which may happen by referral during a criminal prosecution.

Even if they are here lawfully, they become deportable if they vote unlawfully per 8 USC 1227(6)(A): "Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable."

The reason "deportation" is not mentioned in the press release you cite is because removal is a separate proceeding, not part of the criminal proceeding (which is what the press release is about). They have to be convicted of the crime first, and then removal proceedings can be initiated.

Even if removal proceedings are not brought against them for some reason, they will still potentially suffer consequences for a conviction (in addition to the criminal punishment). For example, unlawful voting may prevent naturalization of a lawful non-citizen under 8 USC 1427 because they do not have the requisite good moral character.

Moreover, if they falsified documents to vote unlawfully, they may be found to have committed an aggravated felony, which means they face expedited removal proceedings, they can never get a green card, never become naturalized, can not be eligible for asylum, and can never reenter the US. See 8 USC 1158, 1182, & 1228.

The Supreme Court has specifically made this point: The President “may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers.” Hamdan vs Rumsfeld (2006).

Just because the President is commander-in-chief does not mean he has plenary power over everything related to the military and it’s use.