Trump concocted DEATH PANELS

Well what was the quote?

 

Fascinating how now Medical equipment is an emergency, yet in 2015 you spent $750 million on a failed solar power scheme. So you want the rest of the country to bail you out after making a $750 million dollar mistake. You had the opportunity to buy 16,000 ventilators, but squandered it on "scandal-plagued “Buffalo Billion” solar power scheme". Why on earth should we care what you get from the Federal Government? Take it up with your Governor.

 

Nonsense??? You are talking nonsense. A large number of court rulings have struck down laws because they were too vague -- not sufficiently specific -- and therefore unenforceable on common jurisprudence, not constitutional, grounds. There cannot be a valid law that is defined only in the minds of enforcement, prosecutors or congress etc. That would be a government of men, not of law, which violates the fundamental linchpin of American justice. Any and every valid law absolutely must be defined only in the Code.

 

Sure. And it would be vague if the terms are vague. But this one is not vague. There are even formulas by which it can be measured.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-in-Africa-the-Role-of-Energy-and-Finance.pdf

That's not the question. The question is if every term should be defined only in the Code. And that if any term is used which is not defined in the law itself then that makes the law invalid. A principle that would certainly invalidate, not just the 2nd A, but just about every amendment and much of the law in the U.S. code.

 

You are really stretching; impressive. We are not talking about any specific or every term. The term "breathing" has a commonly understood clear meaning, for example. Rationing, like abuse, or murder, for example, does not. From a legal perspective the term "rationing" is absolutely vague. If rationing or abuse or murder is illegal the specific actions that constitute them must be prescribed and explicit. Murder, for instance, is, which is why there are about six different explicit descriptions of "murder" in the statutes; neither rationing nor abuse are. Abuse of power for instance is not anywhere in the US code. However, abuse of office is, and you might find it instructive to look it up and see the specificity of the actions that are required to charge anyone with abuse of office.

Under the ACA the IPAB could have done anything they chose to do and simply asserted that it wasn't rationing, and the proscribing of rationing in the ACA wouldn't have amounted to two cents in any court. BTW, that is exactly the way Obama wanted it.

 

"Abuse", for example, cannot be measured. So I understand why that would require a definition. "Scarcity" has a definite undisputed definition in the field that deals with it's study that can even be measure. Just like "breathing" does in medical sciences, which is the field that studies it. Now you are including a new condition "commonly understood". Are you saying that there is not a commonly understood meaning of scarcity? What do you mean by "commonly understood"?

Why? There is a clear definition and way of measuring it (I sent you a link). And it is "commonly understood" what it means. Any average educated person (which is the parameter that linguistics uses to determine what is "commonly used") understand the meaning.

There are technical terms that are defined by different professions. "Murder" is a purely legal technical term. To define it, the law must make use of medical terms like "brain", "heart", "lungs", ...

I know you're trying to use this to justify Trump's crimes for which he should, according to the Constitution, been removed from office. But that doesn't work. The US Code didn't even exist when the Constitution was written.

I think your argument is based on two assumptions. 1- That "The Law" (capitals intended) is an independent discipline that has no interaction with other disciplines of human knowledge and... 2- the concept that to have a nation of laws means the country has to be run by lawyers. I think the large majority of students graduate with that concept in their heads. Most start shedding it as they learn more and experience more. But many keep this idea to the end of their careers. You can always tell because every time you question something they are quick to jump from their seats "well... if you want to live in a country of laws, you must accept it") I want to live in a country of laws. But not one in which lawyers reign supreme, and believe that "The Law" is a concept that cannot be tampered by "puny mortals".

Bottom line: I don't know anything about the term "

 

No, it does not. How much of anything makes it scarce? One, ten, 100, 5%, 22%? Your understanding of "scarcity" is strictly in your (or others) mind which means a person can decide what scarce is which means we have a government of men, not of laws.

Government of laws does not mean government run by lawyers. Lawyers are "men" (or of course women) so a government run by lawyers would be a government of men. Government of laws means a governing body of elected legislators in a democratic system comes up with agreed-to laws that will be common and the same for all people, ala equal justice under the law. Those laws can only be altered, subtracted from, or added to within the constitutional system in America's case. No lawyer or anyone else can say he thinks the written law means such and such and so arrest or anybody that disagrees with him or free anyone who agrees. Like no judicial system can find the IPAB illegal for rationing because, like scarcity, the law does not define or know what rationing actually consists of.

The lack of explicitly of "abuse of power" has no relation to the Constitution. Nadler doesn't know and can't say what it specifically means either, other than from his own little brain. He would have impeached the president based on an amorphous bowl of Jell-O.

 

I have no idea. I'm not an industrial engineer, or economist or... whoever wants to measure it. The article I sent explains it. You can read it if you're interested. I just wanted to show that the definition is clear and that it can be measured.

That's what I said. But too many lawyers think it does. The ones I've spoken to believe that "The Law" is a closed and "pure" system that admits no input from other disciplines. And that "The Code" is written in a way that no "mere mortal" can understand or even comment on it, unless they go through "The Initiation" of X number of years in Law School.

No, but those I describe hold that only another lawyer would have a "right" to question if they should be arrested or set free.

Thereby the existence of technical witnesses, if needed. "Rationing" is easier. It's a common therm. Which was what you used to justify "breathing".

First of all, Impeachment is not a criminal trial. Nadler expressed what it means and how it has been used in common culture. Including, in case there was doubt, examples of how it was used by the framers. He did a good job. But that's a different matter.