A valuable, measured piece cutting through the hysteria and hyperbole. I was waiting for your perspective and, as always, the historical lens is a tonic. Thank you!
This reminds me of the famous Frost/Nixon interview, where Frost asks Nixon if a President ought to do something "illegal" if he thought it were in the best interest of the nation. Nixon famously replied "Well, when the President does it, that means it's not illegal."
The very vernacular term "illegal" -- not used very much if at all by courts -- reminds me of the vis coactiva you mention. Whether something is "illegal" is just a matter of whether it's punishable, but Frost's question seems almost aware that punishability and illegality isn't at all close to the full story.
Though, that statement by Nixon was re-interpreted (wrongly and unfairly, I think) as a sign of Nixon's corruption.
Was Justice Jackson applying a Hohfeldian analysis to immunity in her dissent? With the recognition of a legal immunity, is there a corresponding legal disability, in Hohfeld’s words, that deserves recognition?
Genuine question as a fan of yours who is not fully educated on these matters yet. In your school of thought, what happens when a leader who is “above the law” chooses not to abide by internalized directive force of the law? When the bad man does decide to act badly? What is the mechanism for dealing with that situation outside of legal coercion?
A valuable, measured piece cutting through the hysteria and hyperbole. I was waiting for your perspective and, as always, the historical lens is a tonic. Thank you!
No, thank you! Appreciate it.
This reminds me of the famous Frost/Nixon interview, where Frost asks Nixon if a President ought to do something "illegal" if he thought it were in the best interest of the nation. Nixon famously replied "Well, when the President does it, that means it's not illegal."
The very vernacular term "illegal" -- not used very much if at all by courts -- reminds me of the vis coactiva you mention. Whether something is "illegal" is just a matter of whether it's punishable, but Frost's question seems almost aware that punishability and illegality isn't at all close to the full story.
Though, that statement by Nixon was re-interpreted (wrongly and unfairly, I think) as a sign of Nixon's corruption.
Was Justice Jackson applying a Hohfeldian analysis to immunity in her dissent? With the recognition of a legal immunity, is there a corresponding legal disability, in Hohfeld’s words, that deserves recognition?
Interesting - gotta ponder that one - what would the disability be?
As per dissent p.11, a prosecutor and/or jury; but the more general reference would the legislature vis a vis the executive on p.13?
Genuine question as a fan of yours who is not fully educated on these matters yet. In your school of thought, what happens when a leader who is “above the law” chooses not to abide by internalized directive force of the law? When the bad man does decide to act badly? What is the mechanism for dealing with that situation outside of legal coercion?