60

High crimes and misdemeanors is interpreted by Congress While the concept is an import from English law as grounds for removing an officeholder from office, the conduct referred to is better thought of as a breach of trust rather than a specific (criminal) offense. One may commit a 'high crime or misdemeanor' without actually breaking the law. Because ...


53

TL; DNR: No. Charging the Councilwoman under §2383 for making a speech would violate the First Amendment, and "levying war" in the §2381 means actually fighting, not conspiring to fight. 18 USC §2383 Since §2383 is a statute, it must conform to the Constitution. To charge Sawant for what she said in a speech would violate the 1st Amendment, which ...


48

How is banning such events constitutional with the freedom of assembly? The rights created by the First Amendment are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable restrictions as to time, place and manner, especially if those restrictions are content neutral. Restrictions narrowly tailored to protect against genuine threats public health and safety fall ...


43

No. Setting aside hyperbole, it is perfectly legal to "overthrow" the US government (and arguably even the Constitution), provided it is done in a legal manner. Overthrowing the government or even the Constitution need not use violence. Every four-year election cycle could theoretically overthrow the whole government, and every Constitutional ...


38

Speaking strictly from a legal standpoint, what can be said on the issue? Strictly speaking, the Constitutional Court is the top authority on the legality of anything. One can speculate as much as they want on whether the Court was biased, pre-determined, corrupt, defiant, flagrantly blatant or ridiculously unjust. These speculations would be pure politics. ...


35

Reading the wikipedia entry on High Crimes and Misdemeanors probably suffices to answer the question. Ultimately this phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. Your modern notion of "crimes" and "misdemeanors" is not what is meant. It comes from England, with hundreds of years of history behind it. In short it (probably) means "anything outside of or ...


23

In the cases where a federal official has been impeached in the US, the reasons have been: Drunkenness and unlawful rulings Political bias and arbitrary rulings, promoting a partisan political agenda on the bench Abuse of power Supporting the Confederacy Violating the Tenure of Office Act Graft, corruption Failure to live in his district, abuse of power ...


21

Only time, and a lawsuit, will tell. Events of more that 250 people have been banned in the three largest counties of Western Washington, as authorized by state law. The first proclamation declared a state of emergency, ordering numerous other things in the second proclamation, and limiting large events in the most recent proclamation. Until the end of the ...


16

Double jeopardy in its usual sense wouldn't attach because impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, which is the only thing double jeopardy applies to (esoteric estoppel matters not withstanding). You might recall that OJ Simpson was tried and acquitted of murder in a criminal court, and then subsequently tried and found liable in a civil court for those ...


13

I don't know what reports are claiming it's "probably unlawful/illegal" and why when the Russian constitution states: The Constitutional Assembly shall either confirm the invariability of the Constitution of the Russian Federation or draft a new Constitution of the Russian Federation, which shall be adopted by the Constitutional Assembly by two thirds ...


13

There is a potentially infinite regress of questions regarding the constitutionality of restrictions imposed under these "emergency" circumstances. The basic legal principle is clearly established: laws restricting fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny. The specific details of a particular law and surrounding circumstances have yet to be ...


12

In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and ...


11

The main legal impediment to such action is that nonviolent political actions are not rebellion or insurrection. Interpreting the meaning of these terms arises in litigating insurance claims (where there is often a clause denying coverage in case of insurrection or rebellion), e.g. Younis Bros. v. CIGNA Worldwide Ins. where the matter was the Liberian civil ...


10

The Supreme Court considered and rejected some related interpretations in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The entire opinion, and the dissents, are well worth reading, if you wish to get a clearer understanding of how the Court has most recently interpreted the Second Amendment. A few specific comments: "The Second Amendment protects ...


10

TL;DNR: Madison, Hamilton, Justice Harlan & Justice Scalia agree with you. Justice Black does not. You raise an interesting question. As you point out, the Qualifications Clause, Art I, § 2.1, (those who vote for the House of Representatives “in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State ...


9

The President has the power under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress. Any power that the President has to regulate international travel of non-U.S. citizens arises from statutes enacted by Congress that give the President (or the executive branch more generally) that authority. Immigration laws, in ...


7

The constitution provides for impeachment and removal. Using a constitutional provision is, by definition, not a rebellion. The constitution gives congress the sole power to impeach and doesn't set any other rules. You might think of the option of impeachment as an anti-rebellion safety valve. An analogy might be a recall vote of a mayor or governor. It is a ...


6

The Court was deciding on whether Congress had overstepped its authority. Since Congress has a number of powers, if any one of those powers authorizes a legislature, then Congress is within its bounds. Roberts is effectively going down through the list of the powers. If any item on the list is a "yes", then the legislature is authorized. Penalty under ...


6

The bar is as low as "public safety", which also enables limits on First Amendment speech rights in the realm of threats, fraud and incitement to violence. The bar is not totally on the ground, because any limit on expression (or any compulsory expression) is subject to a strict scrutiny review. That means that the government action must be ...


6

One could make a First Amendment challenge to mask requirements through either the Free Exercise Clause or the Free Speech Clause. Neither approach is likely to succeed. Because going without a mask is not recognized as "expressive conduct," it is not protected by the Free Speech Clause A free-speech challenge would likely also fail for two reasons....


6

In a civil rights action in which someone prevails (which is by no means certain in this case, but not impossible either), there is at a minimum an award of nominal damages (i.e. $1) and the reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the lawsuit. A jury could also award a prevailing party non-economic damages, and/or exemplary damages (a.k.a ...


5

This is technically an open question, but there is a general consensus that Consovoy's argument is unprecedented and unsupportable. If the president can be dragged into civil litigation over private matters in the middle of his presidency, Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), it seems unlikely that the courts would give him a pass on prosecution for a ...


5

"Conflict of interest" has a specific meaning w.r.t. various federal laws, which have financial gain as their underpinning. The so-called conflict which your referring to is an abstract moral duty, eforced at the polls every few years: there is no conflict of interest. "Obstruction of justice" is defined in 18 USC 73. The law does not require a person to ...


5

Under current law, an "infamous" crime, for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment, is one which carries a sentence of imprisonment for more than one year, or death. In other words, "infamous crime" is now a synonym for "felony". For context, the Fifth Amendment reads: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise ...


5

It could be ruled unconstitutional if it was later found that these were bans for political or other motivation than health and safety and with consideration of their best knowledge at the time. But the constitution has some vagueness and some times of exception. Look at stop and frisk or martial law. Both can be implemented, but under rare circumstances, ...


5

The Court of Appeals made Judge Sullivan the respondent. Flynn petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to order the inferior court to dismiss the criminal proceedings against Flynn. Normally the adversary in the 'parent' proceedings would oppose such a petition but in this case the adversary, the Department of Justice, supported Flynn's ...


4

Speech of foreign nationals is not treated the same as that of citizens. In the case Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of various statutory limits on campaign spending. Some parts of the law were upheld, others were overturned in 1st Amendment grounds. They upheld limits on contributions to candidates and ...


4

There are levels of scrutiny There are three levels of scrutiny for such actions, and the appropriate level depends on the nature of the gathering being prevented. Rational Basis is the lowest level. To pass the rational basis test, the action must have a legitimate state interest, and there must be a rational connection between the action's means and ...


4

It is difficult to keep track of the rapidly changing legal variables, but it would be illegal and unconstitutional for state police to set up an unauthorized stop-and-search checkpoint on the road ("due process" means "following the law"). As a prelude, there would have to be some higher authority that empowers them to do this. You would have to scrutinize ...


4

This follows from a term in your agreement: in opening the account, you agreed to a binding arbitration clause. The general reason why they can do this is because it is not prohibited by law to have such clauses in agreements (in fact, the Federal Arbitration Act protects such clauses from legal challenge). For the same reasons, the clauses can impose ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible