Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
 Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd

The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (21) |
Author: albaby1 ✶❂ SILVER
SHREWD   😊 😞
Number: of 84364 
Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Constitutional Grammarian
Date: 11/21/23 11:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Citing the federal officer removal statute, President Trump filed a timely notice of removal in federal court."

Yep. And he wasn't going to prevail on that motion. From the below article:

The 1948 statute was not drafted on a blank slate. The phrase “officer of the United States” appears in several important provisions of the Constitution. And drafters of the federal statute can reasonably rely on how that phrase was understood for nearly two centuries. For example, the president has the power to nominate “officers of the United States.” This text strongly suggests that the president himself is not an “officer of the United States.” And the House of Representatives can impeach “the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States.” Justice Joseph Story explained that the Constitution’s drafters’ listing the presidency and vice presidency separate and apart from the “Officers of the United States” suggests that these appointed positions are distinct from the former elected positions.

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized a distinction between the “officers of the United States,” who are appointed, and elected officials, like the president. In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), Chief Justice John Roberts observed that “[t]he people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’” These latter positions are appointed. A century earlier, the Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion about a statute that also used the phrase “officers of the United States.” In United States v. Mouat (1888), the Court explained that a person who does not “hold[] his place by virtue of an appointment ... is not strictly speaking, an officer of the United States” (emphasis added). The president, who is elected and not appointed, is not an “officer of the United States.”

lawfaremedia.org - Why the manhattan da trump case cannot be removed to federal court

Occam's razor says the President isn't an officer. Officers are appointed, and the President isn't.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (21) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Ticker or Board Name Author

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community