Tweet

@threadreaderapp

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @twoodiac

Thomas Wood 🌊

@twoodiac

6 Dec

The U.S. Constitution clearly stands for the proposition that a state’s national representatives are *directly* chosen by the state’s voters, and not indirectly by the state’s legislatures.

This is clearly embodied in the Seventeenth Amendment. 1/12 tinyurl.com/pa4asw5

The Seventeenth Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution and provides for the election of senators by replacing the phrase “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof.” 2/12

The U.S. Constitution stands even more clearly for the proposition that the electors that are sent to the Electoral College are sent there by a majority of the voters in each state, not by the state legislatures. 3/12

Read 13 tweets

Thomas Wood 🌊

@twoodiac

1 Dec

Pence did not have the power to decline to certify the election on Jan 6. If he had done so, he would have acted unconstitutionally. But if Pence *had* done this, there would have been no obstruction of the congressional certification process itself. 1/7

In that case, everything would have been done pro forma, even though the outcome would have been unconstitutional (and would undoubtedly have thrown the country into complete, violent turmoil). 2/7

But getting Pence to act unconstitutionally was the only way that Trump could have remained in office on Jan 20 *without* obstructing justice. Absent that, Trump had to obstruct the process itself. 3/7

Read 8 tweets

Thomas Wood 🌊

@twoodiac

13 Nov

The legal case against Trump for what he did (and didn’t do) on Jan 6 took a significant, though not unpredictable, turn today with the release of the following excerpt from Jonathan Karl’s soon to be released book (h/t Axios): 1/12

Here, Trump is clearly excusing and condoning the violence on Jan 6 that he incited on the grounds that it was motivated by righteous and justified political anger. 2/12

Political anger, whether righteous and justified or not, does not provide a legal excuse for *any* violence--like, for example, the insurrectionary violence that occurred on Jan 6. 3/12

Read 13 tweets

Thomas Wood 🌊

@twoodiac

16 Sep

Today Psaki (speaking for Biden) accused Trump of “fomenting an insurrection.”

I now expect that the Admin is planning to indict Trump for what he did (and failed to do) on Jan 6, and that it goes beyond obstruction of justice (OOJ being bad enough). 1/4 tinyurl.com/yjnvrx68

On Jan 6 Biden, referring to the *rioters,* called the attack on the Capitol an “insurrection” that “bordered on sedition.” He did not accuse Trump himself of “fomenting an insurrection.”

He did today, through Psaki. 2/4

Psaki chooses her words carefully. The move from accusing the *rioters* of engaging in an insurrection bordering on sedition to accusing *Trump* of “fomenting an insurrection” really makes one wonder: What has *Biden* been told about Jan 6 by the FBI and DOJ?! 3/4

Read 5 tweets

Thomas Wood 🌊

@twoodiac

11 Sep

My prediction: The federal district court in Austin will grant the declaratory and injunctive relief against SB 8 that the federal government has requested. That should provide a safe enough harbor for abortion providers to resume services, though relief will take weeks. 1/5

For faster action, invoke Section 242. That would involve the feds targeting and suing individuals acting as private attorneys general on the authority of rights conferred (unconstitutionally) by an (unconstitutional) state law (SB 8), and doing so in federal court. 2/5

Note that Section 242 can be invoked for violations of constitutional rights alone. That is, no federal statute is needed to invoke it (though most lawsuits under 242 do so under the authority of a statute). 3/5

Read 10 tweets

Thomas Wood 🌊

@twoodiac

10 Sep

Can one sue and name as defendants those who might or would do something? tinyurl.com/yfzonbbc 1/6

In *actuality*, the United States sued every resident of the state of TX today--because SB 8 grants all individuals there the right to act as private attorneys general to bring lawsuits under the color of the law. 2/6

That’s fine. There is no legal objection to making all the individuals residing in TX defendants in a lawsuit against them.

And it was also unavoidable, b/c that is what SB 8 did to every single resident of the state, no matter where they stood on the new law. 3/6

Read 7 tweets

Share this page!

Thomas Wood 🌊

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @twoodiac

Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood 🌊

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?