A transition like no other Print this article
News coverage during presidential transitions often uses a split screen. On one side, the new man is sworn in or glad-hands supporters; on the other, the outgoing chief executive makes his forlorn last exit across the White House lawn.
Sometimes, though, history serves up not just scenes that are the unavoidable obverse and reverse of each other but a really dramatic juxtaposition, such as on Jan. 20, 1981, when Iran began releasing 66 American hostages moments after President Ronald Reagan finished his first inaugural address.
We have a similarly striking overlap now, with the unprecedented second impeachment of President Trump coinciding as nearly as possible with Joe Biden taking the oath of office. We capture this astonishing side-by-side on the cover of this week’s magazine, with Trump’s dark shadow falling across the ceremonial start of the new presidency.
He said nobody has had standing to challenge the proxy process, but that could change.
“Is that person going to be Donald Trump? He could say, ‘Well, you shouldn’t be able to impeach me without having people vote in person.’ I don’t know,” Mr. Strand said.
Other congressional scholars and legal experts, though, said they believe the House is on safe ground.
“I don’t see why the manner of meeting or voting would be a problem. It is a piece of congressional business, to be conducted, as with all such business, in the manner each house thinks best,” said James A. Gardner, a law professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo.
12 Jan 2021
President Donald Trump’s speech on Wednesday in Washington, DC, was “not even close” to incitement to violence, said Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz in an interview on SiriusXM’s
Breitbart News Sunday with host Joel Pollak. However Ilya Shapiro, director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, characterized the president’s speech as “impeachable” and incitement to “insurrection.”
Dershowitz said, “It’s not even close. The president is guilty of bad judgment. The president should not have given the speech he gave. I strongly oppose it, but under Brandenburg versus Ohio, he was not even close to the line that separates constitutionally protected advocacy from unconstitutionally protected imminent incitement to violence.”
Legal scholars perplexed by Pelosi s push against Trump s nuclear codes Follow Us
Question of the Day Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., holds a news conference on the day after violent protesters loyal to President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Congress, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 7, 2021. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) more > By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Friday, January 8, 2021
Legal experts are scratching their heads about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s push to prevent President Trump from having the nuclear codes, saying it would curtail the chain of command.
In a letter to her Democratic colleagues on Thursday, the California Democrat said she spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley about keeping an “unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and orderin
President Trump is out of time. Congress' certification of an Electoral College win for President-elect Joseph R. Biden early Thursday left the president with nowhere else to turn to challenge the results of November's balloting, even if he had a desire to do so after Wednesday's violence at the Capitol.