jacksonsprat22
Verified User
And? Trump can do whatever he wants....
Accepting Nomination From White House Lawn Violates Hatch Act
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
And? Trump can do whatever he wants....
Florida Man
Banned
No he has to follow the law unfortunately for you this law does not apply to the President or Vice President:
The Hatch Act of 1939, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law. Its main provision prohibits civil service employees in the executive branch of the federal government,[3] except the president and vice president,[4] from engaging in some forms of political activity. It became law on August 2, 1939.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat... Act of 1939,some forms of political activity.
jacksonsprat22
Verified User
^This is why you cannot have an intelligent argument with a low IQ, lying leftist loon on steroids. Any questions?
Florida Man
Banned
Nope the law itself explicitly states that it does not apply to the President or Vice President. You are now blocked as I have no desire to educate someone who is clearly mentally retarded.
jacksonsprat22
Verified User
I pity you.
Florida Man
Banned
This message is hidden because jacksonsprat22 is on your ignore list.
Only twenty eight posts and you've already blocked 3 or 4 people? At this rate you'll be posting to yourself by Friday.
Florida Man
Banned
This message is hidden because Dutch Uncle is on your ignore list.
They are going to try and impeach him again when he is re-elected. They got 4 more years to try and get him. Expect the same results. If the House flips it will be really tough.
Unfortunately, it's more likely that the Senate flips. Republicans will have another chance in 2022.
I do not see that. I see Republican gains everywhere.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Florida Man,
That's true but it does apply to any federal personnel who would be directed to do something in violation of the Hatch Act.
That's true but it does apply to any federal personnel who would be directed to do something in violation of the Hatch Act.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello coldjoint,
Anything is possible. All the major polls and analytics are currently indicating a Biden lead, but it does appear to be possibly shrinking. Biden is currently leading in all the swing states.
Anything is possible. All the major polls and analytics are currently indicating a Biden lead, but it does appear to be possibly shrinking. Biden is currently leading in all the swing states.
Terri4Trump
Verified User
This whole thread is based on a lie.
"There was nothing unlawful or improper about Trump's acceptance speech"
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...ul-or-improper-about-trumps-acceptance-speech
The talking heads and pundits attacking President Trump for giving his Republican National Convention acceptance speech from the White House lawn need to actually read the law. The Hatch Act is a precisely written statute — as is appropriate for a law that limits the indisputable First Amendment rights of federal workers — and it supports the president.
First and foremost, the Hatch Act explicitly exempts the president and vice president from its strictures. It defines “employee,” to which the Hatch Act’s restrictions apply, as someone “other than the President or Vice President.” This is constitutionally required because the president is a co-equal branch of the federal government and Congress can no more limit or restrain his political activities than he could limit theirs.
As a result, President Trump was entirely within his legal rights to give his acceptance speech from the South Lawn of the White House. And any members of the White House staff who may have assisted and supported the president on Thursday night also were in compliance with the Hatch Act.
Although the Hatch Act prohibits a wide swath of federal workers — including many of the individuals who work in the White House — from engaging in political activities while on duty or “in any room or building occupied,” the White House lawn is not such a room or building. Had Congress intended to extend Hatch Act restrictions to entire government installations or compounds, it could and would have said so.
In addition, there is a further exemption from the relevant Hatch Act restrictions for White House staff members whose work and responsibilities continue beyond normal working hours and while on travel — which includes many if not most of them. These individuals are permitted to engage in political activities while on duty and in a federal room or building, as long as “the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.” The president has stated that the Republican National Committee would be picking up the tab for his White House event (and the fireworks afterwards).
Similarly, the attacks on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for delivering a convention speech from Jerusalem, endorsing President Trump’s reelection, are similarly misplaced based on these same provisions. In addition to exempting senior White House staff from Hatch Act restrictions on political activities while on duty or in a federal building, Section 7324(b) of the Hatch Act also exempts federal officials who are confirmed by the Senate and who “determine[] policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.” This language includes, at a minimum, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other members of the president’s cabinet.
Such officials cannot, of course, use their “official authority or influence” to affect an election’s result, but the State Department has made clear that Secretary Pompeo spoke in his private capacity from Israel, not as secretary. Consequently, his speech was entirely consistent with his legal and ethical responsibilities.
Indeed, to the extent that Secretary Pompeo’s critics claim that he has somehow acted unethically or improperly, even if not illegally, it is significant that Congress itself made clear, in the Hatch Act’s first section, that federal employees — which includes cabinet members — “should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation.” The Hatch Act is a technical law to be applied as far as it goes and no further.
"There was nothing unlawful or improper about Trump's acceptance speech"
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...ul-or-improper-about-trumps-acceptance-speech
The talking heads and pundits attacking President Trump for giving his Republican National Convention acceptance speech from the White House lawn need to actually read the law. The Hatch Act is a precisely written statute — as is appropriate for a law that limits the indisputable First Amendment rights of federal workers — and it supports the president.
First and foremost, the Hatch Act explicitly exempts the president and vice president from its strictures. It defines “employee,” to which the Hatch Act’s restrictions apply, as someone “other than the President or Vice President.” This is constitutionally required because the president is a co-equal branch of the federal government and Congress can no more limit or restrain his political activities than he could limit theirs.
As a result, President Trump was entirely within his legal rights to give his acceptance speech from the South Lawn of the White House. And any members of the White House staff who may have assisted and supported the president on Thursday night also were in compliance with the Hatch Act.
Although the Hatch Act prohibits a wide swath of federal workers — including many of the individuals who work in the White House — from engaging in political activities while on duty or “in any room or building occupied,” the White House lawn is not such a room or building. Had Congress intended to extend Hatch Act restrictions to entire government installations or compounds, it could and would have said so.
In addition, there is a further exemption from the relevant Hatch Act restrictions for White House staff members whose work and responsibilities continue beyond normal working hours and while on travel — which includes many if not most of them. These individuals are permitted to engage in political activities while on duty and in a federal room or building, as long as “the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.” The president has stated that the Republican National Committee would be picking up the tab for his White House event (and the fireworks afterwards).
Similarly, the attacks on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for delivering a convention speech from Jerusalem, endorsing President Trump’s reelection, are similarly misplaced based on these same provisions. In addition to exempting senior White House staff from Hatch Act restrictions on political activities while on duty or in a federal building, Section 7324(b) of the Hatch Act also exempts federal officials who are confirmed by the Senate and who “determine[] policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.” This language includes, at a minimum, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other members of the president’s cabinet.
Such officials cannot, of course, use their “official authority or influence” to affect an election’s result, but the State Department has made clear that Secretary Pompeo spoke in his private capacity from Israel, not as secretary. Consequently, his speech was entirely consistent with his legal and ethical responsibilities.
Indeed, to the extent that Secretary Pompeo’s critics claim that he has somehow acted unethically or improperly, even if not illegally, it is significant that Congress itself made clear, in the Hatch Act’s first section, that federal employees — which includes cabinet members — “should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation.” The Hatch Act is a technical law to be applied as far as it goes and no further.
Hi. I do not trust the polls one bit. Biden is tied with Trump in Minn. Not a swing state, a blue state.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello coldjoint,
If the polls cannot be trusted one bit then the information showing a tie cannot be trusted one bit.
Most people, including political analysts, do trust when numerous polls give an indication. It is most often a better indicator than nothing.
In this case, Real Clear Politics average of polls for MN, including the one showing a tie, show Biden at +5.3 in MN.
If the polls cannot be trusted one bit then the information showing a tie cannot be trusted one bit.
Most people, including political analysts, do trust when numerous polls give an indication. It is most often a better indicator than nothing.
In this case, Real Clear Politics average of polls for MN, including the one showing a tie, show Biden at +5.3 in MN.
I'm already losing money on Trump. Care to make a wager? You say Trump's people take the Senate and the House, plus reelection. I say they don't. $50 donation to the forum in the winner's name. Deal?