<....What is absolutely clear about our Constitution and constitutional tradition, however, is that the president has absolutely no official duty when it comes to selecting the next president. Indeed, it's a hard question whether Congress itself has anything to do with the selection of the president, beyond the (naively expected-to-be simple) counting of electoral votes. Instead, it is the states that have the primary, and perhaps exclusive, power to determine the elements necessary for choosing the president of the United States. The state legislatures are given the exclusive power to "appoint, in such Manner as [they] may direct" presidential electors; in 2020, the court held that power to tell presidential electors how they must vote.

The Constitution then imagines that those certified slates of electors and their votes will then be transmitted to Congress, where those votes are " counted on a date set by Congress [read: Jan. 6], those votes are "counted." Unlike with elections to the House and now Senate, the Constitution does not make Congress the judge of those elections (someone needs to explain that fact to Senator Josh Hawley). And the Constitution certainly does not involve the president in any part of the process by which state legislatures determine the electors that will cast the ballots representing their states.

This doesn't mean the president won't play a role in that process. It's a free country. Any of us are free to lobby a legislature or reach out to a Secretary of State. But it does mean that when a president does try to play a role in that process, he or she does so as a citizen, or a candidate, not as a president performing the "duties of his office." Or more directly, he or she is not executing an "official act."

Trump's lawyer in the Supreme Court brilliantly suggested the contrary, and perhaps because the argument had not been made in Trump's briefs in the Supreme Court, the government's lawyer, perhaps the greatest Supreme Court advocate of our time, Michael Dreeben, let the point slide.

When Justice Sotomayor suggested that Trump's acts "insisting and creating a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates" could not be seen as "plausibly" legal, Dean Sauer responded: "We have the historical precedent we cite in the lower courts of President Grant sending federal troops to Louisiana and Mississippi in 1876 to make sure that the Republican electors got certified in those two cases, which delivered the election to Rutherford B. Hayes. The notion that it's completely implausible I think just can't be supported…"

Later on, Sauer gave a similar response to Justice Elena Kagan. Kagan had asked why engaging with the RNC to "gather electors" "would … be [an] official [act]?"

"Because the organization of alternate slates of electors is based on, for example, the historical example of President Grant as something that was done pursuant to and ancillary and preparatory to the exercise of the core recommendation clause power," Sauer claimed.

Bulls***. Ulysses Grant, in 1876, was not executing any inherent presidential power   -  certainly not the "recommendation clause power" - when he sent troops not to "Florida and Mississippi" but to Florida, North Carolina, and Louisiana. Instead, Grant was executing powers given to him by Congress in the Enforcement Act of 1871. That statute gave the president extraordinary power to ensure fair and peaceful elections. Grant had exercised that power effectively in 1872, making that the most peaceful and fair election in the post-Civil War 19th Century.

He had tragically failed to repeat the exercise of that power to protect the vote in 1876, leading most to conclude that violence and intimidation had radically suppressed the Black Republican vote across the South, giving Samuel Tilden, the Democrat, a popular vote majority. Many questioned whether Congress had the power to pass the Enforcement Acts. But whether they did or not, Grant's acts were "official acts" only because he was exercising power given to him by Congress, not because of any power given to the executive by the Constitution.

Trump, by contrast, was not exercising any power to police presidential elections given to him by Congress when he engaged in the acts charged in Jack Smith's indictment  -  because, again, neither Congress nor the president has any constitutional power to police how the states carry out their obligation to participate in a presidential election. Trump's acts were, therefore, not "official acts" because the authority to perform those acts flowed neither from the Constitution nor from any federal law. He acted, in other words, not with any shield of federal law, but merely as an ordinary citizen trying to bring about the political result that he wanted.....>

<....Granted, it is sometimes difficult to see this point clearly, given the extraordinary immunity the Supreme Court has granted the president in Fitzgerald v. Nixon, at least in the civil context. There, the high court instructed lower courts to secure presidents immunity for acts "within the ‘outer perimeter'" of the "duties of his office." But to suggest that there is an "outer perimeter" is to recognize that there are acts beyond that perimeter. And if one parses carefully the sort of "duties of … office" that Fitzgerald was speaking of, it is perfectly clear that acting to secure or overthrow a presidential election is nowhere near any "outer perimeter" of any constitutionally granted presidential duty.

As the court in Fitzgerald explained, the president's position is "unique." He is vested with the "Executive Power of the United States" - not the power to ensure the Georgia Secretary of State has not missed 11,780 ballots. The Constitution makes him "the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch." But the "Executive Branch" does not oversee presidential elections  -  the states do.

The president oversees "the enforcement of federal law" - which is why Grant was empowered to send troops to the South in 1876, and why Trump had no license from Congress to muck about with alternate slates of presidential electors. The president is charged with the "conduct of foreign affairs" - which a presidential election is not. And he is charged with the "management of the Executive Branch" - which again does not oversee state elections or state legislatures or slates of presidential electors or anything else related to electing a president.

The point is that even though Fitzgerald gave incredibly broad immunity (in the civil context) to a president when performing anything within the "outer boundaries" of the "duties of his office," Fitzgerald gives no protection to a president who has wandered outside of the "duties of his office." And though many wonder whether there is anything that is truly beyond the duties of an American president, here is one clear case: The selection of the next president.

And obviously, this choice by the Framers makes infinite sense. If an incumbent has absolute immunity to muck about with the process that will determine whether he or she is reelected  -  while his or her opponent is bound by law to avoid fraud or threats or physical violence - then incumbency in America becomes something perfectly Putin-esque. Everyone understands why no effective challenger to Vladimir Putin ever appears on a Russian ballot: Anyone credible with the courage to challenge him ends up either dead or in jail; anyone left sees local and regional administrators bending over backward not to insult Russia's current Czar. Yet, though I doubt any incumbent, including Trump, would ever assassinate a political opponent, I don't doubt that with absolute immunity, some would do everything in his or her power to coerce election officials to bend the rules to favor the incumbent.

<....As confident as pundits watching Supreme Court arguments are, the truth is that the court  -  and especially this court - is a much more careful institution than social media clips might suggest. Though I've long given up forecasting, I do believe that this court will see that there is a very simple path they could follow to decide this case and decide nothing more. Yes, when a president executes the "duties of his office," there's a really hard question about how much Congress can involve itself in that execution. But this court need not answer that question now. Because neither the Constitution nor current federal law gives any president any official "duties" when it comes to his or her own reelection. His or her acts are, therefore, his or her own. And a D.C. jury should thus have the power to determine whether those acts violated federal law.

So then, would, as Justice Sotomayor asked, a president be immune if "the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military … to assassinate him?"

This is a deliciously ambiguous question that invites two very different answers. If "a corrupt person" means simply a person who shouldn't be president, then no, the incumbent's order enjoys no presidential immunity. It is the action of a candidate trying to secure his own election.

But imagine the president is told by the CIA that his or her opponent is the Manchurian candidate - an agent of a foreign power. Is the president immune then?

Here, the D.C. District Court should do exactly as the Supreme Court instructed in United States v. Nixon: Presumptively, the president would not be immune. But the president could ask the court for immunity, and the high court could decide, in camera, whether the president could show that his order was indeed related to the "duties of his office." Undoubtedly, protecting the nation from a foreign operative could be related to the "duties of his office." The president could receive immunity.

Thus, candidates challenging an incumbent need not worry that immunity would embolden the incumbent. Manchurian candidates should beware.>

Don't like the content here?

Choke on it!!!

<Obsessive thinking is a mental affliction that affects many people. It is characterized by persistent, distressing thoughts that consume the mind from waking up. This condition, often misunderstood and underestimated, can significantly impact an individual’s quality of life.

Despite its prevalence, the true nature and depth of obsessive thinking remain a mystery to many. It manifests in various forms, focusing on personal flaws, past mistakes, or unfounded fears, but at its core, it reveals a common pattern of avoidance and emotional distress.

Obsessive thinking is a complex condition characterized by the inability to control or stop a particular thought or set of thoughts. These thoughts can revolve around self-image, past actions, or fears of others’ intentions. Despite the various topics, they share a commonality: they are intrusive, unwanted, and often distressing. This thinking differs significantly from productive or analytical thinking, as it doesn’t lead to solutions or resolutions.

Instead, it acts as a mental blockade, preventing individuals from addressing deeper, underlying emotional issues.

Surprisingly, obsessive thinking serves a purpose, albeit a maladaptive one. It is a protective mechanism, shielding individuals from facing more painful, underlying emotional states or memories.

By fixating on specific thoughts, individuals can avoid confronting feelings of sadness, loneliness, or trauma. This avoidance, however, comes at a high cost, trapping them in a cycle of distress without offering a way out.

Obsessive thinking is, in essence, thinking in order not to think. It’s a defense against acknowledging and dealing with the more significant, more painful truths about ourselves and our experiences.

Beneath the surface of obsessive thoughts lie deep-seated emotional wounds and unresolved trauma. Often, these thoughts are a diversion from confronting the intense emotions related to past experiences of neglect, betrayal, or abuse.

The specificity and intensity of obsessive thoughts mask a broader, more profound grief or fear rooted in childhood experiences. Acknowledging these buried emotions is the first step toward unraveling the tight grip of obsessive thinking.

The path to healing from obsessive thinking is both courageous and insightful. It requires confronting and embracing the complex emotions that fuel such thoughts.

By intentionally pausing and allowing oneself to experience the depth of underlying emotions fully—be it sadness, loneliness, or fear—we open the door to understanding and addressing the root causes of our obsessions.

This process is more than just managing symptoms; it’s a profound exploration of the self that acknowledges our obsessive thoughts as indicators of deeper emotional needs and unresolved traumas.

Rather than avoiding them, engaging with these feelings directly enables us to cultivate a compassionate understanding of our internal world, setting the stage for genuine healing and emotional growth.

At an unconscious level, individuals with obsessive thinking patterns have often chosen to focus on self-blame or external threats to impose logic on confusing or painful early life experiences. This imposed logic, while flawed, provides a semblance of control over experiences of neglect or betrayal that felt overwhelmingly illogical and uncontrollable at the time.

Understanding this mechanism is crucial for dismantling the false narratives we’ve constructed about ourselves and our lives.

The journey away from obsessive thinking toward mental health is paved with self-compassion and understanding. By interpreting our preoccupations as indicators of deeper issues, we open the door to healing.

Gradually, as we confront and process our background grief and fear, the need for obsessive thoughts diminishes. This process allows our minds to focus less on fabricated fears and more on the reality of our experiences, leading to a healthier, more grounded existence.

Obsessive thinking is more than a quirk of the mind; it’s a signpost pointing toward unresolved emotional turmoil.

By understanding its function and confronting the underlying issues, individuals can break free from its grasp and embark on a path toward healing and emotional resilience.>

There <is> assistance available--you twin axes of evil need not be obsessed with <zed> and me. A worthwhile life <may> await.

<On a day off from his criminal trial in a Manhattan court, Donald Trump returned to the campaign trail with rallies in two battleground states.

The Republican presidential candidate has appeared at times irritated or lethargic in court while facing charges of falsifying business records - even at one point allegedly dozing off.

But on Wednesday at a rally outside of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, he seemed fired up as he spoke to a crowd of enthusiastic supporters for about an hour and a half.

He hit on most of his campaign's major themes - immigration, the economy, foreign policy and his opposition to President Joe Biden.

As he usually does on the campaign trail, he frequently ad-libbed his remarks - "I'm 92% off teleprompter," he said in an implicit gibe at his Democratic rival, who he often accuses of being overly reliant on scripted remarks. The former president was fined $9,000 (£7,180) this week for making derogatory public statements about people involved in the case, which revolves around a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic actress who says she had an affair with Mr Trump.

In Wisconsin, he briefly addressed his legal troubles.

"I got indicted - think of it - for nothing," he said.

"I have a crooked judge, he's a totally conflicted judge," said Mr Trump, who is still free to criticise Justice Juan Merchan under the terms of his gag order. "Unfortunately it's a 95% or so Democrat area."

He went on to criticise the other criminal indictments against him and said "my poll numbers are higher than they've ever been". Most recent polls show him in a very tight race with Mr Biden.

A new Emerson College Polling/The Hill swing state survey finds Mr Biden slightly trailing Mr Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Many of Mr Trump's fans here said they believed he was being unfairly prosecuted and, echoing the candidate himself, that his criminal trial would eventually boost his standing at the polls.

"The trial is definitely going to increase his popularity," said Nancy Ridge, a supporter from nearby Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, who was wearing a jacket printed with Mr Trump's mugshot on the back and the words WANTED: FOR PRESIDENT. "Especially among lower-class people who have been convicted of crimes or even falsely accused.

"They understand the justice system and how corrupt it can be," she said.

"It's free publicity," said Jerry Cleppe, another Trump fan waiting in a queue outside the event.

"It doesn't matter if it's good or bad, it's attention. The trial is a good thing."

Mr Trump also addressed the pro-Palestinian student protests at US colleges and said the New York Police Department "did an incredible job" clearing an occupied building on the campus of Columbia University on Tuesday night.

"To every college president I say remove the encampments immediately, vanquish the radicals and take back our campuses for all of the normal students who want a safe place from which to learn," he said.

He also touched on abortion, in a week in which an interview with Time Magazine was seized upon by the Biden campaign as being anti-abortion rights. Mr Trump insisted that leaving the legality of abortion up to individual states is the right thing to do and that he thought "people are absolutely thrilled" with a state-by-state patchwork of laws on the issue.

After his rally in Wisconsin, the former president headed to speak in Michigan on Wednesday evening.

He is due back in court in Manhattan on Thursday.>

We know not if this particular request was granted, and if gifted powers are still in use. As we've witnessed many, many, many times over the years, certain dishonest people use the forums to brazenly manipulate the rules to their advantage. All too often their wish is granted.>