(08-10-2018 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 06:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Official act means a government action. It is an anti-extortion law. And no, it is not related to 'pending/passed' laws -- you seemingly overlook the immense inherent power of various administrative and executive branch power/actions.

This means trump cannot 'do something' to get someone fired, nor 'do something' to get someone hired, nor can he threaten to 'not do something' *unless*. Nor can he use another's 'do something' or 'not do something' in lieu of his.

The 'solely' does not mean 'solely the players'. It means he has to do the 'do something' or 'not do something' for *solely* for partisan political affiliation. What 'political affiliation' is your defined group in this case? And, to be honest, the *solely* means just that ---- even if there is a .0000000001 per cent part of the issue being 'non-partisan' (even if it is for the purpose of researching the alien origins of Stonehenge, let's say) that still destroys the use of the statute. Words mean things.

Its not a matter of 'legal definitions'; it is a matter of reading and, if not understood, look at both the caselaw and the background and usage of the law.

Sorry, the Vox-lovers seemed to throw this piece **** around about a year ago. Hasnt changed since then. But it is amazing how many people still just throw it around without bothering with the background or reading the statute thoroughly.

Kind of like the Florida 'stand your ground' laws that so many people throw around willy nilly.

Goodness, even when I admit I may not understand an issue fully, you find someone to be a giant jack***. Who would have thunk that words mean things???? I wonder how old you are sometimes...

With all due respect I fail to read anywhere (except in this sentence above) that you do not understand the statue fully. Had it been approached in that manner, I think the tone would have been very different.

Lad, your full post on the statute was:

Quote:That's not really true.

followed by the text. You kind of went 'all in' there.....

Sorry you got trolled by the people that threw this out there a year and a half ago.

Quote:But hey, thanks for providing some education, even if it came with that wonderful Tanq tone that I love so much.

Kind of a mirror of the all-in in the introduction post for the statute, isnt it? With all respect, it actually pays to read a statute thoroughly prior to stating that it is determinative, let alone touches on, a particular fact pattern.

Had the tone been one of 'Hey, this statute sounds on point but I am not sure' I would guarantee you that the tone in response would have been far more to your liking. The meme on this statute being applicable has been around for a year and a half --- and it is pretty much troll material on those who want to kind of blindly toss it out there as such.

Quote:Focusing on the "solely" aspect of the statue, does in practice mean that the act/threat of action have to be directed pretty much at someone because of what political party they identify with? That because causes can be bipartisan, that the language is so narrowly defined that supporting a cause would not fit within that definition?

In practice that makes the statute really not horribly effective. 'Solely' is pretty much an 'ultimate' extreme-type word.

I can’t tell if you keep missing what my question is, or your answer just isn’t communicated clearly enough. My question isn’t about the word “solely” but what that word is referencing, and the definition of the political affiliation term, something you hit on earlier. Is political affiliation so narrowly defined that this statute can only be applied if an action is taken against someone of a defined political affiliation? Or is it broad enough to cover a political action (e.g. protesting)?

You need to focus on the definition of “official act.”