If we have landed in a place where the president is criminally immune for trying to overthrow the fucking government then we no longer have a functioning governance document.
If we have landed in a place where the president is criminally immune for trying to overthrow the fucking government then we no longer have a functioning governance document.There is a Constitutional process to remove Presidents who commit crimes, for those of us with any faith left in the Constitution. Don't forget that even members of Congress are explicitly afforded sweeping immunity in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, so it follows that Presidents should possess at least this degree of immunity and probably more, since they have to make decisions that cause deaths, such as the ones Obama made in late 2011 that caused the death of 4 Americans. No one is calling for him to be punished for this, nor should he be.
There is a Constitutional process to remove Presidents who commit crimes, for those of us with any faith left in the Constitution. Don't forget that even members of Congress are explicitly afforded sweeping immunity in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, so it follows that Presidents should possess at least this degree of immunity and probably more, since they have to make decisions that cause deaths, such as the ones Obama made in late 2011 that caused the death of 4 Americans. No one is calling for him to be punished for this, nor should he be.
Do you think a president should be above the law yes or no?I'm astonished! Do you really mean that a group of socialist's won't be swayed by a single moderate voice? That an opinion they don't like will be ignored or even insight anger? That even hearing a dissenting point of view will spin some of them off into the last bastion of the stupid? (I'll tell you what that is if you can't figure it out).
If the framers thought the president should have immunity they would've put it in the constitution. We know this because they did specifically put it in for Congress.There is a Constitutional process to remove Presidents who commit crimes, for those of us with any faith left in the Constitution. Don't forget that even members of Congress are explicitly afforded sweeping immunity in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, so it follows that Presidents should possess at least this degree of immunity and probably more, since they have to make decisions that cause deaths, such as the ones Obama made in late 2011 that caused the death of 4 Americans. No one is calling for him to be punished for this, nor should he be.
If the framers thought the president should have immunity they would've put it in the constitution. We know this because they did specifically put it in for Congress.
But it’s the manipulating around the line is the issue. Well I consulted the DOJ, therefore it’s an official act.I don't think you guys are actually arguing that a President has no immunity, that would be insane. So it's a matter of degree, and you don't like where SCOTUS drew the line. If I am mischaracterizing the consensus position, let me know. Just where should the line be, in your estimation? Keep in mind the hypothetical scenario of Obama being potentially liable for the extrajudicial killings of American citizens, acts that could be called murders without any immunity.
The President is immune for official acts, however, the ruling gives the President deference as to what an official act is. The official act and its informing documentation cannot be used as evidence when trying to legally dispute that it was really an official act.I don't think you guys are actually arguing that a President has no immunity, that would be insane. So it's a matter of degree, and you don't like where SCOTUS drew the line. If I am mischaracterizing the consensus position, let me know. Just where should the line be, in your estimation? Keep in mind the hypothetical scenario of Obama being potentially liable for the extrajudicial killings of American citizens, acts that could be called murders without any immunity.
There is no immunity for criminal acts in the Constitution, period. Should Presidents be prosecuted for illegal wars? Absofuckinglutely!I don't think you guys are actually arguing that a President has no immunity, that would be insane. So it's a matter of degree, and you don't like where SCOTUS drew the line. If I am mischaracterizing the consensus position, let me know. Just where should the line be, in your estimation? Keep in mind the hypothetical scenario of Obama being potentially liable for the extrajudicial killings of American citizens, acts that could be called murders without any immunity.
Insane. Where in the Constitution does it say a President has immunity for “official acts” and defines official acts and states they are immune from consequence and they cannot even be questioned on their motives.I think that current exigencies are coloring the perception of the issue. It doesn't follow that members of Congress would be explicitly granted immunity, but then the failure to mention the same for the President implicitly indicates he would have no immunity at all. A Constitutional amendment may be required to repair this omission; it's really hard for me to believe that it wasn't just understood that a President possessed at least the level of immunity afforded to the legislature.
The Constitution outlines the limits of the government. It outlines the limits that the government can impose law on Congress. It does not limit what the government can impose on the executive branch, ergo there's no limit on the ability of the judiciary to charge and punish the executive branch.I think that current exigencies are coloring the perception of the issue. It doesn't follow that members of Congress would be explicitly granted immunity, but then the failure to mention the same for the President implicitly indicates he would have no immunity at all. A Constitutional amendment may be required to repair this omission; it's really hard for me to believe that it wasn't just understood that a President possessed at least the level of immunity afforded to the legislature.
So we agree, at least somewhat. I think it's possible to be a little more dispassionate, tempers are running a little hot due to one particular personality involved in the dispute. It gets a little hard to put the shoe on the other foot in the heat of the moment. I'm not sure what I find "acceptable," other than the question is not as straightforward as many would like. The Roberts court didn't grant blanket immunity, it's up to the lower courts to define the perimeter of official acts, which doesn't seem as unreasonable to me as it's being made out to be. And if this remains as unpopular a decision a year from now as it is today, there is a remedy, a Constitutional amendment spelling out exactly what the Framers left out back then.Insane. Where in the Constitution does it say a President has immunity for “official acts” and defines official acts and states they are immune from consequence and they cannot even be questioned on their motives.
Where does it say the Supreme Court gets to decide what is an official act of the President? They told the lower court to determine official acts which will then be decided on by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave the President King Powers that mirrors what Hitler got in 1932.
Of course the President should have some immunity when dealing with a crisis or making tough call but having immunity for blatant war crimes or assassinating political rivals? Are you insane? Trump lawyers literally argued a President could order the military to kill a political rival and be immune from consequence.
I find it appalling you think that is acceptable. Bizarro world stuff.
It is a feature not a bug of the Republican Christian-fascist wet dream for the future of the Fatherland.So McConnel says: Not worthy of impeachment, let the courts sort it out. USSC says: President is immune to prosecution for acts during presidency. Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem?
The ruling explicitly mentioned how Trump trying to get Pence to overthrow the government was an official act.So we agree, at least somewhat. I think it's possible to be a little more dispassionate, tempers are running a little hot due to one particular personality involved in the dispute. It gets a little hard to put the shoe on the other foot in the heat of the moment. I'm not sure what I find "acceptable," other than the question is not as straightforward as many would like. The Roberts court didn't grant blanket immunity, it's up to the lower courts to define the perimeter of official acts, which doesn't seem as unreasonable to me as it's being made out to be.
You know as well as I do that impeachment is a dead part of the Constitution. It will never be used so we should not pretend otherwise.And if this remains as unpopular a decision a year from now as it is today, there is a remedy, a Constitutional amendment spelling out exactly what the Framers left out back then.
Ah, you reveal yourself believing we are pissed because we are referring to Trump becoming King. Good way to show your true intentions with you don’t worry be happy bullshit posts.So we agree, at least somewhat. I think it's possible to be a little more dispassionate, tempers are running a little hot due to one particular personality involved in the dispute. It gets a little hard to put the shoe on the other foot in the heat of the moment. I'm not sure what I find "acceptable," other than the question is not as straightforward as many would like. The Roberts court didn't grant blanket immunity, it's up to the lower courts to define the perimeter of official acts, which doesn't seem as unreasonable to me as it's being made out to be. And if this remains as unpopular a decision a year from now as it is today, there is a remedy, a Constitutional amendment spelling out exactly what the Framers left out back then.
Not only that but it is entirely obvious that doing things like ordering a military strike ARE official acts! Maybe even more importantly if the idea is that corrupt action is not an official act the ruling explicitly states you cannot consider the president's motive for taking action, therefore it would be impossible to prove corrupt intent.Ah, you reveal yourself believing we are pissed because we are referring to Trump becoming King. Good way to show your true intentions with you don’t worry be happy bullshit posts.
This is unacceptable for a Liberal or Conservative. Biden should have no option to assassinate Trump without consequence. You are deluded if you think this is anything but an unmitigated attacked on the rule of law and separation of powers. You are actually stating what Nixon did was perfectly fine and has immunity because it was an official act as the Commander and chief. They could literally make anything an official act with a thin veneer and then do whatever the want.
It’s up to the lower courts to decide what are official acts which will be adjudicated to the Supreme Court who can Calvin ball any way they want defining those official acts. You are naive.
Can you please highlight the portions of my post where you think you are finding ideas you attribute to me that I haven't explicitly stated? It may or may not be worth discussing why you want to find such things, I think it is simply a way to dismiss someone who doesn't agree with you and to evade the substance of the issue.Ah, you reveal yourself believing we are pissed because we are referring to Trump becoming King. Good way to show your true intentions with you don’t worry be happy bullshit posts.
This is unacceptable for a Liberal or Conservative. Biden should have no option to assassinate Trump without consequence. You are deluded if you think this is anything but an unmitigated attacked on the rule of law and separation of powers. You are actually stating what Nixon did was perfectly fine and has immunity because it was an official act as the Commander and chief. They could literally make anything an official act with a thin veneer and then do whatever the want.
It’s up to the lower courts to decide what are official acts which will be adjudicated to the Supreme Court who can Calvin ball any way they want defining those official acts. You are naive.
Oh please. I rebutted your points in my post clearly and you won’t answer mine or fskimopy’s questions.Can you please highlight the portions of my post where you think you are finding ideas you attribute to me that I haven't explicitly stated? It may or may not be worth discussing why you want to find such things, I think it is simply a way to dismiss someone who doesn't agree with you and to evade the substance of the issue.
There is no immunity in the constitution, period. There should be some consideration for the role of the job, but there should absolutely not be any type of blanket immunity.I don't think you guys are actually arguing that a President has no immunity, that would be insane. So it's a matter of degree, and you don't like where SCOTUS drew the line. If I am mischaracterizing the consensus position, let me know. Just where should the line be, in your estimation? Keep in mind the hypothetical scenario of Obama being potentially liable for the extrajudicial killings of American citizens, acts that could be called murders without any immunity.
To be clear this has nothing to do with Trump. No one should be above the law and be immune from criminal prosecution for criminal acts.So we agree, at least somewhat. I think it's possible to be a little more dispassionate, tempers are running a little hot due to one particular personality involved in the dispute. It gets a little hard to put the shoe on the other foot in the heat of the moment. I'm not sure what I find "acceptable," other than the question is not as straightforward as many would like. The Roberts court didn't grant blanket immunity, it's up to the lower courts to define the perimeter of official acts, which doesn't seem as unreasonable to me as it's being made out to be. And if this remains as unpopular a decision a year from now as it is today, there is a remedy, a Constitutional amendment spelling out exactly what the Framers left out back then.
Well, just for some contrast, that's exactly what the Supremes did in Roe, but a lot of folks thought it was fine. I remain in agreement with Roe's provisions, but it was obviously legislation from the bench, even RBG agreed that this was so. In the intervening years, it would have been great to have Roe properly codified in federal legislation passed by Congress, but nobody had the stones to even try....Further, the supreme court should not just be allowed to make up "constitutional law" that had no basises in the constitution. If they wanted a god king immune from all prosecution, the Republicans should've gotten an amendment. Not make up immunity that doesn't exist, then say "amend the constitution so it continues to say exactly what it already says."
So, no answering of simple questions and more word salad from you.Well, just for some contrast, that's exactly what the Supremes did in Roe, but a lot of folks thought it was fine. I remain in agreement with Roe's provisions, but it was obviously legislation from the bench, even RBG agreed that this was so. In the intervening years, it would have been great to have Roe properly codified in federal legislation passed by Congress, but nobody had the stones to even try.
In this case though, it's really pretty stupid to argue that the President does not have some kind of presumptive immunity in the perimeter of his official capacities, it is fair to remand for clarification. Call it legislating from the bench if you will, but such is not without precedent.