EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

[GO-NAD!]

I did already say that I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling and I believe it will be reversed quickly.

That killing was wrong but they also were acting on behalf of a designated terrorist organization in a foreign country and had participated in attacking US interests. That’s a world of difference from killing political opponents domestically. But yes it was still wrong.

But, who will reverse it?

 

[TankTop5]

If a president is acting in his official constitutional authority, wouldn't such an act be legal by definition. What immunity from prosecution would he require?

Supreme Court’s Radical Immunity Ruling Shields Lawbreaking Presidents and Undermines Democracy | Brennan Center for Justice

From the link:

That is what the ruling states but it doesn’t grant the president authority he didn’t already have. Again, killing Americans isn’t an authority the president possesses. And I still disagree with the decision but I think it helps if we are honest about the conversation, take off the tinfoil hats

 

[TankTop5]

But, who will reverse it?

Easy, Congress can pass laws limiting presidential authority then SCOTUS would need to revisit their decision.

edit add: we have three equal branches of government for a reason. SCOTUS are just people and sometimes do stupid stuff too. The three branches of government have an obligation to keep each other in check…. strange legal theory known as the balance of power

 

[GO-NAD!]

That is what the ruling states but it doesn’t grant the president authority he didn’t already have. Again, killing Americans isn’t an authority the president possesses. And I still disagree with the decision but I think it helps if we are honest about the conversation, take off the tinfoil hats

If as a consequence of this ruling, official Presidential acts must still be in accord with the constitution, what protections does this immunity from prosecution provide?

Easy, Congress can pass laws limiting presidential authority then SCOTUS would need to revisit their decision.

edit add: we have three equal branches of government for a reason. SCOTUS are just people and sometimes do stupid stuff too. The three branches of government have an obligation to keep each other in check…. strange legal theory known as the balance of power

Easy?

Congress passes law limiting presidential authority. SCOTUS revisits prior ruling. Rules that prior ruling stands because, while stupid, it was their ruling. It has been suggested - not by me, I'm not a legal scholar - that the only redress would be to impeach the justices responsible for the ruling.

 

[TankTop5]

Congress passes law limiting presidential authority. SCOTUS revisits prior ruling. Rules that prior ruling stands because, while stupid, it was their ruling. It has been suggested - not by me, I'm not a legal scholar - that the only redress would be to impeach the justices responsible for the ruling.

Sort of. Nobody can overturn a SCOTUS decision but SCOTUS does have to make decisions based on existing law. If Congress passes a law limiting presidential powers SCOTUS would have to change their own ruling. It would still be difficult as Congress would need to very carefully write the law however.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Easy, Congress can pass laws limiting presidential authority then SCOTUS would need to revisit their decision.

edit add: we have three equal branches of government for a reason. SCOTUS are just people and sometimes do stupid stuff too. The three branches of government have an obligation to keep each other in check…. strange legal theory known as the balance of power

No No No No.

I'm sorry, but you do not understand.

From the recent Trump decision:

>>>Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power.<<<

In plain English, Congress can't do jack sheet.

 

[TankTop5]

No No No No.

I'm sorry, but you do not understand.

From the recent Trump decision:

>>>Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power.<<<

In plain English, Congress can't do jack sheet.

Hmmmm…. You may be correct.

 

[TankTop5]

No No No No.

I'm sorry, but you do not understand.

From the recent Trump decision:

>>>Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power.<<<

In plain English, Congress can't do jack sheet.

While I don’t see any way for the president to start killing political opponents I absolutely see how future presidents will be bought and blackmail foreign nations via trade negotiations and tariffs in exchange for enormous sums of money. That would be official duty of the president and his motives cannot be questioned.

 

[cpp]

But, who will reverse it?

from what I read, nobody, its pretty final unless they the US Supreme's reverse it themselves.

 

[Trell]

Hmmmm…. You may be correct.

You see, Mr._Clark did read the Trump decision, something you said others should do.

 

[highfigh]

Ridiculous conversation?

This is what Sotomayor wrote in her dissent:

>>>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.<<<

Well, this thread won't change the course of history, so it's not THAT important but to the comments by Sotomayor, we still have Congress and if one house or the other isn't a majority in favor of a POTUS who goes off the rails, they can block the actions that are illegal. She might re-read the reasons for our government having three branches to be used for balance of power. SCOTUS decides if something in unconstitutional, not POTUS and not Congress.

Also, the comment about Seal Team 6- ALL government employees swear an oath to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. The military can and should disobey an illegal order. As much as some might want Putin to be taken out, it shouldn't happen by order of POTUS. Neither Saddam Hussein nor Muammar Gaddafy were killed by order of a US President unless they had control of the tribunals in Iraq or Libya.

Let's see how the historians write about this crap.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Here we are discussing a future possibility or impossibility.
It is a huge gamble to return Trump to the presidency. Are we willing, all Americans, to bet on what could or will happen or not.
I'd call this a constitutional nightmare. Will the movie Civil War become reality?

 

[mtrycrafts]

from what I read, nobody, its pretty final unless they the US Supreme's reverse it themselves.

So, a replaced SCOTUS could reverse all of the current crop's decrees. Great. Let's do it. If the current crop(6) can overturn precedence, the new on certainly could.

 

[TankTop5]

So, a replaced SCOTUS could reverse all of the current crop's decrees. Great. Let's do it. If the current crop(6) can overturn precedence, the new on certainly could.

Somebody doesn’t like the federalist Society

 

[Swerd]

I'm coming into this exchange of "ideas" late. (I use the word ideas only loosely.) So, I might be repeating what others have already said.

I've done a brief search of the US Constitution and amendments. Nowhere did I see any mention of the word immunity for anyone including the president. I haven't searched the Federal Code, but I doubt if any law exists on criminal immunity for the president. Can anyone provide input on this?

At least 5 out of 6 Supreme Court justices who made the majority testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, during their confirmation hearings, that no president has criminal immunity under any circumstances.

I can only conclude that these five lied to Congress, and fabricated a completely unconstitutional and unlawful judgement just to support their boy Trump.

As a result of the Supreme Court's grotesque opinion, did anyone on the 6 justice majority understand that their decision now gives any president, including Biden, immunity to call for their assassination? It would be too easy to get the Defense Department involved because of their own vague description of official presidential duties.

@TankTop5 – You've made many comments that tempt me to respond. But you completely lost my respect when you mentioned the "Biden Crime Family".

 

[TankTop5]

I'm coming into this exchange of "ideas" late. (I use the word ideas only loosely.) So, I might be repeating what others have already said.

I've done a brief search of the US Constitution and amendments. Nowhere did I see any mention of the word immunity for anyone including the president. I haven't searched the Federal Code, but I doubt if any law exists on criminal immunity for the president. Can anyone provide input on this?

At least 5 out of 6 Supreme Court justices who made the majorty testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that no president has criminal immunity under any circumstances.

I can only conclude that these six lied to Congress, and fabricated a completely unconstitutional and unlawful judgement just to support their boy Trump.

As a result of the Supreme Court's grotesque opinion, did anyone on the majority understand that their decision now gives any president, including Biden, immunity to call for their assassination? It would be too easy to get the Defense Department involved using their own vague description of official presidential duties.

@TankTop5 – You've made many comments that tempt me to respond. But you completely lost my respect when you mentioned the "Biden Crime Family".

Biden Crime Family…. Meh….

If the President is immune how can he be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors? Yes this decision was terrible.

 

[Trell]

Biden Crime Family…. Meh….

If the President is immune how can he be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors? Yes this decision was terrible.

The Power of Impeachment: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[TankTop5]

The Power of Impeachment: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

My point was if there’s an assumption of immunity why use the language high crimes and misdemeanors? Article 2 section 4 seems to suggest a president can be convicted of a crime specifically treason which as a sitting president could only be committed as an official act.

 

[Trell]

My point was if there’s an assumption of immunity why use the language high crimes and misdemeanors? Article 2 section 4 seems to suggest a president can be convicted of a crime specifically treason which as a sitting president could only be committed as an official act.

Did you read it? It’s fairly short. The immunity granted by the Supreme Court is not relevant for impeachment, as I understand it.

From the link:

>>>The Constitution's grant of the impeachment power to Congress is largely unchecked by the other branches of government. Impeachment is primarily a political process, in which judgments and procedures are left to the final discretions of the authorities vested with the powers to impeach and to try impeachments.<<<

 

[mtrycrafts]

You see, Mr._Clark did read the Trump decision, something you said others should do.

I would have but not enough Tylenol on hand.
But then even if I had, understanding is the question. Didn't take law and Greek in school.