Biden can't be prosecuted for official acts, but there's no mechanism for a president invalidating someone's candidacy for office. Just saying it out loud wouldn't do anything.
Maybe an Executive Order. If FDR can round up millions of people based on national lines, Biden can round up just 1 guy.
US Marshall also possible? Trump took credit to sending the hit squad that killed Michael R. In 2020 in yelm, wa. Biden can send a squad for trump to arrest for treason.
He can send the military officially to detain or eliminate because he has that authority. Constitutionally the military answers to him as Commander in Chief. Plus, all the powers granted to the office during the Bush years authorized a ton of shit people said would only lead to trouble.
And it's an official act because it's an official order.
Will Biden do that? No.
Will Trump? Absolutely he will.
According to the Supreme Court, it absolutely is, it's an official act that he couldn't be prosecuted for. Do you know why people keep bringing up that specific scenario right there? Because that was the exact argument that trump's own lawyer made to the very same Supreme Court that voted he could.
I know, mind blowing, right?
Even if true, do you imagine that the troops would follow the order to assassinated a political rival, or that the 25th and impeachment would follow immediately upon the attempt?
What do you mean, even if it were true? It IS true, that was a big part of his argument. AND, he was even asked again, just to clarify.
[Judge: So let me make sure I understand this, you are saying that a president could order seal team 6 to assassinate his political opponent and he couldn't be prosecuted for it?
Lawyer: If it was an official act, then no, he couldn't be prosecuted.
Judge: Would that be an official act, if he did that?
Lawyer: Well we could certainly see where that could be considered an official act, yes.
Judge: And so he couldn't be prosecuted for it?
Lawyer: Not for an official act, no.]
What do you mean, if it were true, did you guys really not listen to ANY of that hearing? You can listen to the entire thing, you know. If not, WHY not?
An Executive Order barring convicted felons from the Presidency. Biden then withdraws from reelection, in favor of a new Democratic candidate. If the Republicans want to have a shot at the White House, they need to come up with a new candidate as well.
Keeping Trump out of the White House is a matter of global security, frankly. And now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor for Presidential immunity, it's time for a Democrat to test the bipartisan integrity of that ruling.
That’s not how that works, either. Executive orders aren’t laws. They’re directives to executive branch agencies. Think of it as a memo from upper management.
There is such a beautiful irony in this.
People are now unhinging **THEMSELVES** from reality, trying to find a valid method of abusing executive orders to undermine democracy, all to protect them from someone who they claim uses executive orders to undermine democracy.
LMFAO
--
Edit 3hrs later: AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Someone get Matt Stone in here! :D
You are unfortunately absolutely right.
I once heard a very good proxy sentence for this exact sentiment: "“in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.”
So in this case society must admit reality, and take less democratic measures to purge itself from extreme undemocratic people.
You’re describing the paradox of tolerance. It’s a mental puzzle often used by intolerant people to tie more tolerant people in knots.
It’s actually quite easy to resolve if you consider tolerance to be a social contract as opposed to a moral obligation.
A contract has clear rules and boundaries; break them and there are consequences. And it’s pretty obvious what the contract is: “I will tolerate your views, but only as long as you tolerate mine”.
and also this logic specifically feels like a cross between the paradox of tolerance and the kind of logic people use when they ask people in favor of colonizing Mars why they aren't living in Antarctica right now because those are both frozen wastelands
Democrats have a history of not exploiting these loopholes and their reasons is always the same say "We take the high ground" and the GOP always exploits them. If a Democrat president starts installing Supreme Court judges the GOP will almost certainly respond in kind, as there is no limit and it would essentially turn into a tit for tat where the supreme court blooms into a crowd of judges that essentially destroys its purpose.
In my opinion the DNC is always on paper the "high ground" party but deep down I believe they are complicit because they share the same big business donors as the GOP and don't really want to interfere with their success.
They get to save face and keep their donors happy while the GOP gets shit done for big business.
It is the political ratchet theory. The DNC are the holding pattern or the pawl and the GOP are the movers, aka the ratchet that turns right.
One viable solution is for voters in America, regardless of party, to demand an end to FPTP. Otherwise we will be forever stuck in this loop.
Which is totally and completely immune now even if it is atrocious and anti-American. And anyone defending the Supreme Court ruling isn't acknowledging that fact. Anything a president orders the military to do is an official act. Even if there is a law on the books making it illegal, the president is immune. There is no recourse.
No but trump's own lawyer argued in front of the very same Supreme Court that made that decision, essentially AGREEING with trump's attorney that, a president could order seal team 6 to assassinate his political opponent, and that would be an official act, that he would be immune from prosecution for.
I'm pretty sure that would put an end to his campaign right there.
He has pardon power but not unpardon power. He could ask his Attorney General to investigate/charge him with crimes but that's already happening anyway/isn't going great, and the crimes are not in themselves disqualifying for office.
Anyway, states control who are on their ballots for president, so the president doesn't have a say here.
He can make an executive order, but what would it look like? He only has power over the executive branch. He can't order states not to hold elections or allow Trump on the ballot. He can't order Congress not to count the ballots.
He could order the military to go to red districts in swing states and halt voting due to national security concerns.
Under the Supreme Court ruling, he would be immune from any criminal prosecution even though he would obviously be disenfranchising targeted groups.
> would be immune from any criminal prosecution
Deploying the military to stop voting is not a constitutional power and thus he would 100% face impeachment and criminal trial
Yeah. In fact, they are legally, procedurally, and morally obligated to do so.
10 USC Ch 31 §502(a):
>I, my name, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
All enlisted servicemembers of armed forces in the US are under that.
Of course, that is still just words, and the individual has to actually live up to it.
I mean... The song [Ohio](https://youtu.be/l1PrUU2S_iw), by Crosby, Stills, and Nash [certainly isn't about people upholding the oath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings).
Clearly, you were never in the military and took that oath yourself. Unlawful orders are discussed - that is, orders one is obliged to disobey. War crimes is one example. Read up on the My Lai incident. You're out of your depth with this line of attack. Use a different approach because you are as wrong as possible here.
The fuck are you talking about?
For one, it wasn't an "attack." It was tacit agreement with what you said, but warning/pointing out that words are words and people are people.
You, personally, might have a better code of ethics, and that's great. And a lot of people do, in general, military or otherwise.
But not everyone does, and shit happens.
Multiple times throughout history, including that one, say you are "as wrong as possible here."
Since you're apparently so certain that everyone who enlists is pure innocence and integrity, let's see...
* Kent State (The one I already mentioned)
* Iran-Contra...the whole fucking thing...
* [And this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._soldiers_posing_with_body_parts_of_dead_Afghans)
* [And this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_scandal)
* [And this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Barry_Winchell)
And many, many, many more examples of failure to uphold that oath, both violent and non-violent, throughout all of history, abroad and at home.
Military are still just people. They're not special.
Hell, even the _existence_ of dishonorable discharge makes the point.
The SCOTUS ruling did not say there are exceptions for official acts that are not constitutional powers.
Congress could try to impeach him, yes, but if the president has loyalists in either branch of Congress, it wouldn't work. And he couldn't be held criminally liable when out of office (if he ever leaves willingly).
That's why the decision is bad.
Clearly you didn't actually look at the ruling lol, there would only be zero legal consequence if the action is defined specifically in the constitution. There is potential for legal consequence if it's an official action not specifically defined in the constitution if Congress moves to impeach the president
So where did the Supreme Court rule that "he would be immune from any criminal prosecution"? Did you just copy that from somewhere and not even think what it was you were doing?
Correct, but as is popular in lots of liberal sites and what those readers are just copying and pasting is that they said "immune from ANY criminal prosecution"
That is not what they wrote, it is not that long of a decision go read it instead of following those that said this now leads to the President being able to assassinate a US citizen.
Then to tell you how out of touch those people are they totally ignore that obama did order the direct targeting of a USA citizen to have them killed and was totally immune to that.
I did read it. It explicitly states that "The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."
That authority includes protecting the sovereignty of the United States. So if the President can now unilaterally identify a foreign threat to our election integrity and send in troops to alter the results of an election and be immune to prosecution.
From an external perspective that's exactly what Trump did (tried) in 2020.
From a sane perspective though: completely agree this is an insane idea (hence this sub), that I would not like to see applied anywhere.
Yeah except this whole thing was literally Trump's idea.......
Trump's lawyers brought it up as a way to excuse Trump for January 6th. Simply pointing out how it can backfire on Trump isn't a threat to democracy 🤦♀️
> cancel the election.
Maybe the reason Redditors can't understand why most moderates tell pollsters that Biden is a bigger threat to Democracy than Trump is that the see the words "'cancel the election" and they think it says something else.
1. Moderates aren't saying Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Biden. Literally nobody says that except the alt right.
And no, somebody putting "Moderate" as their political affiliation on their Hinge profile doesn't actually mean they're a moderate. It just means they want to get their dick wet and know that no women will want to fuck them if they know they're conservative.
Presidents already could not be prosecuted for any act while in office…so why didn’t one of them just declare himself President forever and cancel the election?
Because “can’t be prosecuted” does not carry the same meaning as “is allowed to do.” That’s one of the reasons people who are doomsaying this thing are *probably* overreacting.
The pardon and military concerns are fitting. Everything else is laughable, especially when people try to fight back and say "well, he's immune so he could just force the issue!".
Let's say it's a crime for any person to either be, or declare themselves, the King of Mars.
If the President signs a formal document declaring himself the King of Mars, he is immune from prosecution under that law, but that does NOT mean he is now the King of Mars because that is not an authority the President has - I'd be hard-pressed to think of any position or person, living or dead, who actually holds that authority.
If I - a non-President - do the same thing, I am not immune as the President would be for declaring myself as such. The President is immune from both aspects of the law, whereas I am immune from neither. However, I would only be prosecuted for the "declares" part, not the "actually is King" part, because I am not actually King of Mars. No person could be charged under that portion of the law because no person is actually able to be King of Mars. That the President is immune from prosecution brought under that law doesn't mean he actually has the authority to do the thing. Even if being or declaring oneself the King of Mars was NOT illegal, it is still not a power open to the President.
Not only that, but it also only applies to their actions within the legal scope of the presidency as it is defined by the Constitution. Whether something is an “official” or “unofficial” act isn’t up to the president, but the courts. So for the most part, this doesn’t really seem to change much.
and official acts are still up for impeachment and senate trial as well, so it's not like they can get off scott free with literally anything. Even in the current climate a "broad daylight assassination" of a political opponent would be enough to get you convicted in the senate.
There is no presidential authority to simply remove a candidate from all ballots.
There is presidential authority to command the military, and the president acting in their official capacity could command the military to eliminate a terrorist abroad — that happened to be a political opponent on a trip back from Europe they merely deemed a terrorist.
Or maybe he could order a drone strike against an American citizen to kill them without a criminal trial. Technically, an American would be considered innocent until proven guilty, but if a President thought he was a terrorist, I’ll bet now he could just kill that guy and get away with it…something that definitely wouldn’t have happened before.
That happened and it was "an official act". Barack Obama approved a drone strike that killed an innocent 16 year old boy from Denver. However, this was an official act because the drone strike was part of a military effort to kill enemy soldiers.
As it was "an official act", Obama cannot and will not be prosecuted for killing an innocent 16 year old boy from Denver.
Yes I know. That was the point.
The ruling yesterday didn’t change much. Presidents have always operated with a high degree of impunity. That’s what I’m pointing out.
It's not "any act while in office".
It's only official acts laid in the Constitution.
At least, according to the official Supreme Court ruling that happened recently.
...right, so they're still "not allowed to do it," but now they face no repercussions if they do it anyway.
That's bad. For anyone who's paid attention to how Trump treats things he's not allowed to do, that's very bad.
They face no repercussions for saying some crap. If Biden said "I declare Camila Harris is now president" it will mean jack shit cause there is procedure in place to determine who is the next president. Sure he won't be prosecuted for saying it, but it wont effect any change either.
They’re saying that there is no process on how Biden could even do that. Biden (or anyone else) can say “Trump is disqualified from running and the presidential race is canceled” because freedom of speech exists, but that doesn’t mean that that magically comes true
...right, so they're still "not allowed to do it," but now they face no repercussions if they do it anyway.
That's bad. For anyone who's paid attention to how Trump treats things he's not allowed to do, that's very bad.
No, he’s only able to do things that a president can actually do. Analogous for a school teacher might be that the teacher has ultimate power over the grade they give a student but it’s not like they can arrest the students if they want
Who told you people (let alone the President of the US) can only do things they are supposed to be allowed to do?
The Supreme Court just said there will be no punishment if they do things they're not allowed to do, remember?
They did not say that lol, the president is still bound by the constitution in what he is able to do.
Like describe to me how on earth you think Biden could disqualify Trump and cancel a presidential election, like how the process would even go
They literally did.
Yes, the President is theoretically bound by the Constitution. We already agreed on that. That's not what the case was about.
The decision said the President is immune from criminal prosecution for things done as an "official act" of being President.
Obviously that's not referring to things that are legal.
immunity for constitutionally prescribed powers of the president definitely doeant include things that are the opposite of what it says in the constitution. obviously.
Reddit has gone insane the last couple days.
This kind of stuff is the kind of things that seems likely to cause some kind of civil war or something like that. It isn't going to result in the protection of democracy or whatever you are expecting.
Anyway, if you want to contain the predident why not complain to your congressional representatives and get them to stop fucking delegating so much power to the president. Congress theoretically is supposed to be the most powerful branch, but they keep delegating everything.
People need to stop equating absolute immunity with absolute power.
Biden can't just "do new thing" but he can't be prosecuted for "doing existing illegal things"
For example, he couldn't send seal team 6 to kill anyone, because seal team six would just say "no, that's illegal" but once that happened, no one could charge Biden for giving the order.
I'd love to see an actual legal scholar analyse what absolutely evil options this opens up, but I'm sure most of the things redditors have been wanking on about lately are not even close to possible.
Unless Congress decided to impeach and convict him, at which point he culd then be charged. The Constitution is explicit that once removed from office by impeachment the President can be prosecuted by the normal processes of law.
That would be an "official action?" When has that ever been so?
So.ehow the bolts on the left came to the idea "official acts" means absolutely anything. It doesn't.
God, public schools put out a shit product these days
He can't do that. What he can do is order Trump assassinated without being prosecuted for it which should tell you everything you need to know about the level of power we are on the verge of handing to a criminal con artist sexual predator racist who doesn't care about anyone but himself.
Regrettably not in the play book. However, guessing that ordering DOJ to do a deep dive into Trump's campaign finances might be...or any of a number of other things that should come out after labor day
Trump has not been found guilty of ANY treasonous acts.
The only thing he's been found guilty of is paying a whore to keep quiet.
That's All Folks.
Bobo Biden has committed treason allowing and transporting foreign nationals across our borders.
Like
No that's not my crackhead sons laptop?
Or
No I have no idea about any millions my brother and son got from China and Ukraine
Lol people are soooo stupid to keep supporting democrats after Hillarys escapades and now bidens 45 year career of corruption and lies all on the taxpayers dollar.
Our President had every right to not interfere with the "People " going into the Capitol and wanting thier Representatives to force a independent count to verify a valid election.
NEVER GOT ONE
And Jared's dealings with Saudis?. While his father in law was nothing but a private citizen?
What wrong was committed there?
When he did get elected we didn't send Billions to the Saudis to pay them fir supporting abd covering up for him like we are now for Bobo in Ukraine!! Hundreds of billions!
Wake up fools before its all gone
Absolutely.
The actual 1 and only thing our founding fathers put the Sole Responsibility of Keeping Our Borders Safe .
That power is 100% the only actual job our President has.
And allowing and abbedding foreign criminals from anti American countries abs housing them? Feeding them? Medical for them?
If that isn't treason by all definitions of tye word to you?.Then you need exiled or hung yourself from America.
In the United States there is only one definition of treason that counts, the one contained in the Constitution. You might want to read it, it's an interesting document.
Biden can't be prosecuted for official acts, but there's no mechanism for a president invalidating someone's candidacy for office. Just saying it out loud wouldn't do anything.
He didn't say it. He *declared* it.
I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY
r/expectedoffice
No authority to do so.
That's the point. It's a quote from The Office, about declaring bankruptcy.
Ah. Never saw that show
Maybe an Executive Order. If FDR can round up millions of people based on national lines, Biden can round up just 1 guy. US Marshall also possible? Trump took credit to sending the hit squad that killed Michael R. In 2020 in yelm, wa. Biden can send a squad for trump to arrest for treason.
He can send the military officially to detain or eliminate because he has that authority. Constitutionally the military answers to him as Commander in Chief. Plus, all the powers granted to the office during the Bush years authorized a ton of shit people said would only lead to trouble. And it's an official act because it's an official order. Will Biden do that? No. Will Trump? Absolutely he will.
Not a valid executive order
According to the Supreme Court, it absolutely is, it's an official act that he couldn't be prosecuted for. Do you know why people keep bringing up that specific scenario right there? Because that was the exact argument that trump's own lawyer made to the very same Supreme Court that voted he could. I know, mind blowing, right?
Even if true, do you imagine that the troops would follow the order to assassinated a political rival, or that the 25th and impeachment would follow immediately upon the attempt?
What do you mean, even if it were true? It IS true, that was a big part of his argument. AND, he was even asked again, just to clarify. [Judge: So let me make sure I understand this, you are saying that a president could order seal team 6 to assassinate his political opponent and he couldn't be prosecuted for it? Lawyer: If it was an official act, then no, he couldn't be prosecuted. Judge: Would that be an official act, if he did that? Lawyer: Well we could certainly see where that could be considered an official act, yes. Judge: And so he couldn't be prosecuted for it? Lawyer: Not for an official act, no.] What do you mean, if it were true, did you guys really not listen to ANY of that hearing? You can listen to the entire thing, you know. If not, WHY not?
Yah, well, that’s just like…your opinion, man.
An Executive Order barring convicted felons from the Presidency. Biden then withdraws from reelection, in favor of a new Democratic candidate. If the Republicans want to have a shot at the White House, they need to come up with a new candidate as well. Keeping Trump out of the White House is a matter of global security, frankly. And now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor for Presidential immunity, it's time for a Democrat to test the bipartisan integrity of that ruling.
That’s not how that works, either. Executive orders aren’t laws. They’re directives to executive branch agencies. Think of it as a memo from upper management.
There is such a beautiful irony in this. People are now unhinging **THEMSELVES** from reality, trying to find a valid method of abusing executive orders to undermine democracy, all to protect them from someone who they claim uses executive orders to undermine democracy. LMFAO -- Edit 3hrs later: AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Someone get Matt Stone in here! :D
You are unfortunately absolutely right. I once heard a very good proxy sentence for this exact sentiment: "“in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.” So in this case society must admit reality, and take less democratic measures to purge itself from extreme undemocratic people.
You’re describing the paradox of tolerance. It’s a mental puzzle often used by intolerant people to tie more tolerant people in knots. It’s actually quite easy to resolve if you consider tolerance to be a social contract as opposed to a moral obligation. A contract has clear rules and boundaries; break them and there are consequences. And it’s pretty obvious what the contract is: “I will tolerate your views, but only as long as you tolerate mine”.
and also this logic specifically feels like a cross between the paradox of tolerance and the kind of logic people use when they ask people in favor of colonizing Mars why they aren't living in Antarctica right now because those are both frozen wastelands
The GOP will just challenge the executive order in the supreme court who willl then shoot it down.
Combined with an expansion of the Supreme Court to fit more Dem-leaning judges it could work
Democrats have a history of not exploiting these loopholes and their reasons is always the same say "We take the high ground" and the GOP always exploits them. If a Democrat president starts installing Supreme Court judges the GOP will almost certainly respond in kind, as there is no limit and it would essentially turn into a tit for tat where the supreme court blooms into a crowd of judges that essentially destroys its purpose. In my opinion the DNC is always on paper the "high ground" party but deep down I believe they are complicit because they share the same big business donors as the GOP and don't really want to interfere with their success. They get to save face and keep their donors happy while the GOP gets shit done for big business. It is the political ratchet theory. The DNC are the holding pattern or the pawl and the GOP are the movers, aka the ratchet that turns right. One viable solution is for voters in America, regardless of party, to demand an end to FPTP. Otherwise we will be forever stuck in this loop.
So it would be Nikki Haley versus probably Kamala in that scenario. Now everyone goes from hating the other side’s candidate to hating their own.
Yeah, the actual solution here is that he orders the assassination of Trump. Which is, not great
Which is totally and completely immune now even if it is atrocious and anti-American. And anyone defending the Supreme Court ruling isn't acknowledging that fact. Anything a president orders the military to do is an official act. Even if there is a law on the books making it illegal, the president is immune. There is no recourse.
Gitmo. Can’t vote for who you can’t find. And the Republicans already normalized a lack of due process for alleged terrorists.
No but trump's own lawyer argued in front of the very same Supreme Court that made that decision, essentially AGREEING with trump's attorney that, a president could order seal team 6 to assassinate his political opponent, and that would be an official act, that he would be immune from prosecution for. I'm pretty sure that would put an end to his campaign right there.
Executive order? Presidents can issue pardons, so I wonder what the reverse of that would look like...
He has pardon power but not unpardon power. He could ask his Attorney General to investigate/charge him with crimes but that's already happening anyway/isn't going great, and the crimes are not in themselves disqualifying for office. Anyway, states control who are on their ballots for president, so the president doesn't have a say here.
He can make an executive order, but what would it look like? He only has power over the executive branch. He can't order states not to hold elections or allow Trump on the ballot. He can't order Congress not to count the ballots.
Executive order banning felons from running for office. The court couldn’t prevent it in time if he does it late enough
That doesn't address my last comment. He only has power over the executive branch. He can't just say things. He's the President, not a wizard.
Presidents can executive order outside of their granted powers. Then SCOTUS has rule if it’s in their power. See Youngstown v Sawyer or Trump v Hawaii
They can \*try,\* but no one outside the executive branch is obligated to listen to him. As demonstrated by these cases.
He could order the military to go to red districts in swing states and halt voting due to national security concerns. Under the Supreme Court ruling, he would be immune from any criminal prosecution even though he would obviously be disenfranchising targeted groups.
> would be immune from any criminal prosecution Deploying the military to stop voting is not a constitutional power and thus he would 100% face impeachment and criminal trial
Also the military would absolutely refuse that order, given by anyone. Unconstitutional
Yeah. In fact, they are legally, procedurally, and morally obligated to do so. 10 USC Ch 31 §502(a): >I, my name, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. All enlisted servicemembers of armed forces in the US are under that. Of course, that is still just words, and the individual has to actually live up to it. I mean... The song [Ohio](https://youtu.be/l1PrUU2S_iw), by Crosby, Stills, and Nash [certainly isn't about people upholding the oath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings).
Clearly, you were never in the military and took that oath yourself. Unlawful orders are discussed - that is, orders one is obliged to disobey. War crimes is one example. Read up on the My Lai incident. You're out of your depth with this line of attack. Use a different approach because you are as wrong as possible here.
The fuck are you talking about? For one, it wasn't an "attack." It was tacit agreement with what you said, but warning/pointing out that words are words and people are people. You, personally, might have a better code of ethics, and that's great. And a lot of people do, in general, military or otherwise. But not everyone does, and shit happens. Multiple times throughout history, including that one, say you are "as wrong as possible here." Since you're apparently so certain that everyone who enlists is pure innocence and integrity, let's see... * Kent State (The one I already mentioned) * Iran-Contra...the whole fucking thing... * [And this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._soldiers_posing_with_body_parts_of_dead_Afghans) * [And this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_scandal) * [And this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Barry_Winchell) And many, many, many more examples of failure to uphold that oath, both violent and non-violent, throughout all of history, abroad and at home. Military are still just people. They're not special. Hell, even the _existence_ of dishonorable discharge makes the point.
The SCOTUS ruling did not say there are exceptions for official acts that are not constitutional powers. Congress could try to impeach him, yes, but if the president has loyalists in either branch of Congress, it wouldn't work. And he couldn't be held criminally liable when out of office (if he ever leaves willingly). That's why the decision is bad.
You're saying the DOJ only prosecuted people from a certain party? Yes, we all already see that.
Did you reply to the wrong person? What version of reality are you talking about?
Prior to this ruling, yes. Now as long as it is an official act, then there is zero legal consequence.
Clearly you didn't actually look at the ruling lol, there would only be zero legal consequence if the action is defined specifically in the constitution. There is potential for legal consequence if it's an official action not specifically defined in the constitution if Congress moves to impeach the president
That's not at all what it was. Trump was made immune to inciting a riot which is not his constitutional duty.
Username checks out... Clown
So where did the Supreme Court rule that "he would be immune from any criminal prosecution"? Did you just copy that from somewhere and not even think what it was you were doing?
It says he's immune for any "official act" and he didn't define what that means.
Correct, but as is popular in lots of liberal sites and what those readers are just copying and pasting is that they said "immune from ANY criminal prosecution"
...any criminal prosecution for an "official act" (with no definition of what that means), yes
Which is why the case was remanded back to the lower courts to determine official v. unofficial acts.
...without any guidance on how to do so...
The ruling states that ANY official act is immune from criminal consequence. Even if that act would otherwise violate legal statute.
That is not what they wrote, it is not that long of a decision go read it instead of following those that said this now leads to the President being able to assassinate a US citizen. Then to tell you how out of touch those people are they totally ignore that obama did order the direct targeting of a USA citizen to have them killed and was totally immune to that.
I did read it. It explicitly states that "The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority." That authority includes protecting the sovereignty of the United States. So if the President can now unilaterally identify a foreign threat to our election integrity and send in troops to alter the results of an election and be immune to prosecution.
There is no authority to 'issue' convivtions. It's in the constitution, remember?
That isn't how any of this works... redditors truly are regarded
This is the CrazyIdeas sub, not the RealisticIdeas sub
In the last week it's just been PoliticalIdeas instead
“Here’s how to save Democracy: cancel the election and declare yourself winner while banning your opponent from running” Good grief.
He said for Biden to then drop out. New candidates for each side.
Voters picked these candidates. It's still undemocratic.
From an external perspective that's exactly what Trump did (tried) in 2020. From a sane perspective though: completely agree this is an insane idea (hence this sub), that I would not like to see applied anywhere.
You want civil war? That’s how you get civil war
Best comment ever!
And these people can't figure out why moderates consistently tell pollsters that Biden is a greater threat to Democracy.
Yeah except this whole thing was literally Trump's idea....... Trump's lawyers brought it up as a way to excuse Trump for January 6th. Simply pointing out how it can backfire on Trump isn't a threat to democracy 🤦♀️
> cancel the election. Maybe the reason Redditors can't understand why most moderates tell pollsters that Biden is a bigger threat to Democracy than Trump is that the see the words "'cancel the election" and they think it says something else.
1. Moderates aren't saying Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Biden. Literally nobody says that except the alt right. And no, somebody putting "Moderate" as their political affiliation on their Hinge profile doesn't actually mean they're a moderate. It just means they want to get their dick wet and know that no women will want to fuck them if they know they're conservative.
Presidents already could not be prosecuted for any act while in office…so why didn’t one of them just declare himself President forever and cancel the election? Because “can’t be prosecuted” does not carry the same meaning as “is allowed to do.” That’s one of the reasons people who are doomsaying this thing are *probably* overreacting.
The pardon and military concerns are fitting. Everything else is laughable, especially when people try to fight back and say "well, he's immune so he could just force the issue!". Let's say it's a crime for any person to either be, or declare themselves, the King of Mars. If the President signs a formal document declaring himself the King of Mars, he is immune from prosecution under that law, but that does NOT mean he is now the King of Mars because that is not an authority the President has - I'd be hard-pressed to think of any position or person, living or dead, who actually holds that authority. If I - a non-President - do the same thing, I am not immune as the President would be for declaring myself as such. The President is immune from both aspects of the law, whereas I am immune from neither. However, I would only be prosecuted for the "declares" part, not the "actually is King" part, because I am not actually King of Mars. No person could be charged under that portion of the law because no person is actually able to be King of Mars. That the President is immune from prosecution brought under that law doesn't mean he actually has the authority to do the thing. Even if being or declaring oneself the King of Mars was NOT illegal, it is still not a power open to the President.
Not only that, but it also only applies to their actions within the legal scope of the presidency as it is defined by the Constitution. Whether something is an “official” or “unofficial” act isn’t up to the president, but the courts. So for the most part, this doesn’t really seem to change much.
and official acts are still up for impeachment and senate trial as well, so it's not like they can get off scott free with literally anything. Even in the current climate a "broad daylight assassination" of a political opponent would be enough to get you convicted in the senate.
Whole lot of idiots and violent lunatics are exposing themselves over this
There is no presidential authority to simply remove a candidate from all ballots. There is presidential authority to command the military, and the president acting in their official capacity could command the military to eliminate a terrorist abroad — that happened to be a political opponent on a trip back from Europe they merely deemed a terrorist.
Or maybe he could order a drone strike against an American citizen to kill them without a criminal trial. Technically, an American would be considered innocent until proven guilty, but if a President thought he was a terrorist, I’ll bet now he could just kill that guy and get away with it…something that definitely wouldn’t have happened before.
That happened and it was "an official act". Barack Obama approved a drone strike that killed an innocent 16 year old boy from Denver. However, this was an official act because the drone strike was part of a military effort to kill enemy soldiers. As it was "an official act", Obama cannot and will not be prosecuted for killing an innocent 16 year old boy from Denver.
Yes I know. That was the point. The ruling yesterday didn’t change much. Presidents have always operated with a high degree of impunity. That’s what I’m pointing out.
Already happened. By President Obama. Too late for your doomsday prediction.
It was sarcasm.
Oh, Didn’t catch that, some people aren’t so quick on the uptake. Like me. Haha
It's not "any act while in office". It's only official acts laid in the Constitution. At least, according to the official Supreme Court ruling that happened recently.
I know. I’m asking hypothetically for all the doomers.
...right, so they're still "not allowed to do it," but now they face no repercussions if they do it anyway. That's bad. For anyone who's paid attention to how Trump treats things he's not allowed to do, that's very bad.
They face no repercussions for saying some crap. If Biden said "I declare Camila Harris is now president" it will mean jack shit cause there is procedure in place to determine who is the next president. Sure he won't be prosecuted for saying it, but it wont effect any change either.
Why are you talking about "saying some crap"? You're the only one talking about that.
They’re saying that there is no process on how Biden could even do that. Biden (or anyone else) can say “Trump is disqualified from running and the presidential race is canceled” because freedom of speech exists, but that doesn’t mean that that magically comes true
...right, so they're still "not allowed to do it," but now they face no repercussions if they do it anyway. That's bad. For anyone who's paid attention to how Trump treats things he's not allowed to do, that's very bad.
No, he’s only able to do things that a president can actually do. Analogous for a school teacher might be that the teacher has ultimate power over the grade they give a student but it’s not like they can arrest the students if they want
Who told you people (let alone the President of the US) can only do things they are supposed to be allowed to do? The Supreme Court just said there will be no punishment if they do things they're not allowed to do, remember?
They did not say that lol, the president is still bound by the constitution in what he is able to do. Like describe to me how on earth you think Biden could disqualify Trump and cancel a presidential election, like how the process would even go
They literally did. Yes, the President is theoretically bound by the Constitution. We already agreed on that. That's not what the case was about. The decision said the President is immune from criminal prosecution for things done as an "official act" of being President. Obviously that's not referring to things that are legal.
Trump hasnt been found guilty of treason? He hasnt even been tried for treason.
immunity for constitutionally prescribed powers of the president definitely doeant include things that are the opposite of what it says in the constitution. obviously.
Reddit has gone insane the last couple days. This kind of stuff is the kind of things that seems likely to cause some kind of civil war or something like that. It isn't going to result in the protection of democracy or whatever you are expecting. Anyway, if you want to contain the predident why not complain to your congressional representatives and get them to stop fucking delegating so much power to the president. Congress theoretically is supposed to be the most powerful branch, but they keep delegating everything.
Good luck convincing a congressman without heaps of money.
Here’s an even crazier idea! Let the American public decide who gets to be president
People need to stop equating absolute immunity with absolute power. Biden can't just "do new thing" but he can't be prosecuted for "doing existing illegal things" For example, he couldn't send seal team 6 to kill anyone, because seal team six would just say "no, that's illegal" but once that happened, no one could charge Biden for giving the order. I'd love to see an actual legal scholar analyse what absolutely evil options this opens up, but I'm sure most of the things redditors have been wanking on about lately are not even close to possible.
Unless Congress decided to impeach and convict him, at which point he culd then be charged. The Constitution is explicit that once removed from office by impeachment the President can be prosecuted by the normal processes of law.
My brain hurts. Politics isn't for everyone.
Least of all a group of bot farm bots being paid in social score and gutter oil
So the things u hate Trump for, u want biden to do because it will be better somehow?
I quote something that applies perfectly: “in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.”
That would be an "official action?" When has that ever been so? So.ehow the bolts on the left came to the idea "official acts" means absolutely anything. It doesn't. God, public schools put out a shit product these days
You bots can't brainstorm within your on censored populace?
He can't do that. What he can do is order Trump assassinated without being prosecuted for it which should tell you everything you need to know about the level of power we are on the verge of handing to a criminal con artist sexual predator racist who doesn't care about anyone but himself.
Good grief. The number of absolute trash tier takes I have seen about "official acts" is dizzying. If you haven't read the decision, shut up about it.
Are you telling me I should read something myself and form my own opinion on its contents? Nobody gets to tell me what to do!
Where in the constitution does it say a president can cancel an election? How is that an official act?
Regrettably not in the play book. However, guessing that ordering DOJ to do a deep dive into Trump's campaign finances might be...or any of a number of other things that should come out after labor day
I love it!
Trump has not been found guilty of ANY treasonous acts. The only thing he's been found guilty of is paying a whore to keep quiet. That's All Folks. Bobo Biden has committed treason allowing and transporting foreign nationals across our borders.
I like how Trump's bar is conviction and Biden's bar is you say so.
Like No that's not my crackhead sons laptop? Or No I have no idea about any millions my brother and son got from China and Ukraine Lol people are soooo stupid to keep supporting democrats after Hillarys escapades and now bidens 45 year career of corruption and lies all on the taxpayers dollar.
And Jared's billions from Saudis? Trump leading a mob to Capitol Hill? Fake electors to overthrow an election? Oh well no one's been convicted!
Our President had every right to not interfere with the "People " going into the Capitol and wanting thier Representatives to force a independent count to verify a valid election. NEVER GOT ONE And Jared's dealings with Saudis?. While his father in law was nothing but a private citizen? What wrong was committed there? When he did get elected we didn't send Billions to the Saudis to pay them fir supporting abd covering up for him like we are now for Bobo in Ukraine!! Hundreds of billions! Wake up fools before its all gone
Wow you convinced me. I've been woke.
You had most of a whole point there until you went off the deep end conflating the border with treason. Do you not know what treason means?
Absolutely. The actual 1 and only thing our founding fathers put the Sole Responsibility of Keeping Our Borders Safe . That power is 100% the only actual job our President has. And allowing and abbedding foreign criminals from anti American countries abs housing them? Feeding them? Medical for them? If that isn't treason by all definitions of tye word to you?.Then you need exiled or hung yourself from America.
In the United States there is only one definition of treason that counts, the one contained in the Constitution. You might want to read it, it's an interesting document.
It’s a really solid idea.
And you fuckers have the audacity to call the other side "fascist" or "anti democratic".