Crosswords0 min ago
Supreme Court Gives Us Presidents (Limited) Immunity In Criminal Acts In A 6 – 3 Majority Ruling
Already, Trumps lawyers have asked for his 34 felony convictions to be set aside based on the fact that elements of his criminal activity (for which he was convicted) were perpetrated while he was president.
If a US president was to thwart the transfer of power (following defeat at an election) which would be deemed as an official act, the president could not be prosecuted.
In the USA, everyone is equal before the law; just that some are more equal than others.
It looks like the USA really is about to become a Banana Republic.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So it seems six members of the US Supreme Court are not too well versed with the US Constitution and its legal system then.
nope - they are 'originalists' - they believe ( and were appt because) that the constitution is to be interpreted according to the founding fathers' wishes in 1790
erm yes - there is nothing like that in England
10:29, no he couldn't stop it with the idiotic BS. It would have to be a proper opperation for reasons of national security under the constitution. The constitution itself ensures the rights of the population and that is cemented by at least the first 10 amendments. I suggest you put down the Karl Marx tome and read up on the US constitution and it's amendments. This ruling just means that a president is immune from prosecution when doing his job. No different from a when plod is immune from speeding when chasing bad guys.
The full judgement is at the link below:
https:/
The flaw, I think, in TTT's understanding is that there are, in essence, three parts to this judgement: absolute immunity for all acts under constitutional duties (which is all that TTT seems to address); qualified ("at least presumptive") immunity for all other "official acts"; and unofficial acts.
The key point is then that "official acts" includes actions that go beyond constitutional duties, and could be any action carried out in the name of the Presidency, but is otherwise somewhat vaguely defined. When is a President hiding their personal, ie "unofficial" motives behind some "official" action?
I haven't properly read the judgement, and probably won't get round to doing so any time soon. So I am not going to comment too much on what I think of it. I was surprised, though, when scanning the opinion of the majority, just how critical it is of Trump's broader argument. In essence, his position was that any act of the President would be an official act, and so subject to immunity, in effect because the President did it. The majority rejected this position (unsurprisingly, because it's completely incoherent). It's therefore unfortunate that he's been able to cast the ruling as a victory. It's also worth bearing in mind that the case against Trump that prompted this particular judgement concerns a scheme that (allegedly) involved attempting to overturn the 2020 result by calling up alternative electors who would replace the ones that people actually voted for. Put more simply, Trump is alleged to have attempted a coup that would have entirely ignored the Election result. In that sense, it is worth bearing mind that Trump's defence is not that "this isn't true", but rather "as President I have absolute immunity and there is therefore nothing to stop me from arranging a coup".
toratoratora
the ruling makes the president immune from federal criminal law in the discharge of his duties. he can now quite literally command things which are completely illegal and not face prosecution (although his subordinates may well face prosecution if they obey oddly). the president now has the right to do things which are completely illegal so long as they are carried out in his capacity as president. the "checks and balances" have been obliterated.
All they have done is confirm what has been present since the constitution was drawn up. Applies to all Presidents, past and future.
The constution is so designed that extremist (and Royalist at the time) could not hijack the US, again thats the reason for the right to bear arms.
But of course the Communists dont like it when the law is pointed out to them do they?
Need a new J Edgar and McCarthy to root them out, then perhaps they can come here.
I have to say, the TDS is alive and well licking in some on this thread, perhaps they should take a step back and re-read the tripe they are writing?
the ruling does not apply to presidents only while they are in office they also cannot be prosecuted for things they have done while president after they leave office. so in fact they have effectively created a kingly position in the US constitution--a public servant who is above the law no matter how much they insist otherwise.
if a president cannot be prosecuted for committing federal crimes in an official capacity then what is to stop him from having a political opponent murdered?
i'm afraid this can't be shelved now douglas... US presidents have always been assumed to be accountable to the law which is why nixon resigned. the powerful office in the world has just been given carte blanche to do whatever it wants, basically. and all because this narcissist refuses to admit he lost the 2020 election. what a cancer this man is.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.