Maybe we can stop acting like the Founding Fathers were political geniuses. They created a system where the only real recourse against a president is political, and a political system where political recourse is essentially impossible. A two party system is the logical conclusion of a first past the post voting system, which they have created. It is a bug, and fixing it is also effectively impossible.
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
241–250 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
My naive assumption is that ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival is not an official nor constitutionally authorized power, and thus would be prosecutable.
Article II of the constitution specifically gives the POTUS the authority to command the armed forces. The limit is declaring war, which is vested in Congress. So it seems reasonable that commanding Seal Team 6 is specifically a constitutionally authorized power and within an official duty.
commanding seal team 6 to assassinate a sitting head of state is a act of war, and only congress can declare war.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#243>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. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…
in practice, not really much of a change. Did FDR stand trial for interning Japanese people? Ok, ok he died too soon. Would he have ?
He very likely should have at least been tried (and probably acquitted). I don't understand this modern take so many people have that "Freedom to act" somehow means "act without consequences".
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
My naive assumption is that ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival is not an official nor constitutionally authorized power, and thus would be prosecutable.
Article II of the constitution specifically gives the POTUS the authority to command the armed forces. The limit is declaring war, which is vested in Congress. So it seems reasonable that commanding Seal Team 6 is specifically a constitutionally authorized power and within an official duty.
Being killed by the government without due process of law (ie: death penalty for convicted criminals) is a clear violation of your constitutional rights though, and violating someone's constitutional rights (read: going against the constitution) can't be an official act by definition.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. You want a President to be able to carry out the roles of the office without concern that his or her political opponents will use the courts to try to punish those actions. There are reasonable disagreements on where Presidential authority begins or ends on many topics, and you want the limits to be either through separation of powers (e.g., the Judicial Branch can bring an end to actions, the Legislative can i…
The court never defined what are or aren’t official acts and it should be straight forward for the president to say that spying on his enemies, that are also the enemies of the state/government, is an official act, as they are protecting the constitution from those that would do it harm. Presidents are effectively kings now, won’t be long until one declares himself one for good.
> it should be straight forward for the president to say that spying on his enemies, that are also the enemies of the state/government, is an official act
This would be challenged in court by the victims of the President's spying, and the court would ultimately decide whether or not the spying constituted an "official act".
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#246Hmm. Here in the Czech Republic, the president is immune to prosecution during his tenure, but can be prosecuted afterwards for illegal acts that weren't committed during performance of his duties.
During tenure, he can only be impeached for anti-constitutional acts, and the only punishment if found guilty is removal from office.
All in all, it sounds quite similar to this SCOTUS ruling, but of course, the consequences for the world are mitigated by the fact that globally, our president is a very, very small player.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#247> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much. The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time.
Then, what are american solidiers doing in Jordan dying out there. The reality is that we are sending troops using loopholes, and that's costing such unnecessary complexity.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? If you're referring to Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son, both US citizens, it was intentional . If you're not referring to this, Obama's already done this without getting charged. Being POTUS is an unenviable job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Edit: Since people are assuming my views on this topic, I'll say th…
I keep seeing this argument pop up about “should Obama be prosecuted” like it’s some sort of “gotcha liberal!” And as a liberal I think “hell YES he should be prosecuted!” The government shouldn’t just go around killing citizens without due process. I don’t care what letter is by their name.
I hear the same shit a lot. IRL, and in right wing media. “They don’t seem to get that if they can prosecute Trump, we can prosecute Biden and Hillary for [any of several shaky charges]”
No, no: we do get that. We just think that’s a good thing. If you have the evidence (you don’t, or we’d have seen, like, any of it at all) then by all means, prosecute the absolute shit out of them!
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#249Perhaps the simple solution is that all presidents should serve 15 years in jail after serving their term. Then only extremely socially minded people would dare to do the job. There was a similar sci fi story I read. At the end of a war the rule was that all allied ( not enemy ) generals would be executed. The idea was that war was such a horrible concept that to lead one would require extreme sacrifice and social co…
One of the alien species in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Rama has this rule. The octospiders.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#250Now that this has been cleared up by the courts, I want to ask. Is it even possible for the President to break the law? What would that look like?
Sotomayor laid out some examples in her dissent, such as assassinating political rivals, staging a coup and taking bribes for favours.