Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#371

Post by awb »

kemotep wrote: post #310

My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…

On paper it makes sense. The people elect a congress charged with checking the powers of the President. States can also pass constitutional amendments to further limit or define the powers of the President.

In reality, power can be consolidated to the point where these checks and balances no longer work properly.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#372

Post by bsimpson »

davidw wrote: post #347
citizen_friend wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yeah, we've been hearing the "alarmist" thing for 8 years now. "Roe is settled law, stop being hysterical".

Part of this is abdication and dysfunction of the government overall. As I remember it, the argument was that Roe was based on faulty caselaw. If so, I have no problem with it being overruled, but I then expect Congress to pass the correct law to take its place.

The problem isn't that Roe was overturned - it's that our legislative system is so dysfunctional that law is being settled in the other branches of government.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#373

Post by mandmandam »

InTheArena wrote: post #301
whatever1 wrote: post #160

I understand why during their presidency the president needs to be immune (so that they can focus on their executive duties instead of spending their day in the court). But AFTER the end of their (last) term why not be held accountable for their actions?

Because they will stay in power rather than face accountability (real or imagined) for their actions (legitimate or illegitimate). See Caesar, J and the fall of the Roman Republic.

That logic is so twisted though.

"The President might ignore laws on term limits, so we need to make laws that say he can't be held responsible for his actions".

That's clearly insane.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#374

Post by Empact »

margalabargala wrote: post #92
lapcat wrote: post #65

> 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.

> 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. What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. Thus, ord…

> What part of the Constitution are we ignoring?

Drone strikes on foreign targets are most analogous to the historical practice of issuing “letters of marque and reprisal,” which allowed private actors (privateers) to act on behalf of the state to take out pirates.

Issuing such letters is an enumerated power of Congress, not the Presidency. So if the President does so unilaterally, they are acting outside their Constitutional authority.

The risks of abuse to military power are real and significant, which is why the power was placed in the body closest to the people - so that such actions would be consistent with the public will.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#375

Post by chucke1992 »

jimbokun wrote: post #364
grotorea wrote: post #268

It's interesting that even in the Roman Republic the immunity ended after the end of your term, and you could be prosecuted for official acts taken during it. And even let to Caesar fighting to keep himself in office at all times to avoid inevitable prosecution. https://theconversation.com/from-caesar-to-trump-immunity-is...

[flagged]

Aside Roman empire not being the original fascists, the fact that you portray the roman empire with its thousand years history as fascists is a twitter level take.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#376

Post by theshrike79 »

lapcat wrote: post #65

> 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.

So the US shouldn't be able to conduct any kind of military operations against any country they haven't declared war on?

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#378

Post by GreedIsGood »

afavour wrote: post #8

I'm dismayed by this ruling but I'm curious: can someone defend it? I'm able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I'm just not seeing the counterpoint?

Prosecutors have wide ranging discretion, our laws are complex and subject to a tremendous amount of interpretation.

Without protection the executive would be at the mercy of the judicial branch. This is clearly an inversion of power.

Perhaps the solution is clean out our legal system wholesale so that it is obvious to all involved whether an action or set of actions could not result in prosecution in the future. Such an action was not within the power of the supreme court.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#379

Post by riskable »

jimbob45 wrote: post #319
afavour wrote: post #8

I'm dismayed by this ruling but I'm curious: can someone defend it? I'm able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I'm just not seeing the counterpoint?

Impeachment is the intended vehicle for presidential punishment.

That's irrelevant since the SCOTUS ruling is all about what happens after a president is no longer president.

Impeachment only applies to a sitting president. Not one who is no longer in office.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#380

Post by InTheArena »

mandmandam wrote: post #373
InTheArena wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they will stay in power rather than face accountability (real or imagined) for their actions (legitimate or illegitimate). See Caesar, J and the fall of the Roman Republic.

That logic is so twisted though. "The President might ignore laws on term limits, so we need to make laws that say he can't be held responsible for his actions". That's clearly insane.

This would not fall under the official powers that he has?
Post reply on HN