961–970 of 1001 posts
The reality with this ruling is it will embolden future presidents to do things that are to their advantage even if they think those actions may be illegal. Presidents don't need more protection from people. We the people need more protection from them.
And we have it: 2nd Amendment, isn’t it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided there was no question that Mr. Trump enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted for one of those methods: his efforts to strong-arm the Justice Department into validating his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud. That was…
You mean like Obama assassinating a US citizen?
---------
To justify the Awlaki killing, Barron relies heavily on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the law that Congress passed to permit striking al-Qaeda post-September 11th, and which was used to justify the US-led investigation of Afghanistan.
Awlaki, according to Barron, was a leader in al-Qaeda's Yemen-based branch, which is known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The intelligence supporting this claim is redacted from the memo. But Barron claims that, because Congress authorized using "necessary and appropriate force" against al-Qaeda, the AUMF would thus give the US legal cover to target Awlaki.
"In consequence," Barron concludes, "the operation should be understood to constitute the lawful conduct of war and thus to be encompassed by the public authority justification." He also writes that the AUMF argument makes the killing justifiable under international law as a defensive use of force.
One possible counter-argument is that this is unconstitutional: the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits the killing of US citizens without due process of law. Barron argues that this case is an exception because capturing Awlaki was impossible — for reasons that are again redacted. If capturing Awlaki was "unfeasible," as Barron says, then killing him to prevent him from threatening the US becomes the only option.
---------
You may disagree with that interpretation of the law, but it seems — given that Obama was not prosecuted for this action — that the legal system does not agree with your disagreement.
Now the point is moot, since any president can order up the killing of anyone they like, because there is no longer a consequence for criminal behaviour. If you think the al-Awlaki killing was unlawful, I hope that you are gravely concerned by the fact that administrations no longer need to even attempt the appearance of complying with the law.
1: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/23/5835602/anwar-al-awlaki-memo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the best way I've heard it put. The United States was founded to escape rulers who were above the law, and the Constitution was created to protect it. For the justices who claim to be primarily driven by the constitution to make this ruling seems bizarre, and it's hard for me to see it in any other way than partisan bias. The president does not need this power and protection. The past 2 years are the first ti…
> Presidents do not need protection from the people, the people need protection from presidents. I know this sounds good but is it true? I've never needed protection from the president but presidents are occasionally shot at and sometimes killed. Presidents need the secret service because they do, in fact, need protection from the people.
The reality with this ruling is it will embolden future presidents to do things that are to their advantage even if they think those actions may be illegal. Presidents don't need more protection from people. We the people need more protection from them.
> We the people need more protection from them. And we have it: 2nd Amendment, isn’t it?
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…
This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided there was no question that Mr. Trump enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted for one of those methods: his efforts to strong-arm the Justice Department into validating his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud. That was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s consistent with the philosophy that States should curtail the powers of the President through constitutional amendments. It’s a strict constructionist interpretation, where the judiciary shouldn’t fix problems that the people, congress and States have the power to fix. In the example of the President (Commander in Chief) directing the military to thwart political enemies, I think a strict constructionist…
I thought the strict constructionist arguments fell apart when the dissent quoted the Constitution which says even if a president is impeached, they “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7 I don't see how any interpretation of this text could imply that the president is immune from criminal prosecution. It clearly says a president i…
> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
So I think the intended process is that congress must impeach and convict first, and then after that they are subject to criminal prosecution.
So I’m guessing that the Federal government or US State can’t unilaterally prosecute the President for an official act if they haven’t been impeached.
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…
As someone living in Geemany my bar for auch high level laws is: would Adolf Hitler have been able to use it to abolish democracy? If so it is bad. IMO the US president was already too powerful since the cold war, but this is crazy.
Look at Trumps actions during COVID. Did he use the crisis to grab power? Declare a state of emergency? Declare martial law? Suspend habeas corpus?
No he told the states to handle it.
The real fear Americans have isn't a Hitler situation, but a Hindenburg situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wrote the document defining the currently longest running continuous government in the world. Is the Constitution perfect? No. But it's still fair to call them geniuses for what they accomplished. Also, you are arguing the Founders interpretation of the Constitution is the same as the current Supreme Court. I'm not sure they would agree, but there's no way we can ever know.
The Founding Fathers created a government that: - Led to a bloody civil war that was the most deadly war in human history (until WWI), over 600,000 Americans dead, just ~75 years later; - Largely wiped out the indigenous people of North America; - Enshrined chattel slavery; - Denied the right to vote to women (and in fact all non-white people); and - Has been involved in, responsible for and/or complicit with many co…
It was up to the states to decide who could vote. So depending on the state you had woman voters [1].
[1]: https://www.nps.gov/articles/voting-rights-in-nj-before-the-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone seems to be calling this "blanket immunity" but that's not right. It's immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically the president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal. This doesn't mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.
"The president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal." "Such a problem this thing called 'law' that people made, doesn't let me govern. If only i could do everything i want without having to concern myself with such petty things." I can't believe this is the type of argument people are using to defend this abysmal situation. The US should have investe…