Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
As usual, nobody is saying Trump didn't break all the laws he broke, they're just claiming that he should be allowed to get away with them.
They threw in a few things that had nothing to do with the case before them, as well, didn't they? Something to do with not being allowed to use government documents in court to prove intent, or something.
People are convicted of felony falsifying business records all the time, about 100 times a year in NY, if I recall correctly.
People are convicted for misrepresenting hush money payments.
People are put away for a long time for taking government documents, let alone going on to lie about having them, refusing to return them all, lying about having returned them all, showing national security documents to random journalists (while telling them, on tape, how he hadn't declassified them as president) although the lies about how the FBI was supposedly willing to kill him and his family (who were out of state) aren't actionable.
Then there's the whole conspiracy to overturn the election including the fake electors scheme, the Jan 6 attack, and the oath breaking lawmakers who were going to go along with it. That one's never been prosecuted before because nobody ever tried it before. (I think at least one concurring justice pointed out that the fake electors would definitely not be an "official act".)
Some of the lawmakers asked for pardons and didn't get them. They should have been asked what they wanted the pardons for, because, like immunity, you don't need it if you've done nothing wrong.
The president of the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, which is behind Project 2025: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."
Using the Insurrection Act would be an "offical act". If there was ever another fair election, only the underlings would face the music, Trump will be home free.
The other thing to remember: nobody expects a Democratic president to need this. Only Republicans.
Trump does not support project 2025. Thanks
Because he’s for agenda 47 …nice try though trying to fear monger people lol
OK, so you're right to say people should fear https://Project2025.org . How come I've never heard of agenda 47? Link?
LMAO: "Although Trump's campaign initially embraced other ideas like Project 2025 as aligned with Agenda 47 proposals. Project 2025 has, as of June 2024, reportedly caused some frustration in the Trump campaign which prefers fewer and more vague policy proposals to limit opportunities for criticism and maintain flexibility"
So, up until a few days ago he did, now people are paying attention, he "doesn't".
Basically: "Whatever you do, don't tell them what we're really planning to do to the country!"
How about a link to video or audio of trump embracing project 2025?
How about a link to video or audio of Trump explicitly rejecting it? Saying he doesn't want to make abortion illegal, pornography illegal, that he'll leave the FBI and DoJ independent? Not re-instate schedule F to make it easy to fire people who aren't loyal to Trump, just the constitution?
Never going to happen, because he's saying that's exactly what he wants to do.
I thought you said he’s for it? If that’s so shouldn’t he be saying he’s for it somewhere on video? He can’t help it if people are stupid and believe every black celebrity who spreads nonsense on TV as if it were gospel …. he's a busy man fighting for the people of this great nation.
Like I said, he's lazy. He's only "busy" delaying his multiple trials. You're saying he's never explicitly rejected https://project2025.org/ .
Your claim was " Trump does not support project 2025. Thanks", remember? I just explained what it is, and that was in one paragraph in 10. You don't want to discuss any of the other paragraphs because you know I'm right.
Not discussing something that Trump isn’t for …. waste of time at least for me. You can keep pushing the narrative…. i would assume that is there goal to get liberals panties in a bunch over it 🤣
Send link and citation. Thanks
Again: why don't you talk about the other 90% of my opinion? But here: www.politico.com/.../project-2025-trump-reagan-00115811
Talk about what exactly? The article mentions no quotes from trump embracing project2025 …. reads like a hit price with no specifics on the WHO ….”his campaign” is not specific lol
You can cherry pick what you want to believe and not believe. Some article says the campaign believes this or that doesn't mean it's true. If it came out of his mouth great lets discuss if not then it's hypothetical... not interested.
Abortion is now under the states and pornography isn’t a real issue lol
Which of these things does Trump say he won't do?
files.mastodon.online/.../45e91a084804ff14.jpeg
Off the top of my head he said in the debate he wouldn't ban abortion because the states are now in charge. I guess he is lying though lol
Yeah I do. You don't. So where do we go from here? Again speculation, hypotheticals do nobody any good.
I am not going through all those sorry... don't have time I get 200 notifications a day I need to siff through. Using military to break up protests that are out of hand Is one I am for... stop those animals from burning down our cities.
that means? If you say so man... you are ridiculous lmao
Sure sick the military on anyone who wants to cause harm. Supreme court ruled religious schools cannot be excluded from govt programs. What does Trump have to do with that? lol
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47
There I fixed that for you since you!
There is the link for everyone who wants to know what Donald J Trump stands for.
"What does Trump have to do with that?" He nominated three of them and, with the help of McConnell, who changed the rules that ensured that justices were not acceptable to just one party, got them confirmed with a bare majority. They all said the president is not above the law and that they'd respect stare decisis during their confirmation hearings. They lied.
If you are constipated in the morning do you also blame that on Trump? LMAO
u My understanding of the decision is that it is not as broad as what your question is suggesting.
"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no
immunity for unofficial acts."
Trump v. United States, (US Sup Ct. 2024)(slip opinion at 1)
Just repeated what Sotomayer said which makes for a juicy question here on GAG ha
That is mostly just a technicality. Being presumed immune is not the same as being presumed innocent, you would need EXTREME evidence to actually make the argument that they are not in fact immune. Furthermore, if you use evidence to prove something is not an official act to remove the presumptive immunity then you are not allowed to use the same evidence again to convict them under an un-official act. In other words you ideally need two sets of incriminating evidence, one to prove something is not an official act and the other to actually convict them and they need to be related.
Realistically speaking, we are never going to see a president being convicted of any crimes as long as this decision is upheld in SCOTUS.
She accused the majority of being partisan but her political leanings were clearly on display. She is just a sore loser! And uugly, too!
"Furthermore, if you use evidence to prove something is not an official act to remove the presumptive immunity then you are not allowed to use the same evidence again to convict them under an un-official act." What is the basis of that claim?
So King Biden would be well within his right to have Trump murdered, impose martial law and suspend the Constitution, dissolve Congress and the Supreme Court and install himself as dictator for life, while having all protesters jailed or killed? Sounds like Putin would love what America could be turned into. He enjoys that kind of immunity and utilizes it regularly. Americans who don't get their candidate elected should live in fear for what the President can do to any dissenters, if elections aren't just canceled as an official act. America could easily be turned into Russia. And they currently have a person running who'd enjoy that kind of immunity as he was constantly thwarted by checks and balances. The founding fathers are probably all rolling in their graves.
Trump 2024 😉
Wrong because it's open to abuse. If you want immunity then you must know what your doing is illegal and immoral. The simple truth is politicians can't be trusted with such powers and will seek to use them to their advantage. You can bet both Trump and Biden will be sitting down with their lawyers to see how far they can push things.
@purplepoppy
News flash Presidents have been sitting down with their lawyers doing precisely that for 200 years.
None of them have ever been charged for any order they have ever given in office or out of office except by Congress.
When they give unlawful orders i is the person who choose to take the order who is held responsible for taking such an unlawful order. That person is charged regularly and even convicted sometimes.
This is how the system has always worked.
@monorprise None of them ever refused to accept the results of an election. None of them were involved in a scheme to overturn an election. None of them (since Nixon, because of whom the law was passed) knowingly took documents and refused to return them, lied about having them, pretended they'd given them all back, only for the FBI to search and find hundreds more in the crapper, showed them, with an audio recording, to journalists while explaining he'd never declassified them as president...
"I'm going to sign this law even though SCOTUS might overturn it" is not the same as "I'm going to pressure election officials to falsify their results", or "I'm going to pressure foreign governments to pretend to investigate my political opponent in exchange for money I'm required to give them", or "I'm going bring a mob to DC to set the scene for an attack on the Capitol".
@goaded Its true no president has ever attempted to ignore an election, in the 20th century with the largest standing army in the world at their command they would probably be successful.
Although countless presidents have tried to overturn the results of elections via legal means.
As for classified documents no president is capable of violating such a law given they are what is known as "original classification authority" in the law, and head of all classification in general under the constitution. Secretes always belonged to the president and exist at the whim of the president. If he says it was unclassified, it was unclassified end of story.
I wouldn't call that phone call to a Georgia state official pressuring, but rather a entirely normal request that takes place all the time in every election recount situation.
Even still States don't take orders. They do not answer to the president meaning they also cannot be pressured by the same.
The Ukrainian conversation and investigation request was literally upholding Federal law as written. It is very illegal in this country to use your power to protect your personal business interest overseas. If you had ever worked in a goverment job you would know this.
The evident at that time showed Joe Biden's Son was being paid large amounts of money by a ukraining company that was about to be investigated by the same man Vice President Joe Biden demanded be fired using his power over Federal Dollars to trainee as collateral.
Joe Biden's demand unlike Trump's request was a very explicit and clear cut quid pro quo that all parties acknowledged was the case.
Unlike the Trump conversation in which No involved party thought it was a demand or quid pro quo.
Sorry in advance, Poppy.
@monorprise "Its true no president has ever attempted to ignore an election"
Not any more. Trump did, via illegal means (and borderline legal means that have got most of his lawyers struck off).
"As for classified documents no president is capable of violating such a law"
Trump is on tape explaining how he didn't declassify the war plans he was showing people with absolutely no security clearance.
"I wouldn't call that phone call to a Georgia state official pressuring, but rather a entirely normal request that takes place all the time in every election recount situation."
No, it's not. It's also illegal.
"The Ukrainian conversation and investigation request was literally upholding Federal law as written."
Trump didn't say what the supposed crime was, because there wasn't one, he just wanted the announcement of an investigation.
All the evidence is that the prosecutor that Biden got fired was fired for NOT investigating Burisma and other corrupt companies. It was also supported by the World Bank, the EU, and others. The guy was a crook.
While we're at it, the "witnesses" against Biden turned out to be one Russian agent, one Chinese agent, and a convicted criminal.
@goaded
A: If trump had ignored an election and remained in power he would still be there and not be running for office. Congress by maintaining a large centralized standing army there is NOTHING that would stop a president from simply doing whatever he wants. He need only replace any officer that disagrees with him. So obviously he didn't illegally ignore an election.
B: If such a tape exist you would have to prove that Trump is lying under oath rather than lying to a dishonest reporter as he frequently does. That's not a believable case. Which is why you don't bother prosecuting people for un-proveable 'crimes' they would have to intentionally commit with zero gain. That is basically wasting everyone's time and resources while hanging your 'conviction' on the idea that you know a man's mind better than he does. Which is not believable as such there is no legitimate conviction from such a trial.
C: Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment of the federal constitution and Article 1 Section 1 Paragraph 5 of the Georgia Constitution. There can legitimately exist no such 'crime' in a mere conversation, even if the only parties of the conversation agreed with you on what they were saying to each-other (they don't). Only actions.
E: Trump wanted an investigation of crowdstrike and the prosecutors firing which Joe Biden bragged about as it related to Biden's finances. I just looked at the so call transcript there is nothing wrong with this conversation it is perfectly legitimate and expected of a man who's job is to insure the laws are faithfully executed:
www.cbsnews.com/.../
@monorprise Clearly there were things that kept Trump from succeeding, which is why Project2025 is designed to get rid of the kind of people who will keep their oath to the Constitution over their loyalty to the president.
I don't think Trump has ever testified under oath, he certainly never will, because his lawyers know he will perjure himself. I've heard the tape. The fact that you say you haven't is just proof that you don't want to know facts.
Asking someone to break the law for you is a conspiracy to break the law if just one of you takes any step towards the crime. The crime doesn't even have to take place.
CrowdStrike, the Texas business? I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
"The [Trump] White House acknowledged that this is not a full, verbatim transcript of the controversial call."
Did you notice that Trump said the other day that he knew Putin's "dream" was to take Ukraine?
I've said all along that Trump had a hand in the invasion of Ukraine. He's being saying he could stop it in one day since day one. How can he do that if he's not already in cahoots with Putin?
@goaded Nothing kept trump from successfully engineering a coup, any general or officer who refused orders would simply be replaced with one who was willing to do so. Lincoln did exactly this to carry out his traitorous invasion of the south.
This is the unfortunate nature of executive power and why a standing army is soo dangerous. The only one who can practical stand up to the president is the executives of the states who don't take such commands and only if there are enough of them with enough military force to defeat the forces the president could command directly.
In the case of Lincoln he was able to call upon the Northern States while the states that didn't agree either tried to remain neutral like Kentucky and Missouri or joined the other side like Virginia.
So no nothing prevents any president from doing just that in an age where he commands the largest and most powerful standing army in the world.
@goaded
The tapes I saw had Trump ask nothing unusual much-less illegal of the Georgia official who didn't work for him. It really wasn't even a request but more of a mere a mission statement, the same one made all the time.
As for the idea of there being a law against mere speech, I don't dispute that many imperial despotism in our governments like to pretend there is nothing they can outlaw but legitimately there is no such law against asking someone to do anything. YOU are responsible for your own actions no matter who suggested you should do it.
You may be confusing this with laws where you coherse someone into doing something which of course requires the ordering party holds some kind of power over the other and at least one party claiming that was the case. Neither of which is true in this case Trump holds no such power over any elected official much-less a State official. Neither Trump nor the State official understood the conversation that way.
So the people suggesting otherwise are being extremely dishonest in claiming to understand a conversation they were not even apart of in a way that isn't even plausible given the position of the parties.
@purplepoppy
Since when does Trump not claim he could do anything? I don't think Trump could stop the Invasion of the Ukraine in one day, but I do believe it would never have happened if Joe Biden had not been installed into office in 2021.
Putin didn't do anything during the Trump years because trump was both too unpredictable and kept energy prices too low to finance Russian military activities. Trump also didn't demonstrate gross administrative incompetents in the Afghanistan withdraw. Letting the Taliban take over the country at speed during the fighting season unopposed before our own people could get out.
Biden Not only delayed the withdraw until a season of the year where the poorly build roads in Afghanistan were good enough for large scale military activity for the Taliban's 17th century military activity. Biden didn't even have an aircraft carrier ready to bomb the Taliban back to the stone age to buy our own ground troops time to withdraw.
All of that shows you Biden not only isn't a deep thinker he doesn't surround himself or listen to those who are. As such would be expected to do the same in opposing any Russian activity.
@monorprise Liar! "The tapes I saw..." were both audio. Trump knew the military would refuse to obey illegal orders, something Lincoln didn't have to contend with (although your representation of events is obviously confederate bullshit). Trump kept them out of the attack for as long as he could. The attackers knew they couldn't fire a shot or the national guard would be there in minutes, orders or not. They take their oath to the constitution seriously, unlike Trump.
@monorprise Oh, crap, it's the "you don't live here, so you can't read" defence. In the 19th century, soldiers were expected to follow even illegal orders. If Trump had tried to order the army to support the rioters in 2020, they'd have refused, and if he'd found someone who tried to issue those orders, they'd have been refused. He knew that, the best he could do was avoid ordering in the national guard for three hours or so, while his VP was in danger.
You know the only reason Trump's looking for a new VP is that he wanted the previous one to be hanged, right?
@goaded Once again read what I wrote, "If you want to involve yourself in American Politics you should learn more about our Constitution, history, and culture."
Has nothing to do with where you live thou legally you shouldn't be involved in our politics at all being a foreigner in a forign land.
I hate to break it to you but even today most soldures are expected to follow orders regardless of what they think. Instead they are told to resign if they think its illegal to make room for those willing to do it anyway or not think about it.
This is the nature of military structure even more so today than it was then. Sorry your conspiracy theories ignore this reality. It is in fact anther group the people who spin such theory hate known as the "oath keepers" who are trying to educate said officers in following the law as written.
If you buy this nonsense you proably also buy the idea that oath keepers are somehow terrorist. Which again is just more lies by people who don't like the idea of not having unquestioned obedence.
Regardless you can count on the army mostly following orders for this reason. This is how it REALLY works in practice today by design.
Post-civil war the feds even rotate the army constantly so that the solders would never develop any sympathy or loyalty to the people of America they might be asked to attack. Which is why soo many of them refused to attack them at Linclon's orders.
Again this is our history it already happened, and still happens on a small scale in small ways today.
@goaded You read between the lines incorrectly, I don't think you understand the history or context of the situation and people.
As for freespeech I am all for free speech and even willing to indulge your political bantering. I didn't say I agree its a legitimate federal law banning your debating, as I said countless times before there are no exceptions to the 1st amendments ban on such federal laws.
Your also not inside this country so even if there was the feds have no jurisdiction. But really what your doing with theses posts is no different than what the Russians are accused of doing in 2020. Just like the Chinese actually have been doing to a far larger scale for decades.
I am not an Oath Keeper, I don't work in the relevant area even If I wanted to be. But their original mission statement of keeping the oath is literally what the constitution requires.
The people who don't like that simply want unquestioned obedience as to effectively free themselfs from having to make a broadly accepted constitutional case among the other elected officials with the same exact oath.
Those people are anti-constitutional imperialist.
Opinion
21Opinion
It's critical that the President can do what's required of the Office of the President without fear of prosecution. The US Constitution basically says that, and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) just confirmed that.
Without that, Truman could be prosecuted for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nixon for Vietnam, both Bushes for Iraq, and Obama for bin Laden, just to name a few. It's likely that every President has done something questionable while in office... yes, even Biden... deporting asylum seekers?
Those things would be covered under international law. Being immune in your own country wouldn't grant you the same right internationally.
Which is why most Presidents could, without the protection of the U. S. Constitution, have ended up in The Hague charged for war crimes.
Hey coach, and those statements were made by the Liberal justices on the COURT....
We are REALLY IN DEEP SHIT, COACH, WITH SUPREME COURTS JUSTICES MAKING IRRESPONSIBLE, TOTALLY STUPIDS STATEMENTS LIKE THAT... GOD HELP US COACH WTF ARE WE GOING TO DO?
The President would have some immunity, not anything remotely what those two two stupid ass hole liberal justices suggested, AND THEY KNOW IT !!!
What a terrible shame, Coach!
Yeah but makes for a juicy conversation here on GAG though lol 😂
Yeah, this was a really bad SCOTUS decision. As one of the dissenting judges said, USA no longer has a president, it now has a king above the law. Of course it technically is not absolute but it may as well be for how wide open the door for abuse is. Its almost impossible to now convict a president unless they themselves sets it up and allows themselves to be convicted.
Well King Trump 2024 😜
The honesty of the dissenting "judges" leave much to be desired. The ruling simply recognizes a fact that is true of almost every goverment.
When acting in your official capacity as head of state your have something called sovereign immunity, and this is not just The president but every state governor as well. A fact we passed the 11th amendment to protect.
The caveat is official capacity, if a president gives illegal orders then the one who follows said orders is responsible for violating the law in following them. This is why you go after secretary of states and agents.
The limits on Presidential powers come from those who carry out presidential orders, not the president himself who would never be charged regardless for there is nobody to charge him except congress.
It is in congress of course that this power rest excursively.
@monorprise USA is set up to have 3 branches of government that limits the others to prevent abuse, corruption and dictatorship. The SCOTUS is part of one, the president is part of another. The whole system was designed so that SCOTUS (and the law) WOULD limit and suppress the president. That is literally the whole point of the current system and now SCOTUS removed this foundational control on power.
Other countries might have a similar protection on their kings and presidents but it is balanced with other means of control to prevent abuse. The problem is not strictly the immunity, the problem is that the system was not designed to allow for that in the first place which now gives a straight path to dictatorship.
And no, relying on those who follow the presidents orders to "follow the law" is stupid especially when you consider the fact that the president has the power to pardon anyone of federal crimes. You also have institutions like the military which has historically followed illegal orders given to them and has the ability to overthrow the rest of the government easily enough.
USA is now primed for a dictatorial takeover. All the pieces has been set up and it only takes a president to give it the go-ahead to end American democracy forever. If you think that this is something that exist commonly among other developed countries then you are insane.
@Syntosi
The court does limit the power of the executive in refusing to convict anyone the executive charges. The court however is NOT the executive and cannot command the executive or legislator for that matter or there would be 1 branch of goverment rather than 3 with the court simply telling the others what they must do.
That is the difference, Sovereign immunity is a critical limit upon the power of the court to keep it from commanding the other 2 branches by confining it into the reactive role of deciding guilt in cases of law.
If you allow anyone to bring the executive or legislator for that matter before the court, then the court can deem the same 'guilty' of whatever they charge and in doing so command both the executive and legislator.
@Syntosi
The U. S. was primed for a military dictatorship the moment Congress decided to maintained a standing army. As apposed to honoring the 2 year limit of Article 1 section 8 clause 12 and instead maintaining the standing force in the form of the militia under Article 1 Section 8 clause 15 & 16. The propose of which was to keep such power largely divided among 50 states rather than 1 man.
One of the original proposes of the 2nd amendment was in fact to keep the same congress from using their clause 15 power to disarm the militia.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_a1sec8-html/
Beyond that the President really doesn't legitimately have much of a domestic force to abuse certainly nothing compared to the armies of police and militia of the States. The same States who also run the election.
With such a force there has never been anything beyond a lack of funds from the legislator and cooperation from the judiciary (he appoints) to really stop a president from doing what he wants. Both of which can be bypassed in the short term. Many Presidents Including Lincoln actually demonstrated this fact.
As it happens this is why the presidential system doesn't work so well on a smaller scale without powerful states, it really does give the executive and their goverment that kind of power.
There is nothing you can really do about that given the presidents practical power to hire and replace any officer of said standing army at will, and do so far faster than any court or legislator can object.
Remember Congress already gave always its check when it voted to maintain a large centralized standing army (both civil and military) under the president's sole command.
In practice only the executives of the State's are able to act quickly enough to stand up to such a president, and only if they between them have military superiority.
@monorprise This is so stupid. The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret and apply the law and constitution. That includes applying them onto the other branches of government. The limit on the judicial branches power is not in limiting its reach but rather that they do not have the power to write new legislation themselves. They can only interpret and apply legislation that the legislative branch has written and voted on as well as the constitution.
Giving the president legal immunity literally undermines the separation of powers and puts the judicial branch under the executive branch. If the judicial branch can't directly limit the executive branch then it can't be a co-equal branch which by definition means it is inferior.
You do realize this right? That the 3 branches of government was made so that any one branch could be stopped by both the others. That means that yes, the Judicial branch must have the power to bring any other branch into a court of law and bring them down. The limitation that prevents dictatorship within the Judicial branch is that they can only apply the law as its written by others and as such they can't make independent decisions themselves.
You really dont understand how any of this works now do you?
Also it really does not matter how much manpower the militias and police has. What makes the military so good at coups is their much better organization and ability to act decisively. A general could call upon a few hundred soldiers and go butcher the house and senate in a matter of hours. The states and militias can't respond to that before its far too late at which point the coup has already succeeded and captured control over the functions of government. At that point you only really have two options, either fight a civil war against the military and without your own leadership or you give up and accept that the country has been usurped through legal means.
@Syntosi
The propose of the judicial branch is to try cases of law, they like every oath taking branch and level of goverment have only a shared responsibility to interpret the constitution insofar as their actions.
To give them any more power would in effect make them dictators in using their command OVER the constitution to command the other 2 branches and levels of goverment as absolute oligarchs.
The constitution is enforced via a system known as "checks and balances" meaning all 3 branches and levels of goverment have to agree to cooperate in their respective roles an act is constitutional.
@Syntosi
The president having legal immunity from suites does not entitled him to disregard due process of law and just shoot rather than arrest & charge people. So the court still gets to veto any such action. Likewise the president can do none of this without the laws and money of the legislator. So congress also gets the first say.
@monorprise What are you talking about? The SCOTUS is THE body that interprets the constitution. That is literally their one real job. Every other branch is acting on the interpretation of the constitution set by SCOTUS. And no, that does not mean that the SCOTUS commands the constitution since they are not allowed to change what is written in it, that right is given to either the states or congress if I remember correctly.
And yes, having immunity does mean that they can disregard due process. Like seriously, what are they going to do against you? They can't say you broke any laws because they dont apply and they can't use anything you did as evidence because it is protected. It is a complete legal dead-end.
@Syntosi The Constitution does not give SCOTUS a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, nor did they even really claim such in the supply "landmark" case Madison vs Marbury (1803) where the court supposedly gave itself this power, it didn't really as Marbury despite the court thinking he was entitled to it naturally never got his writ.
The reason is quite simple, Madison who was part of Thomas Jefferson's executive branch had an equal right to interpret the Constitution and the court could not force Madison to give Marbury the writ.
So no interpreting the constitution is not the court's job its everyone's job. Frankly as I already pointed out, if any one man or group of men were to have a monopoly on the constitution there would soon be no constitution. The court itself regularly demonstrate this fact when they "redefine" the constitution on a case by case basis.
You can close your eyes and pretend this isn't happening and claim as the court does that they are just somehow "discovering" after 200 years an entirely different meaning to what was agreed to than anyone else. But that is changing the constitution. Like it or not Gay marriage was banned for nearly all of American history in every single state. Until the Federal court issued an edict to the contrary. The same is true of countless other policy choices they have "read" into the document that basically outlaws all prior governments.
So yes they absolutely change the law in fundamental and extreme ways on a case by case basis precisely because MODERN politicians who appointed them are willing to enforce it.
Thus demonstrating it both can and Does happen, without any kind of amendment under this idea.
It's hilarious how so many of you commies don't understand constitutional powers... The Constitution permits Congress to authorize the use of the militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The executive can only utilize military power on American soil, when Congress can't be convened (i. e. DC was nuked). Posse comitatus limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It guarantees the states protection against invasion or usurpation of their “republican form of government,” and, upon the request of the state legislature, against “domestic violence.” as per the Insurrection Acts. This means that all your cabal Presidents like Biden, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Carter, are subject to prosecution for every single one of their crimes, but people like Trump that did their duty while in office by the book are immune to prosecution.
This is NOT immunity from prosecution. It’s immunity while in office but changes nothing in regards to impeachment. There - literally - is a mechanism in place to remove any president from office who is unfit to serve.
Also, anybody who thinks the President could just issue an order to assassinate a political rival to our military and it would be blindly followed knowns neither the UCMJ or the basic tenants of honor instilled in the US Military. No service-member is compelled to follow an unlawful order and in fact they are legally and morally compelled to NOT obey it.
This is nothing but political grandstanding in an attempt to create a boogeyman to vilify. In the absence of real controversy then make one up.
I don't know why people are wetting themselves over this if they think a trumpet will be next. He won't, but they can dream.
Trumpet 2024
Keep dreaming, sir.
Competency 2024
Let’s come back to this question in November see what’s what lol
Yes, Trump can get a Navy seal to kill his adversaries after he gets sworn in next year so these people better think twice.
Oh yeah Trump 2024
I feel this goes against out constitution and puts the president above the law, its to much power for a single man. Lets hope in the future we don't have to relearn the old proverb that absolute power corrupts absolutely. There's just to great a chance for it to be abused.
He will grab a woman by her pussy. He will call a woman horseface, he will have Seal Team 6 assassinate someone he will shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it while the Poorly Educated will still give every dime they got, forgoing putting food on their tablet, paying their mortgage, car payment, and credit card bills (but not the unmarked white envelope of $500 for the Sunday Collection Plate) for this douchebag
What if she has a horse face though? 🤷♂️
Then he can play his pee tapes and read the love letters aloud
What is a pee tape?
Its called sovereign immunity one of the oldest concepts in Government. The President is the State when he is in office acting with his legitimate powers, and can only be sued if he allows it.
We actually passed the 11th amendment to keep the federal goverment from striping state governments of the same sovereign immunity.
I am literally without words. How is that even possible?
it isn't. the asker is just trolling kuz he hated trump. kuz cnn told him to hate.
So the supreme court didn't just grant immunity from official orders? Is that fake news?
@mandyfire98 He's quoting supreme court justice sotomayor so no its not just 'cnn told him to hate' smh
It's terrifying and monarchical. Congress must remedy this and start asserting itself as an equal branch instead of this cuck behavior of WILLINGLY giving power to the other two. First step: TAKE BUDGETING BACK FROM POTUS.
That's not quite so.
Immunity is NOT granted for acts committed during the presidency which are not considered part of being an official duty.
@goaded Yes, a pardon is an official act. In fact, there's a process for it, so it's not willy-nilly and would be documented and in the National Archives eventually (if not in a bathroom at Mar-A-Lago).
The speech at The Ellipse on 06 JAN 2021 may be considered an official act although I don't see how it is.
All the things the dissent described as "immune, immune, immune" really are; otherwise other justices would have disputed it in the finding, if they weren't reasonable descriptions of the law. The president can now safely order someone to break the law, and pardon that person for doing so. That might always have been the case for killing people like bin Laden, but now it includes political opponents.
Here's the thing, SCOTUS just gave themselves the power to say whether something is officially presidential or not. Do you think they'll rule the same way if it's a Democratic POTUS or a Republican POTUS? They don't even have to rule the same way for the same crime; Stare Decisis is dead.
@goaded That what is even a question?
You know, you really ought to listen to the oral arguments and read the transcript of them from this case. It was compelling listening with very good questions and points from all justices.
AUDIO
www.supremecourt.gov/.../23-939
TRANSCRIPT (which is linked on the audio page)
www.supremecourt.gov/.../23-939_f2qg.pdf
This is the actual opinion:
Trump v. United States (23-939)
The nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority; he is also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts; there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
www.supremecourt.gov/.../23-939_e2pg.pdf
That the results of the 2024 presidential election is in doubt.
I've read parts of the decision, it's over 100 pages. One thing to consider is that the dissent regarding immunity for killing political rivals isn't disputed by the majority.
"Imagine a President states in an official speech
that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legis-
lation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (of-
ficial act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that
political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the
murder indictment could include no allegation of the Presi-
dent’s public admission of premeditated intent to support
the mens rea of murder."
And, of course, the president is free to pardon the killer.
"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 as-
sassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military
coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex-
change for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trap-
pings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official
power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one
day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as
bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the
majority’s message today"
Trump delights in using power in new and unexpected ways.
The executive, legislative, and judicial are supposed to have equally weighted power. When the judicial has been politically weaponized by the executive, the senior Judicial had to step in and rule.
who interpreted that way. the court was about specific issues, like taking home homework.
Well, if Biden is truly as psychotic as some people think he is, I'd be scared if I was Trump. Because he was just given a license to kill.
None of what you typed is true.
Sotomayor said it not me!
‘Nuff said.
sotmyer was using a debate tactic, ridicule by extreme, but that is wrong in courts because those aren't the issues.
That's some underworld crooked shit.
Yep, I said it.
Biden can do whatever he wants. He could order Trump's assassination, and it would be legal
No, it wouldn't. Murdering his/her political foes is NOT protecting by the U. S. Constitution.
@handsomelad70 he has immunity for official acts.
@handsomelad70 Yeah that would be legal because using the military or secret service in any capacity is acting in official capacity as president.
It because Demcorate got so radical with elections inference
That what they do claim Republiciams did it then they really do it
They ruled as they should have.
Ask the Justice department
That's why impeachment exists.
Welcome to totalitarianism.
You can also add your opinion below!
