https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx0xCic1qNE4UgA3wrNWE0ZlvFFl8Zm_ka?si=Kpc8ow3vhj8_kiwa
It's only a minute long so don't bitch. No summaries, no anonymous opinions and if you threaten to censor me I will remove you.
No that is stupid. First of all, yes ordering seal team 6 to assassinate your political rivals would be a constitutionally given power to the president. The president has the right to command the military according to the constitution. That is a blanket right and now SCOTUS gives the president legal immunity for the repercussions which means that even if he was impeached he would still maintain his legal immunity in a court of law.
Also it tends to be difficult to impeach a president after he overthrew the government and potentially killed all the elected representatives. Just saying. The president will know if you are attempting to impeach them and will have PLENTY of time to stop you if he were so inclined. The house and senate are VERY slow and very easy to disrupt if you hypothetically had an armed military at your constitutional command.
Ordering the assassination of a political rival is clearly an unlawful order. To suggest otherwise shows either completely dishonesty or a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes an illegal order.
The President cannot stop the impeachment process by issuing illegal orders to the military, which is what you're suggesting they could do.
No matter how many times you say that nonsense, it isn't true. Lawful orders are ones the Constitution allows the President to make, i. e., connected with the President's powers, which are delegated by the Constitution. Sometimes these are clarified by court decisions.
As we have seen, the Democrats often think being a political opponent is by itself unlawful, and a political opponent exercising their constitutional rights is unlawful. You assume everyone plays nice and there is agreement on what is lawful and what is unlawful, which the Sotomayor dissent makes clear isn't the case. The SCOTUS ruling merely prevents the Democrats from using malicious prosecution to prevents a President from exercising their constitutional powers.
And unlawful orders such as assassinations or malicious prosecution of political opponents very much mean something, especially because it is the latter that brought us to this SCOTUS ruling in the first place.
@Avicenna Anything the president does in their capacity as President has the automatic presumption of legal immunity according to SCOTUS. In other words, the default legal position is that the president literally can't make an unlawful order as president as anything they do is by default lawful. If you want to argue that something is unlawful then you must first prove that in court before the blanket immunity is even removed and allowing you to actually proceed with the legal case.
Lawyer here: Presidential immunity absolutely would NOT cover the use of a SEAL team to assassinate a political rival. Presidential immunity is very narrowly interpreted to mean protection for actions approved by congress or expressly granted by the constitution.
@ProbablyClueless you're absolutely right. He would not have immunity for doing that because that is not a core act.
@ProbablyClueless That is complete bullshit, even according to SCOTUS themselves which explicitly used that as an example that would be covered under immunity. Shame on you for lying or otherwise being really bad at your job.
@Juxtapose
You really dont get it do you? You think this is normal, and how things have always worked. This is wrong. This has been a massive change in how the government works and utterly destroyed the intentional balance that had been established to keep the powers in check and prevent them from being abused.
If anything this will actually make presidents more accountable because we have more clear standards. Then when the next Obama decides to drone strike an innocent civilian, they will be impeached and tried. The precedent for how to deal with presidents is being set and it brings clarity.
Lawyers such as @ProbablyClueless will tell you that Trump or whoever else absolutely cannot use the military to kill political rivals. Stop smoking so much weed.
@Juxtapose
Also yes it it would be a core act for the president to order the military. That is literally his job. The constitution does not distinguish what the orders actually are so ordering seal team 6 to assassinate Trump for example would just be an order like any other from the point of view of the constitution.
Do I need to remind you that the constitution gives the president the power of being the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy? By extension his commands to the military is him directly using his constitutional powers or "core acts" as you keep calling them.
The president also has broader immunity than just the core acts, he also has assumed legal immunity on all official acts which is very hard to revoke which becomes a defacto blanket immunity.
It is not his job to order the military to kill political rivals unless those political rivals are planning an active terrorist attack or whatnot. If Trump did that he would 100% need proof.
This is not the immunity you think it is. It is simply to protect him and future presidents against lawfare just like how officers in the government are given similar immunity.
No, One liberal justice used that example because that one example was raised by the prosecution counsel. Not because that was actually at threat of happening.
@ProbablyClueless well they are wrong.
@ProbablyClueless One liberal justice used it as an example because it demonstrated something, it does not matter if there is "actually a threat of happening" as its still true and if you are going to pull the "I am a lawyer" card then my lawyer (in SCOTUS) is better than yours (you).
@Juxtapose
So what you are saying is that it is legal for the military to be used inside USA under specific situations but forgetting that the President has legal immunity and therefore can ignore justifying his actions.
You are completely misinterpreting the ruling.
It has to be a core act and assassinating political rivals without concrete proof of them doing something extremely fucked up is not a correct. The ruling doesn't mean he gets to order the military to nuke the United States for example and he will face zero consequences. You have to be brain damaged to believe that.
@ProbablyClueless funny how he ignores that six out of the nine justices are sided with you.
@ProbablyClueless So you are going to continue with this logical fallacy are you? It is irrelevant. Like seriously this is literally argumentum ad populum after you pulled the "I am a lawyer card" which is argumentum ab auctoritate.
If you are just going to throw out logical fallacies then dont even bother.
@Juxtapose
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President needs proof for giving orders to the military (or the national guard once they are activated if you care about that)
@Juxtapose
I brought up the lawyer in SCOTUS to counter his claim of being a lawyer and also to establish that my position is not in conflict with actual legal positions in case he wanted to attack me from that angle. It was a response and the fact that I did not pull the "logical fallacy" is because he had not outright said "I am a lawyer so I am correct". Well he just did so I am free to call him out for that particular bullshit.
Also why would he have to justify anything? He is immune. IMMUNE. You need congress to do something about it whenever they can pull themselves together and actually do their job for once.
It's only a logical fallacy if what I'm saying is based on the appeal to authority instead of the factual matter of the situation. I appealed to the facts of the situation.
In the interest of complete honesty, no I haven't passed it yet. I'm taking the test at the end of the month. Super excited to start my practice!
@ProbablyClueless oh I was asking the other guy but you're more honest than Biden! And I trust your judgment over far leftists who have brain rot because of Trump.
@ProbablyClueless So both you and me can agree that it literally does not matter that you are a lawyer in this conversation then? Great. Good that we are in agreement and has established this.
But you are also wrong. You did not appeal to the facts of the situation since you did not include the assumed immunity applied to official acts which are not granted by the constitution nor congress.
@Juxtapose
That is just a logical fallacy as I just described. How the hell can you bring that up immediately after I just pointed out that I am perfectly in the right to disregard any argument based on argumentum ad populum? Are you stupid?
Well, no... The fact I'm a lawyer matters because it speaks to the level of insight I have on this subject matter. My level of insight and familiarity with this subject gives my interpretation of the situation a greater clarity.
And I did appeal to the facts of the situation. An act that is not granted by the constitution nor congress does not receive presidential immunity, by definition. Presidential Immunity is only provided to the President for actions that he takes within the scope of his responsibilities as President.
@Juxtapose
So listening to accredited experts, you mean like that one SCOTUS judge I have mentioned a few times? Well that is just fine by me too. Also that is a logical fallacy again, which I also mentioned previously. Just saying.
@ProbablyClueless Levels of insight does not mean that the things you are saying is more correct than if I was to say them. And again, you are wrong. Official acts are not explicitly granted by either constitution nor congress. They are inherent to the position of the president itself and according to this most recent SCOTUS ruling also afforded with the presumed presidential immunity unless proven otherwise. Core acts are things explicitly granted by congress or the constitution, official acts are the rest of the things inherent in the position of the president. Why do I need to explain this to you?
@Juxtapose
That is a logical fallacy. You fail. Try again.
No it's not. You are commenting on something that requires expertise that you simply do not have. It would be like you commenting on advanced mathematics while having a middle school level understanding of math. It's simply inappropriate. If you think otherwise then prove that you're right.
@Juxtapose
Again, that is a logical fallacy. When someone uses a logical fallacy that means you can safely ignore their whole argument because it is inherently flawed and proven to be flawed by basic logic.
Speaking of backing up what I said, SCOTUS judge. Its like you dont remember that they exist.
@Juxtapose
Let me quote the logical fallacy for you so that you too can stop being stupid.
"The appeal to authority fallacy is the logical fallacy of saying a claim is true simply because an authority figure made it. This authority figure could be anyone: an instructor, a politician, a well-known academic, an author, or even an individual with experience related to the claim’s subject."
"The explanation is simple: authorities can be wrong, and the only way of logically proving a claim is providing real evidence and/or a valid logical deduction of the claim from the evidence."
I have backed up my shit thank you very much.
... @ProbablyClueless help me here. Please explain to Juxtapose that legal scholars are not in fact pieces of evidence in this case. Also @Juxtapose I am at least trying to employ logic here which is a form of evidence.
@Pterodon Congress is not part of the Judicial branch. Yes the Legislative branch can also attempt to apply checks on the Executive branch as part of a redundancy policy. SCOTUS just removed that redundancy and now only the Legislative branch has the ability to oppose the president which I would argue is not particularly inspiring since they are hardly unbiased, especially since being president unofficially makes you the leader of your political party anyways.
Point is that there no longer is 3 co-equal branches of government and arguably not even 2. All that a dictatorial president would need to do is subvert the Legislative branch to usurp total control over the country and the legislative branch is very unprepared to deal witch such a transgression since the President already has all the tools they need to succeed where as the Legislative branch needs to hold votes and form consensuses etc.. Its not going to be a fair "fight" so to speak and once the President overthrows the Legislative branch then there is no legal way to remove them anymore.
Given that what you're citing from Sotomayor wasn't an original thought or observation, much less based on any existing precept, anyone offering an opinion similar or identical to mine is on very solid ground. She merely quoted a ridiculous hypothetical proffered by one of the attorneys arguing before her. So, yeah, something that should be panned. And it isn't the first time that idiot has written nonsense in an opinion or dissent of hers.
Any inability to understand on your part is solely your problem- you have been told numerous times why your parroting of Sotomayor has no basis in law or fact. So, it's really your refusal to accept reality and to understand a few basic legal and constitutional principles. Stamp your feet and whine all you want, but the reality you hate and refuse to accept or even understand remains the same.
@Avicenna... What? Like seriously, what on earth did you just try to say? Is it now a bad thing to reply to someone or something? Even if what you said is true, that Satomayor was not putting forward an original thought or observation, why would that matter.. like at all? Can only original thoughts be true?
And then you hilariously followed that up with "anyone offering an opinion similar or identical to mine is on very solid ground". Dude you are incoherent.
@Pterodon Oh really? This will be good. How is there 3 co-equal branches of government?
Let me remind you; The Executive branch has legal immunity from the Judicial branch and has major political influence over the Legislative branch which gives them leverage over both of the other branches.
For them to be co-equal there needs to be realistic leverage that both of these two branches can put onto the Executive branch to stop abuse of power.
@Pterodon What makes you think that I want Biden to be protected? If anything I want literally every corrupt politician to be prosecuted as a normal civilian and without their fancy lawyers or sympathetic judges.
Also I am not afraid. I am completely fine with letting USA burn to the ground, I just will not be helping you people destroy it. I believe in personal responsibility and I will not protect you from your own self destructive actions.
@Syntosi- you long ago reached the point where neither the law nor the facts don't support your claims so you have taken off your shoe and pounded in the table repeatedly. You apparently aren't even aware of the existence of judicial review and don't understand checks and balances or the role of unelected bureaucrats. You think the President is an omnipotent dictator who does everything on their own.
Why, the Hammurabian legal code, of course. Or maybe Shar'ia law.
I refuse to believe that you're this dumb- you must be trolling.
Read this:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judicial_review
@Avicenna That is cute. So lets say you start a judicial review of the president. First of all, normal law would not apply to anything outside of unofficial acts and its iffy on how the constitution would apply, since again, immunity. How broad is this immunity? They did not say and its not defined in the constitution so we would need another SCOTUS decision to actually resolve it properly but suffice to say Judicial reviews are not going to be particularly helpful
@Avicenna Yes I read it. Also there is no constitutional basis for official actions, that is not what official actions are. Core actions are based on the constitution and such, official actions are not and are much broader.
Core acts, or those outlined in the constitution is but the tip of the iceberg of the immunity given to the president by SCOTUS but lets move on.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Which basically means that the president can command the army (including militias and national guards after activation) and does not stipulate any real limitation on what sort of orders the president can give them or if they have to be "lawful" orders and also that the president can pardon anyone he wants, without any reason, for crimes against the country. Both of which can be very easily abused.
Those are powers given to the president through the constitution, which makes them core powers and also gives the president total immunity when using them. But as I said, the immunity also extends to the rest of the presidential position that is not outright outlined in the constitution and therefore also gives assumed immunity for basically everything else.
Lawful orders given to the military have been defined in law, including the Geneva Convention. It is possible to use the military illegally, including to assassinate a political opponent, something for which there certainly isn't immunity, much less "total immunity".
Now, all of the President's powers come from the Constitution or Acts of Congress, which you have to agree it makes no sense to prosecute the President for exercising within the law. You cite pardon power- that is generally absolute, so it's clear it makes no sense to prosecute a President for exercising it, because it's a judgement call. Arguably, any use of the President's power could be deemed an "abuse of power" but those opposed to the pardon (s), and you're arguing that the President should not be permitted to have absolute power despite the fact that applications for pardons generally have to be made through the DOJ, which can weigh in on them. Furthermore, the Constitution could be amended to limit the President's power to pardon.
What can and has been abused before is the threat of prosecuting the President for exercising their constitutional powers to fire an appointee, which has the effect of illegally taking away that core constitutional power.
In a nutshell, you are claiming that there are no limitations on Presidential power, which is not accurate. Since your examples of the use of the President's power as Commander-in-Chief have been shown to have limitations (specifically, I have shown you that the President cannot legally violate the laws of war or assassinate a political opponent), I'd suggest using what you think are examples from other areas of the exercise of executive powers by the President.
@Avicenna I am sorry to say this but the Geneva convention is not an American law and it is not binding. It does not have any legal power in USA. I also have to conveniently remind you that any said law or ruling that defines what a "lawful order" is does not apply to the President according to SCOTUS because, as I have to keep reminding you people, HE IS IMMUNE. Unless it is outright written in the constitution, and even then I am not even sure the constitution applies, it won't apply to the president.
And yes I very much think that the president being able to pardon people on no grounds by their own judgement is wrong. The fact that most presidents cooperate with the DOJ for pardons is an example of the honor system and not an actual limitation on what the president can or can't do if they actually want, something that won't be an obstacle if they were to actually intentionally abuse it.
@Avicenna And yes I am arguing that there is virtually no limitations on presidential power from a realistic standpoint. There is still the impeachment procedure but that is the one thing that still technically exists (even if it would be laughably easy for a dictator to disrupt the process) but that just means that 1 of the 2 other branches of government has veto powers over the president instead of the previous 2 others.
Furthermore, this means that the code of law no longer applies to the president. Yes, impeachment is still a thing but that is not a legal action, that is a political action which is entirely different. The law no longer can hold the president accountable, that is just a fact.
Also no, you have not shown any limitations on the presidents power as Commander. You have simply shown your lack of understanding in believing for example the Geneva convention applies when that would be fucking absurd since its not even a legal code. Its a fucking diplomatic agreement, nothing more and if you dont even know the difference then what the hell are you even doing here arguing with me?
Tim hit the nail right on the head. Plus you'd think the demokkkrat party would stop pushing this issue. They know they're about to lose all of their power and Biden has a laundry list of unconstitutional shit that he has done in the last four years. Hopefully Trump does to them what they've done to him for the last eight or nine years. They definitely deserve it and then some.
Opinion
7Opinion
I agree with Tim, although I think he's a bit too inclined to support anything that constitutes giving Biden the middle finger.
@OddBeMe Maybe not foreign powers (anymore), but it's not exactly news that Biden is a corporatist. One of his biggest disagreements with Obama was that Obama wanted to limit the involvement of private interests in the oval office.
Biden wanted to blow the doors wide open, but Obama didn't. My objection to Biden has always been based on that corporate influence.
@OddBeMe You just can't pass up a chance to loudly and proudly post your stupidity.
There's actual proof of Biden getting millions of dollars from foreign countries and not our allies. Biden showered with his preteen daughter on the regular and she has confirmed it. Then there's Biden raping Tara Reade. Just cuz you refuse the facts, don't make them less factual.
@PreferNot2Say please post “actual proof”
@OddBeMe How about you do some actual research for a change. Try without using google, yahoo or bing. I'm done doing something that you liberals should be able to do by the time you're an adult. Do your own research.
Plus when I've confronted YOU to provide credible proof, you can't even post a lying liberal media source in an attempt to prove the idiotic claims you espouse daily. Yet you expect others to do what you yourself aren't capable of doing. Typical liberal.
@OddBeMe www.politifact.com/.../ Not so. Politifact reports on that Biden has recieved many millions and is generally regarded as left leaning. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/
POTUS immunity is radically dangerous. Its insanity. Its legalizing the conduct of monarchies. At least HONORABLE military personnel will refuse unconscionable orders but the problem is Trump and potential future POTUS may lack all ethical standards. Its terrifying from any side of the aisle and congress needs to remedy this and take back its power. Its become the weakest branch WILLINGLY. Take back the budget and fuck POTUS
In your multiverse i suppose that accurate
It was 12 minutes, but very captivating. I really liked what the first follow up guy was saying. The hag struck me as a liberal freak show. I agree whole heartedly.
Giving Trump immunity for what he's done? That's not really the best idea. Like, that's a lot of shit that trying to bandage it with immunity won't fix
I agree with him In one minute, he clarifies what SCOTUS ruled, and makes sense of it.
Sonia Sotomayor said that a wise Latina would be a better justice than a white male. Racism doesn't apply to Democrats
Yes I agree with Pool
No one should be immune from prosecution. Commit a crime get punished don't care who you are
Ill be more circumspect at the DMV next time... Ya know, immunity and all... 🙄
LOL you think the DMV doesn't have immunity? Cute.
"You can sue your state's DMV, but these suits are hard to win. In general, governments and government agencies have sovereign immunity. This means that they are protected against lawsuits. Someone wanting to bring a lawsuit could not do so unless the government agency agreed to be sued."
www.findlaw.com/.../...-motor-vehicles--dmv--.html
Civilly. Criminally is. WHOLE different ballgame. You really should be more specific
@DrPepper12 this is mostly about protecting the president from frivolous lawsuits as well.
Agreed. Defer till out of office for civil shit but CRIMINAL acts need to be investigated ASAP
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
You can also add your opinion below!
Holidays 
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 
Most Helpful Opinions