newfie
Well-Known Member
the dems preach support for the rule of law while they cry about the supreme court applying the rule of law
President Trump
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
And if they had ruled Trump had no immunity they'd be singing the court's praises. Grudgingly maybe because of Roe, but they'd be thrilled about possibly getting Trump jailed.
oldngray
nowhere special
Maybe if they hadn't tried twisting the Constitution into knots to get Trump the Supreme Court wouldn't have needed to get involved.
Next Day Err
Well-Known Member
If Trump ordered the hit on a known terrorist? Sure would.
Very doubtful. Y'all questioned literally everything he did. As I recall weren't the Democrats perturbed about killing Soleimani?
Next Day Err
Well-Known Member
More from a standpoint of strategy, yes.
newfie
Well-Known Member
by trying to prosecute him they gave trump that immunity.
newfie
Well-Known Member
I don't necessarily disagree with you, any terrorist in a combat theater even an american fighting against us is fair game.
topic is presidential immunity.
If the supreme court had not ruled for presidential immunity then Obama's actions would have been fair game.
future presidents would not make a decision like Obama did for fear of prosecution.
if you believe that Obama made the right decision than you have to believe he should have the autonomy and immunity to make that decision.
Bottom line, Democrats never make the wrong decision and Republicans never make the right decision. So SCOTUS interfered with the Dems right to go after Republicans.
fishtm2001
Well-Known Member
There’s plenty of evidence, making clear that the people who wrote the constitution and the public advocacy for it at ratification were both crystal clear that former Presidents had no immunity from the law.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
fishtm2001
Well-Known Member
ever hear of The Constitution?
fishtm2001
Well-Known Member
"The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware."
Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
In Federalist No. 78 (1788), Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judicial branch of the US government has no force or will, but only judgment. He said that the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government because it lacks "purse" or "sword". The judiciary can't control armies or direct the strength or wealth of society, and it can't take active resolutions. Hamilton also said that the judiciary depends on the executive branch to make its judgments effective, and on the public's belief in its impartiality to ensure compliance with its order
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
fishtm2001
Well-Known Member
That document, and the new government that emerged from it, owed their very survival to Hamilton.
catstalking
ie qt
the President IS liable to prosection and punishment, Congress alone is his judge, jury, and executioner
that is all SCOTUS affirmed, no more no less
fishtm2001
Well-Known Member
Trump vs US has a novel theory that in order for presidents to be able to exercise their responsibilities, they must have absolute power within this certain sphere that can’t be held to criminal account — that’s an unprecedented conclusion.
fishtm2001
Well-Known Member
“If a president says, ‘we’re going to have an auction and I’m gonna veto or sign a bill based on who pays me more’ — that’s not prosecutable,” David Super, Professor of Law at Georgetown said. “‘Want to be a Supreme Court justice for the low, low sum of x?’ Not prosecutable, since appointing the highest offices is the preclusive power of the President.”
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Unprecedented ? Is it? We already had discussions about how Obama ordered the executions of American citizens without a trial. What more do you need to realize that apparently President can do as a please. You approved it.
Not to mention the thousands of other non-citizens, Presidents give orders kill do you want them on trial for all of those things as well? Bring it.
