Debunking a right-wing fallacy

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am paraphrasing remarks I heard recently from Congressman Jamie Raskin (D, MD). The fallacy, as set before the 11th Circuit and now SCOTUS, is this:

"As Commander-in-Chief of the nation, the President has both the power to do whatever he wants​

and absolute immunity from any legal consequences for his criminal actions."​

​

So, let's examine that.

First, the President, according to the Constitution, is NOT Commander-in-Chief of the nation. He is "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." (Article II, Section 2)

The argument that he "has [ ] the power to do whatever he wants" ignores the fact that the President's duties and powers are carefully enumerated in Section 2, and anything not enumerated there reverts to the Congress. And what is the central duty listed in Section 3? To "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Not that they are broken whenever he feels like it.

The argument that he "has [ ] absolute immunity from any legal consequences for his criminal actions" simply begs the question, "why does the Constitution give congress the power to impeach the President (and other officers)?"

These arguments are taken straight out of the Constitution itself, and how SCOTUS might try to get around that is something of a mystery to me.

 

[Pogo]

I am paraphrasing remarks I heard recently from Congressman Jamie Raskin (D, MD). The fallacy, as set before the 11th Circuit and now SCOTUS, is this:

"As Commander-in-Chief of the nation, the President has both the power to do whatever he wants​

and absolute immunity from any legal consequences for his criminal actions."​

​

So, let's examine that.

First, the President, according to the Constitution, is NOT Commander-in-Chief of the nation. He is "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." (Article II, Section 2)

The argument that he "has [ ] the power to do whatever he wants" ignores the fact that the President's duties and powers are carefully enumerated in Section 2, and anything not enumerated there reverts to the Congress. And what is the central duty listed in Section 3? To "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Not that they are broken whenever he feels like it.

The argument that he "has [ ] absolute immunity from any legal consequences for his criminal actions" simply begs the question, "why does the Constitution give congress the power to impeach the President (and other officers)?"

These arguments are taken straight out of the Constitution itself, and how SCOTUS might try to get around that is something of a mystery to me.

They will send it back to lower courts so as to avoid interfering with the election. Yeah right.

 

[Stevicus]

I am paraphrasing remarks I heard recently from Congressman Jamie Raskin (D, MD). The fallacy, as set before the 11th Circuit and now SCOTUS, is this:

"As Commander-in-Chief of the nation, the President has both the power to do whatever he wants​

and absolute immunity from any legal consequences for his criminal actions."​

​

So, let's examine that.

First, the President, according to the Constitution, is NOT Commander-in-Chief of the nation. He is "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." (Article II, Section 2)

The argument that he "has [ ] the power to do whatever he wants" ignores the fact that the President's duties and powers are carefully enumerated in Section 2, and anything not enumerated there reverts to the Congress. And what is the central duty listed in Section 3? To "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Not that they are broken whenever he feels like it.

The argument that he "has [ ] absolute immunity from any legal consequences for his criminal actions" simply begs the question, "why does the Constitution give congress the power to impeach the President (and other officers)?"

These arguments are taken straight out of the Constitution itself, and how SCOTUS might try to get around that is something of a mystery to me.

A Democratic congressman is arguing that the President can do whatever he wants?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A Democratic congressman is arguing that the President can do whatever he wants?

No, he is debunking the argument put forward by Republicans.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am paraphrasing remarks I heard recently from Congressman Jamie Raskin (D, MD). The fallacy, as set before the 11th Circuit and now SCOTUS, is this:

"As Commander-in-Chief of the nation, the President has both the power to do whatever he wants​

and absolute immunity from any legal consequences for his criminal actions."​

​

So, let's examine that.

First, the President, according to the Constitution, is NOT Commander-in-Chief of the nation. He is "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." (Article II, Section 2)

The argument that he "has [ ] the power to do whatever he wants" ignores the fact that the President's duties and powers are carefully enumerated in Section 2, and anything not enumerated there reverts to the Congress. And what is the central duty listed in Section 3? To "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Not that they are broken whenever he feels like it.

The argument that he "has [ ] absolute immunity from any legal consequences for his criminal actions" simply begs the question, "why does the Constitution give congress the power to impeach the President (and other officers)?"

These arguments are taken straight out of the Constitution itself, and how SCOTUS might try to get around that is something of a mystery to me.

I never heard that the president can do whatever he wants.

People just love to play spin doctor on stuff like this.

 

[Nakosis]

Hmm... The conspiracy I heard was the whole thing was a tactic to delay the trial until after the election.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I never heard that the president can do whatever he wants.

People just love to play spin doctor on stuff like this.

Trump himself said, on April 24, "“A president has to have immunity, otherwise you just have a ceremonial president.”

 

[Stevicus]

No, he is debunking the argument put forward by Republicans.

To whom is this quote attributed?

"As Commander-in-Chief of the nation, the President has both the power to do whatever he wants
and absolute immunity from any legal consequences for his criminal actions."

 

[fantome profane]

Hmm... The conspiracy I heard was the whole thing was a tactic to delay the trial until after the election.

That is a conspiracy I believe is true.

In December of 23, Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to take the case and just bypass the D.C circuit. They refused. The D.C. Court took case relatively quickly and in February rules clearly, decisively, and unanimously that Trump had no immunity. The Supreme court could have let that ruling stand, or they could have taken the case up immediately. But they waited until the last possible moment to take the case. And now they are going to send it back down for clarification. They have delayed this case as much as they could at every possible stage.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To whom is this quote attributed?

"As Commander-in-Chief of the nation, the President has both the power to do whatever he wants
and absolute immunity from any legal consequences for his criminal actions."

It would appear that Raskin put it together from legal decisions. For example, in it's judgement, the 11th Circuit Appellate Court said:

"We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results," the panel added in the 57-page ruling. "Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”

I am assuming that the Court actually heard the arguments made by the appellant, before responding to them.

 

[Pogo]

I never heard that the president can do whatever he wants.

People just love to play spin doctor on stuff like this.

Then you have not been paying attention to Trumps lawyers in front of the Supreme Court and are smart enough not to have a
Truth Social account.
one out of two is not terrible.

 

[Pogo]

Hmm... The conspiracy I heard was the whole thing was a tactic to delay the trial until after the election.

What, you don't think Trump is really telling the truth?"

 

[Nakosis]

What, you don't think Trump is really telling the truth?"

Telling the truth about what? That the president has absolute immunity? Not even his lawyers are arguing for that.

If as you previously said, you pay attention to Trumps lawyer in front of the Supreme Court, this decision doesn't really benefit Trump in any other way.

 

[Stevicus]

It would appear that Raskin put it together from legal decisions. For example, in it's judgement, the 11th Circuit Appellate Court said:

"We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results," the panel added in the 57-page ruling. "Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”

I am assuming that the Court actually heard the arguments made by the appellant, before responding to them.

I was just wondering if it was an exact quote from somewhere. If it's more in the realm of an "apparent contention" (as in the quote from the court decision here) which doesn't exactly, precisely match the wording of the argument, then it could be called into question.

 

[Pogo]

Telling the truth about what? That the president has absolute immunity? Not even his lawyers are arguing for that.

If as you previously said, you pay attention to Trumps lawyer in front of the Supreme Court, this decision doesn't really benefit Trump in any other way.

Whoosh, it was rhetorical.

 

[Nakosis]

Whoosh, it was rhetorical.

Sorry, poetry and rhetoric, not my strong suits.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Telling the truth about what? That the president has absolute immunity? Not even his lawyers are arguing for that.

Perhaps not in quite so many words -- but actually very close.

One of the things his legal team argued before SCOTUS is that he could not be charged with a crime unless and until Congress had impeached him. Now, let's not pretend otherwise -- impeachment is, these days, a very political process. I think we have the example of his second impeachment to let us see that, where even McConnell admitted on the floor of the Senate that Trump was guilty and responsible. He went on to say that the nation has laws that could try him for that. And yet -- if what his lawyers argued for (no trial with impeachment), that would seem to be impossible.

 

[Nakosis]

Perhaps not in quite so many words -- but actually very close.

One of the things his legal team argued before SCOTUS is that he could not be charged with a crime unless and until Congress had impeached him. Now, let's not pretend otherwise -- impeachment is, these days, a very political process. I think we have the example of his second impeachment to let us see that, where even McConnell admitted on the floor of the Senate that Trump was guilty and responsible. He went on to say that the nation has laws that could try him for that. And yet -- if what his lawyers argued for (no trial with impeachment), that would seem to be impossible.

Maybe whilst he was still President?
Or are that saying since he wasn't impeached while president he can't be tried after he leaves office?

Seems to me they changed their tune if that was the case.
This lawyer said the president doesn't get immunity from crimes done for personal gain while in office.
Only for the enactment of presidential powers. They also agreed such allegations were not covered by immunity and planned to fight the allegations.