Missing the point by desperately seeking
any superficial thing in common, are ya.
Odd it is that both liberals & conservatives
think of Jeff Davis as a US President in
pursuit of the claim that they aren't above
the law.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do All Republican Candidates Favor Insurrection?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
any superficial thing in common, are ya.
Odd it is that both liberals & conservatives
think of Jeff Davis as a US President in
pursuit of the claim that they aren't above
the law.
I don't think the courts would have the nerdles
neccessary to take even that middling stance.
They're all frightened of breaking new ground
to hold a President...even an ex Prez partially
accountable in the manner of a mere citizen.
Correcto.
I've seen given to people as part of their sentence. Just like drunk drivers are sometimes ordered to go into treatment for alcoholism.
Trump should be forced to repeat elmentary
school. Kindergarten would teach him to
play nice with the other children.
Hah, he'd buy all their McLunches and eat them himself.
Teachers would give him time outs.
Times out?
Not so sure. Seems to me this is another one of those areas where people are becoming accustomed to previously unthinkable changes. Nowadays, for example, impeaching Presidents is practically mandatory in Congress, and who would ever have thought that a Former President could possibly be slapped with 91 felony charges -- much less have to go to court to face them? Funny, I remember long ago that JFKs White House was commonly compared to Camelot, the US having no actual royalty of its own, and wanting some. I don't think that's true nearly so much as it was in the 1960s.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
But I've watched the minions of government deal
with such mischief before, & they always cave.
"He's suffered enuf." (Nixon's burglary)
"It was just about sex." (Clinton's raping women)
I predict....
"The President must be spared for the country's stability." (Trump)
Impeachment these days is merely a PR stunt
without consequence. None of them are ever
convicted.
Perhaps that is a similarity, then.
Very unlikely to happen. It would only create further uncertainty, because someone would have to decide whether he is behaving.
Besides, he would not behave.
Do you really think that it debunks my view
that Presidents are above the law here?
No, but that wasn't my intent. I was just remarking on how, on their own ways, both are situations of attempting to decree a new country out of immature rebellion (if that word even fits).
They way I see it, some sort of stance has to be taken.
Back in the 1970s it was politically possible to avoid prosecuting the POTUS by having him renounce and presenting Gerald Ford as a compromise of sorts.
We are in a very different situation now. The public no longer has enough respect for the institutions, and a sizeable contingent is actively pursuing their sabotage on behalf of the poisonous mythology promoted by Trump and others.
Either Trump is appeased, or he is confronted. Confronting him will be costly and dangerous. Appeasing him is obscene, unthinkable and also pointless.
You entered a discussion about that.
But I understand that arguing for its own sake can be fun.
Indeed. That is precisely why they were unlawful rebels and traitors to the USA.
You mean a rebel.
He can't be called even an "alternate". That would be the VP, and then only if there is some impediment to the titular.
So no, Confederates are no "alternate presidents". They are rebels that sabotaged and defied the laws that make the USA such. They do not deserve recognition, and as a matter of fact it would be contradictory to even make the attempt.
According to the confederates, sure.
Had they won your Civil War, odds are that that country would have been recognized as real and valid.
They did not, and it is not.
Nobody said, nor does anybody think that he was a US President. This is a matter of insurrection, treason, and the Federal government's response to it. That's what both situations have in common. It's not so much about which offices Trump or Davis held, but about the Federal government's response.
Jeff Davis was certainly not above the law, but he was ultimately released and given amnesty, just like thousands of others who joined up with the Confederacy. That was for reasons of political expediency, although there were those who wanted to punish the Confederates more severely, but they didn't really get their wish. Other political forces took precedence. Grant also wanted reconciliation.
Likewise, neither Trump nor anyone else is above the law, not in any legal sense. There's no unwritten tradition or any great public sentiment against the idea of a President being incarcerated. It's just that, historically, it's been kind of rare that the question has had to be considered.
The Federal government certainly has the power to imprison or otherwise punish Trump if and when he is found guilty of his crimes. It's merely a question of who will wield that power and how they will use it. In essence, they are the law, so in essence, whatever they choose to do in exercising their legal authority is within the framework of the law. But they're the ones with the power, not Trump.
To me, "above the law" means having the power to override anyone who can try to enforce the law against you. Trump doesn't have that power, not when he has to depend upon the kindness of strangers (or the wrath of his cult following).
Not the issue.
He's being used to counter my claim
that US Presidents are above the law.
As though he were a US President.
That is the thing. He was not.
He could never be, until and unless the USA chose to both acknowledge the Confederate States (not a chance) while also restoring him some form of honorary USA citizenship (not a chance either).
He renounced US citizenship at the moment in which he adhered to the Confederacy, much as the Confederacy never considered extending Confederate citizenship to Lincoln, Grant and Sherman. There was definitely no form of treaty of mutual recognition of joint citizenship.
And the Confederate States were not recognized as a valid contry by the USA at any point in time, nor vice-versa - which is why it was a civil war as opposed to an interstate conflict.
Countries are entirely political entities. They do not exist except to the extent that people agree that they should pretend that they exist.
That was just an example, but your claim could still be countered without bringing up Davis. As I said, there's nothing in the law or the Constitution which says a President or a former President is above the law. The political reality that he might not face any time behind bars does not mean he's above the law. If anything, it means that the law is not above politics.
That has been an ongoing problem.