The No Kings Act. Response to and rejection of Presidential Immunity.

[fantome profane]

In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation reaffirming presidents don't have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

apnews.com

"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month."

"”Given the dangerous and consequential implications of the court’s ruling, legislation would be the fastest and most efficient method to correcting the grave precedent the Trump ruling presented,” he said."

The full text of the Bill is here: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL24569.pdf


What do you think? Will this pass? Will this work?

And if you are an American voter, will this issue affect the way you vote?

 

[Wandering Monk]

It will face Constitutional challenges; they have to know this.

This reads more like a manifesto.

 

[Pogo]

In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation reaffirming presidents don't have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

apnews.com

"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month."

"”Given the dangerous and consequential implications of the court’s ruling, legislation would be the fastest and most efficient method to correcting the grave precedent the Trump ruling presented,” he said."

The full text of the Bill is here: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL24569.pdf


What do you think? Will this pass? Will this work?

And if you are an American voter, will this issue affect the way you vote?

No, it won't pass, these days the spelling of Wednesday might have problems so that doesn't mean much, It is a declaration of intent that is more speech than law and of course the current SC would probably find it unconstitutional anyway cuz they can.

That said, it is a good idea and a reasonable polemic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation reaffirming presidents don't have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

apnews.com

"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month."

"”Given the dangerous and consequential implications of the court’s ruling, legislation would be the fastest and most efficient method to correcting the grave precedent the Trump ruling presented,” he said."

The full text of the Bill is here: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL24569.pdf


What do you think? Will this pass? Will this work?

And if you are an American voter, will this issue affect the way you vote?

It's like the struggle to remove qualified immunity from police officers, and diplomatic immunity for officials and foreign affairs , and one thinks presidential immunity is going to get thrown out the window?

 

[fantome profane]

It will face Constitutional challenges; they have to know this.

But that might be a good thing. A first and necessary step of overturning any Supreme Court ruling is to get another case before the Supreme Court.

This is an issue that is not going to just go away, this issue cannot be allowed to go away.

This reads more like a manifesto.

It reads like the U.S. Constitution.

 

[fantome profane]

No, it won't pass,

It's like the struggle to remove qualified immunity from police officers,

Nothing worth doing is ever easy. Saying it is hard is not a reason not to try, and it is not a reason to not support this bill.

So I ask again, do you support this bill?

 

[sun rise]

Everyone should be in favor of them having a real ethical standard with a serious review given what's come out in the past few months.

Without reversing the weird decision putting the POTUS above the law, sooner or later some President will cite that decision to assume dictatorial powers. Can you imagine, for example, President Biden saying that because of the treasonous acts of Donald Trump, he had him arrested today and put in solitary confinement? Or the other way around.

Term limits cut both ways but I think it's basically a good idea.

A sane Congress should pass ethical standards and consider the other two pieces separately. But we know that the weird right wing wants an authoritarian POTUS as long as they get the one they want and not one from the left, of course.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, I absolutely support this bill. The SC has ceased to follow the Constitution, whether "original intent" or otherwise.

I don't expect it to pass this session; it might if the dems control both houses come January.

It's a symbolic action at the present time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nothing worth doing is ever easy. Saying it is hard is not a reason not to try, and it is not a reason to not support this bill.

So I ask again, do you support this bill?

Givin there is a snake named Schumer involved, I'd probably check it first for riders and earmarks , not to mention you would actually have to read it before you can pass it, unlike some other Democrats who have felt you need to pass it to see what's in it.

 

[fantome profane]

Givin there is a snake named Schumer involved, I'd probably check it first for riders and earmarks

Well go ahead, check. I put a link to the full text in the OP.

The full text of the Bill is here: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL24569.pdf

 

[Quintessence]

The irony is that historical kings were not above the law but the embodiment of law. The Supreme Court has opened the door for something worse than a king - a tyrant. Which would be almost funny if it wasn't so bizarre that it's happened here of all places.

... a king is “a law unto himself,” but that at the same time he was “a servant of law.” According to John, a king would always instinctively place the benefit of the whole community over his own private desires. If he acted otherwise, then he ceased to be a king and became a tyrant. Confusingly, tyrants were, for John, not entirely illicit: God sometimes used tyrants to punish an unrighteous people.

Supreme Court ruling may put presidents above the law – but even kings never were

Even Louis XIV of France, the epitome of absolute monarchy, did not stand above the law. Kings have always been defined and constrained by legal precedent.

theconversation.com

 

[Left Coast]

In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation reaffirming presidents don't have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

apnews.com

"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month."

"”Given the dangerous and consequential implications of the court’s ruling, legislation would be the fastest and most efficient method to correcting the grave precedent the Trump ruling presented,” he said."

The full text of the Bill is here: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL24569.pdf


What do you think? Will this pass? Will this work?

And if you are an American voter, will this issue affect the way you vote?

Won't pass the House and would be struck down by SCOTUS. Can Congress even define, in law outside the Constitution, the ways in which a law could be Constitutionally challenged? Seems like that's for the Courts to determine. But probably a question for a lawyer who knows more than I do.

 

[sun rise]

Givin there is a snake named Schumer involved, I'd probably check it first for riders and earmarks , not to mention you would actually have to read it before you can pass it, unlike some other Democrats who have felt you need to pass it to see what's in it.

Given that there's a jet engine volume whine from the right, it's clear that the weird snakes of the right hate the thought of an ethical SCOTUS that makes decisions consistent with primciple and a Constitutional amendment that reiterates the founder's statement that no one is above the law, not even the President.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well go ahead, check. I put a link to the full text in the OP.

Think it will stay the same for long when its finally put to a vote?

I tend to see it through a lens called the reality of the matter.

 

[Brickjectivity]

They should go ahead and draft an amendment instead of a bill.

 

[fantome profane]

They should go ahead and draft an amendment instead of a bill.

It isn't a one or the other situation. They can work on both. And they should and I think they are.

 

[Tomef]

In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation reaffirming presidents don't have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

apnews.com

"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month."

"”Given the dangerous and consequential implications of the court’s ruling, legislation would be the fastest and most efficient method to correcting the grave precedent the Trump ruling presented,” he said."

The full text of the Bill is here: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL24569.pdf


What do you think? Will this pass? Will this work?

And if you are an American voter, will this issue affect the way you vote?

I'm starting to look forward to some sort of real-life King Lear implosion though. This could throw a spanner in the works.

 

[anotherneil]

There is no need for such an act because it would be redundant; Schumer needs to read the US Constitution, particularly Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.

 

[PureX]

The ONLY way to repair this mess is to vote heavily democratic in the next several elections so the democrats gain a decisive majority. Even then it will take some time to repair the damage to the Supreme Court and write and pass legislation making sure this can't happen again.

At this point it really doesn't matter whether you like the democrats or agree with their general platform. They are the only thing standing between ALL of us and the total insanity of a fascist oligarchy. And I can guarantee that whatever fantasy of some new "Whiteyvill USA" you're imagining in your minds it will not be the result of a Trump presidency OR a republican super majority. And what will result is a nightmare beyond comprehension.

 

[Quintessence]

The ONLY way to repair this mess is to vote heavily democratic in the next several elections so the democrats gain a decisive majority. Even then it will take some time to repair the damage to the Supreme Court and write and pass legislation making sure this can't happen again.

At this point it really doesn't matter whether you like the democrats or agree with their general platform. They are the only thing standing between ALL of us and the total insanity of a fascist oligarchy. And I can guarantee that whatever fantasy of some new "Whiteyvill USA" you're imagining in your minds it will not be the result of a Trump presidency OR a republican super majority. And what will result is a nightmare beyond comprehension.

It's not the only way - when the Republican party finds itself again and abandons this infatuation with cults of personality and authoritarianism, that is also a very viable solution. Several opportunities have presented itself for a return to actual conservatism and several more will inevitably come down the pipeline. Republicans with dignity and honor still absolutely exist. I still don't agree with them on a lot of policy positions, but that's fine. When those Republicans wrest their party back from the authoritarians, we'll be happily waiting and I might actually be able to seriously look at their candidates again when considering who to vote for.