United States Supreme Court Rules Donald Trump Is Immune For Official Acts And Is Not Immune For Unofficial Acts

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I don't know if you recall, but let’s take a real example. In December of 2020, Trump had a conversation with his acting Attorney General Richard Donaghue and his acting Deputy Attorney General. He told them to just say that the election was corrupt, and “let me and the GOP Congressmen take care of the rest.”

This is after Bill Barr, his AG, had left the department. You recall, perhaps, that Barr, on December 7, 2020, told the Associated Press that there was not enough fraud to change the outcome of the election. And just weeks later, Trump is trying to pressure his own Justice Department to ignore those facts and work around the law.

Work around the law!

And because this was the President, speaking to members of his cabinet, by this ruling he would immune. The President, ordering his own government to break the law – and he’s immune.

That is what it is going to look like in real life.

Ok , if this is true it is not relevant. See below.

I assure you, this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

They actually did. They talked about it at the convention, read Madison's notes. The DOJ did not exist when the constitution was ratified, so how could they have expected presidents to be prosecuted? They chose impeachment if a president broke laws or was corrupt etc. That is the constitutional process. Indictments and prosecution of presidents is not in the constitution. They also wrote about it in the federalist papers not sure which one off hand.

 

[crossfire]

Is pressuring a government official to violate their oath to "unhold the Constitution" considered to be an Official Executive Act? I don't think so, as the Oath of Office the President takes is to "uphold the constitution," therefore, asking anyone to violate their oath to uphold the Constitution cannot be an Official Executive act or duty as it would be a violation of the President's Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, and therefore cannot be assumed an official Executive act subject to executive privilege. The President would be voiding his oath of office, and therefore his executive privilege in such a circumstance. Any circumstance in which the President violates the President's oath of office should also void any Executive immunity associated with it.

 

[F1fan]

Ok , if this is true it is not relevant. See below.

They actually did. They talked about it at the convention, read Madison's notes. The DOJ did not exist when the constitution was ratified, so how could they have expected presidents to be prosecuted?

One reason is that were well educated and honorable, and expected politicians to behave as statesmen that respected the system. Much of our gvernment is an honor system and they surely did not expect that an unethical and dishonorable conman would be elected. Trump has brought out the worst of those in congress and the courts, and if he is re-elected I predict a lot of them will regret ever supporting him. I suspect that even if Biden wins the electorla and popular votes there will be lawsuits brought and lost, and may end up in the SCOTUS, and if they rule for Trump then we are in big trouble.

Given the ruling today with broad immunity, I suppose Biden could recognize Trump as a global threat and arrange for him to meet his maker. It's official business to protect America. Who is going to hold Biden accountable? Not the DOJ since you seem to think it is powerless.

The one thing that protects Trump is that Biden is an honorable person. Trump is not. Who knows what Trump would do if he believes he is above the law.

They chose impeachment if a president broke laws or was corrupt etc.

Trump was impeached twice. If Trump wins and the democrats take the house and senate, Trump might get a third, or even fourth. His ethics are that bad.

That is the constitutional process. Indictments and prosecution of presidents is not in the constitution.

Does it say presidents are immune from acts while president? Show us that text.

They also wrote about it in the federalist papers not sure which one off hand.

The FF could not predict everything. That is why the spirit of the law and Constitution should be what guides those in power some 250 years later. The right wing is taking the USA into interpretations that are not modern or recognizable as an honorable nation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just checking... the highest court consists of people put there by a president and it's a job for life?

If so, that was always dangerously idiotic imo.

It worked really well for over 200 years. We may have to figure out how to do a little house cleaning.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok , if this is true it is not relevant. See below.

They actually did. They talked about it at the convention, read Madison's notes. The DOJ did not exist when the constitution was ratified, so how could they have expected presidents to be prosecuted? They chose impeachment if a president broke laws or was corrupt etc. That is the constitutional process. Indictments and prosecution of presidents is not in the constitution. They also wrote about it in the federalist papers not sure which one off hand.

But where did they say that a President -- a man (or hopefully one day a woman) -- was immune to prosecution and punishment for actual crimes committed? They did not.

You are correct that "indictments and prosecutions of presidents is not in the constitution," but where in the constitution does it say that presidents are not men, not subject to the same laws as every other citizen? That's not there, either. More to that point, the constitution also makes clear that these citizens (for so they must be) serve at the consent of the people -- and only for a limited amount of time, after which they return to being just men, citizens, like everybody else.

And men like everybody else are subject to the law. If you disagree, you make them, effectively, kings.

 

[Wandering Monk]

SCOTUS has no originalist basis for Presidential immunity.

The Constitution clearly allows for a former president to be criminally prosecuted if impeached. So there is no ABSOLUTE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY from prosecution.

Article I​

• Section 3 Senate​

  • Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
  • Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Liz Cheney Sounds Alarm After Trump Shares Call For Her to Face a ‘Televised Military Tribunal’ For Treason

“Donald - This is the type of thing that demonstrates yet again that you are not a stable adult—and are not fit for office.”

www.mediaite.com

 

[fantome profane]

SCOTUS has no originalist basis for Presidential immunity.

There is Precedent showing the exact opposite. President Grant was arrested while in office. President Nixon was threatened with arrest while he was in office.

The President is not above the law. Or at least they were not until now,

 

[We Never Know]

SCOTUS has no originalist basis for Presidential immunity.

The Constitution clearly allows for a former president to be criminally prosecuted if impeached. So there is no ABSOLUTE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY from prosecution.

Article I​

• Section 3 Senate​

  • Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
  • Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

I expand it out.. I take it as its talking about the crimes that were committed to cause said impeachment.

"By design,5 impeachment is separate and distinct from a criminal proceeding. Impeachment and conviction by Congress operates to remove an individual from office; it does not, however, preclude criminal consequences for an individual’s actions.6 Those who have been impeached and removed from office are still subject to criminal prosecutions for the same underlying factual matters, and individuals who have already been convicted of crimes may be impeached for the same underlying behavior later.7 A number of federal judges, in fact, have been indicted and convicted for conduct which has formed the basis for a subsequent impeachment proceeding"

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C7-1/ALDE_00000037/

 

[Watchmen]

Just checking... the highest court consists of people put there by a president and it's a job for life?

If so, that was always dangerously idiotic imo.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[fantome profane]

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But ya know wat? Ya still gotta throw out the bathwater from time to time. Otherwise the baby will get sick and die.

 

[McBell]

But ya know wat? Ya still gotta throw out the bathwater from time to time. Otherwise the baby will get sick and die.

Politicians are like diapers.
They both need to be changed frequently.
For the same reason...​

​

~Not Me​

​

 

[Watchmen]

But ya know wat? Ya still gotta throw out the bathwater from time to time. Otherwise the baby will get sick and die.

You’re right! Let’s scrap the constitution and start over. Who’s with me?!

 

[McBell]

You’re right! Let’s scrap the constitution and start over. Who’s with me?!

You mean other than the current SCOTUS?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I wish all you folks would read the opinion in its entirety. Unless you do, you are opining based on nothing.

Its interesting the concept of presidential immunity didn't exist with the early presidencys with the first Continental administration's.

Seems it initially became an issue with Nixon vs Fitzgerald, and later with Clinton vs Jones that presidential immunity had became a thing.

 

[Secret Chief]

It worked really well for over 200 years. We may have to figure out how to do a little house cleaning.

Yeah. Here's an idea...

"Appointment process​

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 makes provision for a new appointment process for Justices of the Supreme Court. An independent selection commission is to be formed when vacancies arise. This is to be composed of the President of the Supreme Court (the chair), another senior UK judge (not a Supreme Court Justice), and a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission of England and Wales, the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission."

- Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah. Here's an idea...

"Appointment process​

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 makes provision for a new appointment process for Justices of the Supreme Court. An independent selection commission is to be formed when vacancies arise. This is to be composed of the President of the Supreme Court (the chair), another senior UK judge (not a Supreme Court Justice), and a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission of England and Wales, the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission."

- Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

The problem is that both sides here are shortsighted when they are in power. They have always looked at the Supreme Court as a political power and they both have abused it somewhat, but Trump's court has abused their power more than any other in the history of the US that I know of.

 

[McBell]

Its interesting the concept of presidential immunity didn't exist with the early presidencys with the first Continental administration's.

Seems it initially became an issue with Nixon vs Fitzgerald, and later with Clinton vs Jones that presidential immunity had became a thing.

Founding-Era History Doesn’t Support Trump’s Immunity Claim

Historians Rosemarie Zagarri and Holly Brewer explain the anti-monarchical origins of the Constitution and the presidency.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

One reason is that were well educated and honorable, and expected politicians to behave as statesmen that respected the system. Much of our gvernment is an honor system and they surely did not expect that an unethical and dishonorable conman would be elected. Trump has brought out the worst of those in congress and the courts, and if he is re-elected I predict a lot of them will regret ever supporting him. I suspect that even if Biden wins the electorla and popular votes there will be lawsuits brought and lost, and may end up in the SCOTUS, and if they rule for Trump then we are in big trouble.

How is he going to act differently than last time he was president? This is all just fear mongering and slanderous claims.

Given the ruling today with broad immunity, I suppose Biden could recognize Trump as a global threat and arrange for him to meet his maker. It's official business to protect America. Who is going to hold Biden accountable? Not the DOJ since you seem to think it is powerless.

No, read the decision, it does not allow for that.

The one thing that protects Trump is that Biden is an honorable person. Trump is not. Who knows what Trump would do if he believes he is above the law.

Ok, Biden is a POS and has been his entire career. It is funny how the left gives him a pass for his past racist comments.

Trump was impeached twice. If Trump wins and the democrats take the house and senate, Trump might get a third, or even fourth. His ethics are that bad.

Yeah, impeached for being a republican. The dems abuse our systems more than the republicans.

Does it say presidents are immune from acts while president? Show us that text.

No, I never said it did. I explained my position in my last post.

The FF could not predict everything. That is why the spirit of the law and Constitution should be what guides those in power some 250 years later. The right wing is taking the USA into interpretations that are not modern or recognizable as an honorable nation.

This is laughable. The left is the ones using Enron legislation to prosecute Trump, using new legal theories never tried before to resurrect an expired law and convince an opposing president of felonies, Using a federal contractor law to prosecute Trump with DA's that ran on getting Trump on something.

Just look at the far left whenever the SC rules against their interests, the want to destroy the court, impeach them, rally outside their houses to intimidate them, add liberal justices. This is actually undermining our republic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have you ever known any government agency to move quickly? I haven't.

Child services must often move fast. Police and fire departments often have to act immediately. I'm sure there's more.