• 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!

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

Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Clizby Wampuscat said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's a lot that's not in the Constitution. But most definitely immunity is not there and was not intended. We have a president, we are a nation of rule of law. Saying the president is immune is more appropriate for the Soviet Union or North Korea.
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
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.
Click to expand...
They debated it at the convention and decided on impeachment was the process not prosecution.
Evangelicalhumanist said:
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.
Click to expand...
No,this ruling does not make them kings. They cannot do whatever they want. It just says that they cannot be prosecuted for doing their official duties. Which makes sense. They explain it in their decision.
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf said:
There's a lot that's not in the Constitution. But most definitely immunity is not there and was not intended. We have a president, we are a nation of rule of law. Saying the president is immune is more appropriate for the Soviet Union or North Korea.
Click to expand...
I agree it is not in the constitution. And no the ruling does not make the president a dictator. The founders landed on impeachment for these issues.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
From the ruling:

(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32.

So Hope Hicks' testimony about Trump's actions and words cannot be admitted. Neither can HIS OWN OR HIS ADVOSOR'S TESTIMONIES BE ADMITTED! Any inculpatory information from anyone in his administration or his lawyers is inadmissible.
Click to expand...
So not to put to fine a colour on it, SCOTUS has -- without saying so -- granted total immunity.
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Clizby Wampuscat said:
They debated it at the convention and decided on impeachment was the process not prosecution.

No,this ruling does not make them kings. They cannot do whatever they want. It just says that they cannot be prosecuted for doing their official duties. Which makes sense. They explain it in their decision.
Click to expand...
The Liberals are running a complain scam to distract from the poor showing at the debate. The fact of the matter is Biden is the President and this also applies to him after he leaves office. This was a gift to the Dems and Biden, since Biden may be prosecuted after Trump wins office, for the Kangaroo Courts, influence peddling, and many other infractions, but not for any official duties.

Revenge on political opponents is not an official duty. However, revenge on those who misuse Government, may be part of the excused executive role which Trump can apply when President. For example, people harmed by allowing illegal immigrant may be allowed to sue the DNC and Biden by executive order. This is what the Democrats wanted, but only used against Trump. Now it is official, both sides can do it.

The spying that Obama and Biden did on Trump in 2016, would be something that could be brought up, since spying on citizens and political opponents using the power of Government, is not an official act, but a crime, worse than what got Nixon to resign. Nixon never used the FBI or CIA at Watergate and was dragged behind the bus. Nixon may get bumped as the most corrupt President, in a very high profile trial and test of the new standard of holding Presidents accountable for unofficial shenanigans. Democrat slime has a way of biting them back.
 
Debater Slayer

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Hey, at least the US government is cracking down on the real threats to its democracy, like TikTok and the ICC!

The US government is burying the country's democracy and the influence it has built since World War II, and the only thing its enemies would need to do to accelerate that would be to hand the Republican Party and SCOTUS, as well as a considerable subset of the Democratic Party, a bigger shovel. At this point, it seems to me that they are all advancing their agendas at the expense of millions of average Americans citizens.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
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.
Click to expand...
While this is perfectly correct, this new ruling makes indictment and trial really, really difficult. The government cannot inquire into motive. The government cannot use testimony from the President's staff or officers. I think that's enough to put a stranglehold on judgment and punishment.
 
Last edited:
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Clizby Wampuscat said:
How is he going to act differently than last time he was president?
Click to expand...
Look at the project 2025 plan. It's horrific.

www.democracydocket.com

What is Project 2025 And Why Is It Alarming?

We explain Project 2025, The Heritage Foundation's plan for how Trump, should he win the November election, can vastly remake the federal government most effectively to carry out an extremist far-right agenda.
www.democracydocket.com www.democracydocket.com

He didn't expect to win last time and ended up hiring some decent people who wouldn;t do what he asked. He has learned to hire only people who will follow orders regardless of legality and ethics.

One major reason why Trump is a concern is that he's not predictable, and that means a lack of security and stablity. Ourt allies don't know if he can be trusted, and that's bad. Trump is a disturbed man and not fit for the office.
Clizby Wampuscat said:
This is all just fear mongering and slanderous claims.
Click to expand...
Have you not seen Trump rant and rave like a lunatic during his rallies? He's insane. Trump is a convicted criminal with a list of civil losses due to criminal acts and fraud. What slander applies to Trump?
Clizby Wampuscat said:
No, read the decision, it does not allow for that.
Click to expand...
Yet Trump's laywers argued that a president could do most anything including murder and only after impeachment and removal could he be indicted for the acts. It all comes down to what is an official act by a president. No doubt Trump will call anything he does an official act if it is criminal in nature.
Clizby Wampuscat said:
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.
Click to expand...
He was a conservative democrat most of his career. You'd think republicans would be supportive. Only now that he has he evolved to be more progressive as the times demand it is he being vilified by the right. Of cours ethe right has become an extremist faction that includes racism, jingoism, sexism, lying, anti-democratic, and more negative traits
Clizby Wampuscat said:
Yeah, impeached for being a republican.
Click to expand...
False. Look at you unaware of the actual reasons. And you expect to be taken seriously? You expect us to trust your thinking process?
Clizby Wampuscat said:
The dems abuse our systems more than the republicans.
Click to expand...
No, republicans have become morally and ethically diminished. There are few positions the right has that is consistent with the best nations of the world where it comes to tolerance, democracy, and liberty. If Trump wins the wolrd will be watching. And if Trump does what he is promising then everyong who voted for him will be blamed. I can't think of anything that republicans are doing that is helping the USA become a better nation.
Clizby Wampuscat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who could predict that the USA needed to have laws that would punish an insurrection led by a president who lost the election? The USA has long been an honor system and I guess it was short sighted of the FF to not predict a corrupt and disturbed man would become popular with an unethical and irrational faction of the public. Let's hope that enough swing voters start thinking and realize the threat that Trump and MAGA voters pose to the future of the USA and global security.
Clizby Wampuscat said:
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.
Click to expand...
The SC is adding their own ideas of how the law should be that isn't in the Constitution. Just look at the level of disagreement. The interpretations are just that, interpretations that are based on the personal beliefs and attitudes of the justices. They were installed for their agenda, not because they were moderate and fair. The SC was built for a purpose and the republicans have won this game.

So it's OK that Trump nominated three judges through the Federalist Society to further their agenda, and that they only had to get 51% of the senate to be confirmed, who have been ruling in favor of the right wing agenda in ways that has been very disruptive of lives? These rulings have changed the norms in many areas of life and governing and the law, and if Trump gets back in ffice he and the MAGAs will exploit these to impose more of their agenda without uch in the way of chacks and balances.
 
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I have just one fundamental question about all this:

Why is it necessary to give current and former presidents any sort of immunity from the law?

As far as I can tell, there are only two reasons to do this:
  1. Reduce Domestic Discontent and Polarization. There is no question that prosecution of elected officials, especially presidents, is divisive to the nation in ways that further discontent and division. I doubt it is controversial too recognize this is a problem and that it can be for the good of the nation to put ugliness behind us in order to move forward. However, immunity also absolves officials from accountability which, in a democratic nation supposedly governed by rule of law, is a serious, serious problem, because it leads to...
  2. Facilitate a Transition to Authoritarianism. When the president of a nation is given immunity from the law, that does more than merely crack a window open for authoritarianism, it opens up an entire gods damned door to it and starts rolling out the red carpet. It would not be difficult to selectively enforce "official acts" to give a free pass to a tyrannical minority to subdue and subvert the will of the people and the majority. This already happens in our governmental systems now, never mind this dramatic expansion of presidential power.
I've seen weak arguments along the lines of "but it helps the president make decisions without fear of reprisal or consequences" which is nonsense. If you are a president, you should be a level-headed, well-tempered, considerate, rational, thoughtful individual who has to think about the consequences of your actions not just for yourself but an entire nation if not the entire human world? You already have immunity while in office? Why would you need more? If you are a civil servant proper, why wouldn't you be willing to sacrifice your own career and yourself for the good of your country? Unless you weren't qualified to hold the office in the first place because you're an egomaniacal self-centered criminal and con artist?

What other case for the actual necessity of this is there? Genuinely asking.

I want NO president to have ANY immunity. To the point I do not even WANT a president anymore. The office should be dissolved.
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
One has to keep in mind that Biden is the current President and will be the first to get this advantage, right before the election. The disinformation team is trying to hide this fact by making appear like Trump is already using it; bait and switch.

Things like Kangaroo Courts may not impact Biden. Biden can now break the law to win in November if he can attach this to core activity, in some convoluted way.

If Biden was to force social media to black out Conservatives again, what can they do to Biden? Biden may be immune, but the boneheads who carry out the orders are still vulnerable. This change only protects the President, and allows the executive branch not to be under the thumb of other branches. However, the intent was not to protect crooked Presidents, which is why they made the distinction between core activities and criminal activities on the side.
 
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
It does appear so.
The Imperial Presidency.
And the country sails willingly into authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
Willingly?

Nah.

A whole heck of a lot of us are anything but.

I really am considering the awkward position of being in favor of dissolving the office of the presidency as a result of this ruling. It's not a matter of "if" this will be abused, it's a when. And I'm too aware of what happens when certain folks are considered above the law. Because if the law cannot hold them in check, there are other things that can and will. I am not interested in those other things becoming a happening. This hasn't just rolled out the red carpet for authoritarianism, it is holding out the match for a much more real possibility of civil war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top