• 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

Truthseeker

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
McBell said:
Does this mean that the USA is now ruled by a term limited King?
Click to expand...
A president may have the power to legally do a coup and not be term-limited. It's unclear to me if that is legal or not, though. Is that a "official act" of his or her duties? Though even if it is not legal, a president currently is never prosecuted while in office. he can just be impeached and convicted, and that appears to be impossible in the current political situation.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Truthseeker said:
A president may have the power to legally do a coup and not be term-limited. It's unclear to me if that is legal or not, though. Is that a "official act" of his or her duties? Though even if it is not legal, a president currently is never prosecuted while in office. he can just be impeached and convicted, and that appears to be impossible in the current political situation.
Click to expand...
I do not know.
From what I can tell, SCOTUS just pretty much declared that a sitting President has complete immunity for anything the sitting President declares is an "official act".
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
McBell said:
I do not know.
From what I can tell, SCOTUS just pretty much declared that a sitting President has complete immunity for anything the sitting President declares is an "official act".
Click to expand...
No, that is not what they ruled. What they ruled is a prosecutor needs to make the case whether it is an official act or not. Roberts said:

"The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.

It makes sense because any official act needs to have immunity so the president can act and opposition presidents can't prosecute them for an official act. This protects all presidents such as Obama cannot be prosecuted for his drone program. I am still reading it but this is what I understand so far.
 
anotherneil

anotherneil

Well-Known Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Why not? You do it all the time. Like, "should Biden take drug tests before the debate?" That's loaded: an unloaded question would be "should candidates take drug tests before the debate?"
Click to expand...
You just showed that you don't know what "loaded question" means - find out what it means.

Furthermore, you've managed to commandeer this thread by turning this conversation into something about me; great job!
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
And you read the dissent from Sotomayor et al:

"Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now 'lies about like a loaded weapon' for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.​

"The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the Constitution 'combines . . . all the requisites to energy,' Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: 'Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?' The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to 'prosecution in the common course of law.' The answer after today is no. Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.​

"With fear for our democracy, I dissent."​
Click to expand...
Sotomayor has a penchant for hyperbole.
 
Pogo

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Watchmen said:
So they’re corrupt because, in your words, “They behaved within the letter of the law.” Got it.
Click to expand...
start here;
The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two possible ways to regard rules, or laws. To obey the letter of the law is to follow the literal reading of the words of the law, whereas following the spirit of the law is to follow the intention of why the law was enforced. Wikipedia

Are you new to this concept?
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Pogo said:
start here;
The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two possible ways to regard rules, or laws. To obey the letter of the law is to follow the literal reading of the words of the law, whereas following the spirit of the law is to follow the intention of why the law was enforced. Wikipedia

Are you new to this concept?
Click to expand...
Wikipedia. Excellent!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top