So, I haven't really been reading the news, but apparently the Supreme Court is considering "considering" taking the case, but last I read, they were thinking of sending it back down to the lower court (I don't know which appeals court this was filed from... possible the 4th Court of Appeals).
Couple of things... last time I looked this up, there was absolutely nothing in the Constitution that provides any kind of "Presidential Immunity." It tends to be implied, but at the same time, precedence has already been previously set as recently as President Nixon when the Supreme Court ruled that he had to hand over the phone voice recordings.
It's possible this could be a major thing that the framers hadn't notionally considered. I remember last time I looked this up, the Supreme Court (years and years ago) had determined there was some limited basis of presidential immunity... and they oddly tied it to the appointment of judges (or something odd). About as skewed as ruling that abortion is legal because of the 4th amendment.
The concern I have is that if the Supreme Court does decide to rule on this (which I don't think they want to touch), they'll be forced to rule reality... which is that there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants any kind of immunity. This means that Biden could be liable for killing those 12 aide workers in Afghanistan from the drone strike he authorized, or that President Obama could be liable for keeping kids in cages at the border, or President George W. Bush being liable for all of the deaths in the Afghan / Iraq war...
In my opinion, a president has no Constitutional immunity. I believe he should, withing certain limitations.
I also believe that Trump committed no crime that should require immunity, although that doesn't matter to our illegitimate occupying government. He will be declared (not found) guilty, regardless.
That is my opinion. The left is now sparking up their flame throwers.
"Because Nixon", "Because I am the center of the universe", "Because you said Leftist"
the pig rump had limited immunity WHILE IN OFFICE ONLY
ONCE THE LOSER LOST THAT WAS OVER
THE NUT-CON SUPPORT FOR HIS REVOLT IS DISGUSTING AND HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR TREASON NO BOND AS IT IS A CAPITAL CRIME HIS PERSONAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE IS WELL DOCUMENTED
In my opinion, a president has no Constitutional immunity. I believe he should, withing certain limitations.
I also believe that Trump committed no crime that should require immunity, although that doesn't matter to our illegitimate occupying government. He will be declared (not found) guilty, regardless.
Yes, you and I have the exact same opinion here. I don't see anything that says the president has any kind of immunity, per the U.S. Constitution... though I do think he (any president) SHOULD to some degree.
I also don't think what they're attempting to charge him for is anything they can actually convict him of... and it'll never happen anyway, but the majority of America realizes it's just politics.
quote
Originally posted by ray b:
the pig rump had limited immunity WHILE IN OFFICE ONLY
ONCE THE LOSER LOST THAT WAS OVER
THE NUT-CON SUPPORT FOR HIS REVOLT IS DISGUSTING AND HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR TREASON NO BOND AS IT IS A CAPITAL CRIME HIS PERSONAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE IS WELL DOCUMENTED
Ray, can we have a legitimate conversation about this? I'm not asking you to like Trump.
On a serious question... where in your opinion did Trump have "limited immunity" while in office?
Last time I looked, I didn't see anything in the Constitution, though as Joe said... I think the president SHOULD.
Any public official should have immunity from prosecution for anything he did while in office that was part of his offical duties. If he was enacting a policy that he was authorized to do as part of his job then he should not be personally liable for any damages. The government would be liable, not the individual.
No public official should have any immunity for committing any crimes while in office. There is no position where criminal activity is part of the job requirements.
The use of governmental immunity is most common with police. They can shoot the wrong person while on the job, but if they were following proper procedure they are not personally responsible for the mistake.
So Trump is arguing that all the steps he took to overturn the election results were just part of his duty as President. He was required to protect the office from a "stolen election".
Any public official should have immunity from prosecution for anything he did while in office that was part of his offical duties. If he was enacting a policy that he was authorized to do as part of his job then he should not be personally liable for any damages. The government would be liable, not the individual.
No public official should have any immunity for committing any crimes while in office. There is no position where criminal activity is part of the job requirements.
The use of governmental immunity is most common with police. They can shoot the wrong person while on the job, but if they were following proper procedure they are not personally responsible for the mistake.
So Trump is arguing that all the steps he took to overturn the election results were just part of his duty as President. He was required to protect the office from a "stolen election".
Any public official should have immunity from prosecution for anything he did while in office that was part of his offical duties. If he was enacting a policy that he was authorized to do as part of his job then he should not be personally liable for any damages. The government would be liable, not the individual.
No public official should have any immunity for committing any crimes while in office. There is no position where criminal activity is part of the job requirements.
The use of governmental immunity is most common with police. They can shoot the wrong person while on the job, but if they were following proper procedure they are not personally responsible for the mistake.
So Trump is arguing that all the steps he took to overturn the election results were just part of his duty as President. He was required to protect the office from a "stolen election".
PROTECT FROM a "stolen election" IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM MAKING UP A FAIRY TALE THAT HAS NO SUBSTANCE NO EVIDENCE NO PROOF AND FOMENTING A REVOLT TO STOP THE LEGAL TRANSITION ONCE THE RUMP LOST
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ray, can we have a legitimate conversation about this? I'm not asking you to like Trump.
On a serious question... where in your opinion did Trump have "limited immunity" while in office?
Last time I looked, I didn't see anything in the Constitution, though as Joe said... I think the president SHOULD.
THERE IS A LAW SAYING YOU CAN'T ARREST A CONGRESS CRITTER WHILE IN SESSION OR COMING TO OR GOING FROM NOT A CONSTITUTION LEVEL LAW BY CUSTOM NO PRESIDENT WILL BE ARREST IN OFFICE IE NIXON WAS ALLOW TO LEAVE THEN PARDONED IT IS NOT ALL WRITTEN AND THE BITS THAT ARE ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION
RUMPS PAYING THE GIRLS WAS NOT ILLEGAL THE TAX FRAUDS ARE STATE TAXES IN THIS CASE WHEN HE WANTS TAX DEDUCTIONS
THERE IS A LAW SAYING YOU CAN'T ARREST A CONGRESS CRITTER WHILE IN SESSION OR COMING TO OR GOING FROM NOT A CONSTITUTION LEVEL LAW BY CUSTOM NO PRESIDENT WILL BE ARREST IN OFFICE IE NIXON WAS ALLOW TO LEAVE THEN PARDONED IT IS NOT ALL WRITTEN AND THE BITS THAT ARE ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION
RUMPS PAYING THE GIRLS WAS NOT ILLEGAL THE TAX FRAUDS ARE STATE TAXES IN THIS CASE WHEN HE WANTS TAX DEDUCTIONS
It's always entertaining as hell to get an ALL CAPS whack-job "lecture" from "ray the Constitutional law perfesser"
So Trump is arguing that all the steps he took to overturn the election results were just part of his duty as President. He was required to protect the office from a "stolen election".
Other than your use of the obvious Leftist shibboleth; "overturn the election", I agree with your assessment that it should be a Constitutional officer's duty, including the POTUS, to help ensure that an election isn't stolen.
Apparently the old adage: "Even a blind squirrel occasionally gathers a nut", also applies to you in the present context.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-04-2024).]
Originally posted by ray b: THERE IS A LAW SAYING YOU CAN'T ARREST A CONGRESS CRITTER WHILE IN SESSION OR COMING TO OR GOING FROM NOT A CONSTITUTION LEVEL LAW
Do you happen to know what this is? I'm not even sure how to search for this. I'm guessing it's probably not defined under Presidential Immunity. Not really my problem I suppose, so I don't want to waste too much time on it... but last time I looked it up in Westlaw, it talked about some old Supreme Court cases that referenced the President's right to appoint judges during Congressional recess... which was largely unrelated.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: BY CUSTOM NO PRESIDENT WILL BE ARREST IN OFFICE IE NIXON WAS ALLOW TO LEAVE THEN PARDONED IT IS NOT ALL WRITTEN AND THE BITS THAT ARE ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION
Well, ok... see, here is the problem. Tradition and "custom" only works until someone decides they aren't going to follow it. Unless it's something codified in law, it really doesn't mean anything.
I have been following this thread. I have considered the opinions by all.
What I have not seen mentioned, a thought I immediately thought of, is that impeachment is the protection of a President committing high crimes and misdemeanors.
I have been following this thread. I have considered the opinions by all.
What I have not seen mentioned, a thought I immediately thought of, is that impeachment is the protection of a President committing high crimes and misdemeanors.
You mean that "impeachment" is the process by which a "protected President" can be charged for high crimes and misdemeanors?
That's a good point... though, I always presumed the impeachment process was more so that the House and State could remove a sitting president for what they viewed as high crimes and misdemeanors. I don't think it really addresses criminal law specifically (though it can), and whether or not there is a liability to an individual state. Of course, President Trump is not president right now, but he's being charged with things that occurred while he was president, for the most part.
These will all end up getting thrown out. Last I saw, more than 60% of Americans view these cases as nothing more than a political stunt to hurt Trump. This is in STARK contrast to this same time last year when a majority of the country (53%) believed Trump was guilty of crimes in the J6 case. I don't know what has shifted opinion, either the video evidence, or lackluster Democrat leadership that's making people question the legitimacy... but Democrats realize they've lost steam here.
Like I told Rinse last year... the plan all along (in my opinion) is that they continue these concurrent trials until the election. If Biden wins, he pardons Trump and can then say he's trying to "heal the country," or some nonsense. If Trump wins, the trials will all cease, and Democrats can say Trump got away with crimes, etc. It was "supposed" to be a win/win for them either way... but right now, they're in a situation where there's declining support, and people are viewing it now for what it is... election interference. In effect, they're saying... "We need to violate democracy in order to protect it."
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You mean that "impeachment" is the process by which a "protected President" can be charged for high crimes and misdemeanors?
Not exactly. As you and others say, the rules on Presidential Immunity is not spelled out in the Constitution.. I was alluding to what was in the Constitution.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... I always presumed the impeachment process was more so that the House and State could remove a sitting president for what they viewed as high crimes and misdemeanors. I don't think it really addresses criminal law specifically (though it can), and whether or not there is a liability to an individual state. Of course, President Trump is not president right now, but he's being charged with things that occurred while he was president, for the most part.
Interesting. The House nor the Senate (not State) did not vote the President in.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... Last I saw, more than 60% of Americans view these cases as nothing more than a political stunt to hurt Trump. This is in STARK contrast to this. This is in STARK contrast to this same time last year when a majority of the country (53%) believed Trump was guilty of crimes in the J6 case.].
The the J6 case was decided by a heavily biased Democratic party in Congress. Who did not allow in, um, exculpatory evidence which was no shortage of said evidence.
Then it was repeated, over and over, like Global Warming, till people believed it to be true.
Originally posted by cliffw: Interesting. The House nor the Senate (not State) did not vote the President in.
The the J6 case was decided by a heavily biased Democratic party in Congress. Who did not allow in, um, exculpatory evidence which was no shortage of said evidence.
Then it was repeated, over and over, like Global Warming, till people believed it to be true.
Well... I mean, I agree with you... it's totally silly. I think all these charges are completely ridiculous. I'm merely questioning the constitutionality of "presidential immunity."
By the way, I put "state" on purpose there... because I was referencing the original purpose of the impeachment articles, and when they were created... the senators were elected by the state legislatures, so it would be the House of Representatives, and the will of the "states." I mean, I know you know that... but I was just clarifying why I put "state" instead of Senate... because the senators were supposed to represent the state's will. Now we basically have two sets of house of representatives, basically.
because the senators were supposed to represent the state's will. Now we basically have two sets of house of representatives, basically.
The House is VERY different from the Senate. I don't see how you could say they are the same.
And I don't know how the "state's will" could be different from the will of the citizens who elected the legislature.
The only people currently critical of the 17th Amendment are the ones who want to steal power through gerrymandered congressional districts. Conservatives who are supposed to be terrified of "big government" suddenly want to strip the right to vote away from individuals and give it to "big government" just because conservatives now control a majority of legislative districts.
The House is VERY different from the Senate. I don't see how you could say they are the same.
Because Todd is making a functional rather than literal comparison.
Since you admit that you don't understand that, you should simply step away from the conversation that is obviously way over your head.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Conservatives who are supposed to be terrified of "big government" suddenly want to strip the right to vote away from individuals and give it to "big government" just because conservatives now control a majority of legislative districts.
Your youthful "reasoning" leads you to presume that Republicans = Conservatives. Unfortunately that is not always the case these days.
Aside from that fact, Republicans have controlled the majority of "legislative districts" (state legislatures, house or senate), for over 14 YEARS now. There is absolutely NOTHING "sudden" about the discussion to abolish the 17th amendment. Moreover, there is no codified "right" for state citizens to directly vote for their Senators outside of the process spelled out in the 17th amendment.
Additionally, conservatives look at the federal government, including it's massive number, size and power of federal agencies, as being "big government", as you call it. State legislatures rarely, if ever, meet that definition.
Leftists gotta Leftist ...by making being WRONG an art form
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-07-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I always presumed the impeachment process was more so that the House and State could remove a sitting president for what they viewed as high crimes and misdemeanors. I don't think it really addresses criminal law specifically (though it can), and whether or not there is a liability to an individual state.
Congress is not the judicial branch of our government, accordingly the impeachment process is a political one and not civil or criminal.
Originally posted by randye:Because Todd is making a functional rather than literal comparison.
Since you admit that you don't understand that, you should simply step away from the conversation that is obviously way over your head.
Your youthful "reasoning" leads you to presume that Republicans = Conservatives. Unfortunately that is not always the case these days.
Aside from that fact, Republicans have controlled the majority of "legislative districts" (state legislatures, house or senate), for over 14 YEARS now. There is absolutely NOTHING "sudden" about the discussion to abolish the 17th amendment. Moreover, there is no codified "right" for state citizens to directly vote for their Senators outside of the process spelled out in the 17th amendment.
Additionally, conservatives look at the federal government, including it's massive number, size and power of federal agencies, as being "big government", as you call it. State legislatures rarely, if ever, meet that definition.
I didn't even read the response until I saw you responding to it. I immediately gloss over his totally ridiculous responses.
The first part is so stupid I'm not even going to address it. The second part... how ridiculous? Conservatives believe in the concept of "Vertical Federalism." That is, we support a smaller central government that supports basic requirements to run and defend a country... while we believe STATE governments are more important, in order to create better "competition" among the states. Florida is a perfect example. If Biden had the power to limit state's rights he would. He would immediately attempt to implement some form of system of equality that would save California and New York from itself, at the expense of states like Florida and Texas.
quote
Originally posted by randye:
Congress is not the judicial branch of our government, accordingly the impeachment process is a political one and not civil or criminal.
That's a really good point... but at the same time, the DOJ is the Executive arm of the Judicial branch... just as the Legislative branch commands some authority in that realm. A case never makes it to the court system (Federally) unless it's prosecuted by the department of justice (or comes from a lower court on grounds of appeal for constitutionality). But we're talking about a President and the Impeachment Process, specifically. You make a good point... it is a political process.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-08-2024).]
Your youthful "reasoning" leads you to presume that Republicans = Conservatives. Unfortunately that is not always the case these days.
Aside from that fact, Republicans have controlled the majority of "legislative districts" (state legislatures, house or senate), for over 14 YEARS now. There is absolutely NOTHING "sudden" about the discussion to abolish the 17th amendment. Moreover, there is no codified "right" for state citizens to directly vote for their Senators outside of the process spelled out in the 17th amendment.
Additionally, conservatives look at the federal government, including it's massive number, size and power of federal agencies, as being "big government", as you call it. State legislatures rarely, if ever, meet that definition.
Leftists gotta Leftist ...by making being WRONG an art form
WHY DO THE NUT-CON'S HERE SUPPORT THE PUTIN'S AND OTHER DICTATORS LIKE CHINA
Slowly, though, these autocracies [Russia and China] have come together, not around particular stories, but around a set of ideas, or rather in opposition to a set of ideas. Transparency, for example. And rule of law. And democracy. They have heard language about those ideas —which originate in the democratic world —coming from their own dissidents, and have concluded that they are dangerous to their regimes.
AND SOME HOW THE RUMPERS SUPPORT THIS
WHY i DO NOT GET
BUT THE DARK SIDE SHOWS IT'S SELF BY ACTIONS THE WORDS ARE LIES THE ACTIONS ARE THE TRUE EVIL
PUTIN IS EVIL THOSE WHO SUPPORT EVIL ARE EVIL
WHY ARE YOU BEING EVIL ?
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 05-08-2024).]
WHY DO THE NUT-CON'S HERE SUPPORT THE PUTIN'S AND OTHER DICTATORS LIKE CHINA
Slowly, though, these autocracies [Russia and China] have come together, not around particular stories, but around a set of ideas, or rather in opposition to a set of ideas. Transparency, for example. And rule of law. And democracy. They have heard language about those ideas —which originate in the democratic world —coming from their own dissidents, and have concluded that they are dangerous to their regimes.
AND SOME HOW THE RUMPERS SUPPORT THIS
WHY i DO NOT GET
BUT THE DARK SIDE SHOWS IT'S SELF BY ACTIONS THE WORDS ARE LIES THE ACTIONS ARE THE TRUE EVIL
PUTIN IS EVIL THOSE WHO SUPPORT EVIL ARE EVIL
WHY ARE YOU BEING EVIL ?
More plagiarism, at least twice today.
If you are trying to sound intelligent, it is not working. You can't even pretend to know what you are trying to talk about.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm merely questioning the constitutionality of "presidential immunity."
Okay.
Put on your leftoid hat and IMAGINE.
That would depend on you party's tribalism and if the President was of the same flavor.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: The House is VERY different from the Senate. I don't see how you could say they are the same.
We are not surprised by the delusions of your mind. Of course, you have the proof, and the evidence, right Senator Shift ?
quote
Originally posted by BingB: And I don't know how the "state's will" could be different from the will of the citizens who elected the legislature.
We know you are not a deep thinker. The citizens who elected the State legislatures wanted the State to impose their will, of the people.
Would you feel like a fool if I educate "the educator ? I hope so !
The US House of Representatives represent different areas of a State. The US Senate represents the will of the majorities of the citizens. Do I need to dumb that down for you.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: The only people currently critical of the 17th Amendment are the ones who want to steal power through gerrymandered congressional districts. Conservatives who are supposed to be terrified of "big government" suddenly want to strip the right to vote away from individuals and give it to "big government" just because conservatives now control a majority of legislative districts.
The US House of Representatives represent different areas of a State. The US Senate represents the will of the majorities of the citizens. Do I need to dumb that down for you.
If the Senator represents the majority of the citizens shouldn't a majority of citizens elect them?
You have been duped into believing that stripping power away from citizens and giving it to the government is in the citizens best interests. I say that is ridiculous.
If the Senator represents the majority of the citizens shouldn't a majority of citizens elect them?
You have been duped into believing that stripping power away from citizens and giving it to the government is in the citizens best interests. I say that is ridiculous.
Before the Constitution was foolishly amended, the State Legislatures (elected by the people of the State) appointed Senators to give the State a voice in the Federal government. Now the people elect them directly, eliminating the voice of the State Legislatures in the Federal government.
The Amendment was a serious mistake, and should be corrected to restore representation of the States in Congress.
Before the Constitution was foolishly amended, the State Legislatures (elected by the people of the State) appointed Senators to give the State a voice in the Federal government. Now the people elect them directly, eliminating the voice of the State Legislatures in the Federal government.
The Amendment was a serious mistake, and should be corrected to restore representation of the States in Congress.
HE FORGETS WHAT ''state rights'' were used to support
it was never citizens rights it was the right of the state to suppress votes by state terror
some of us remember the nut-con's and state rights all too well
Before the Constitution was foolishly amended, the State Legislatures (elected by the people of the State) appointed Senators to give the State a voice in the Federal government. Now the people elect them directly, eliminating the voice of the State Legislatures in the Federal government.
The Amendment was a serious mistake, and should be corrected to restore representation of the States in Congress.
How can you argue that Senators elected by citizens of a state do not represent the State?
State legislature is elected to deal with issues on the state level. I don't vote for a state legislature based on where his/her position on federal government issues. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Having state legislatures select the Senators is just another trick to help a smaller population control a disproportional amount of power. The ones who feel that land mass is more important than actual number of citizen votes.
So sad that people have actually resorted to wanting to strip rights away from citizens and give them to the government just so their suide can get an advantage. Tese people are willing to give sacrifice their individual power in order to support their party.
