Who says he can’t? The Supreme Court just said that he’s immune from “official acts” without even defining what that would mean. Who determines what is and isn’t an official act? The President? The Supreme Court? Right now, as this ruling is worded, all bets are off. There’s nothing stopping a sitting President from just arbitrarily declaring someone as a threat to national security and having them picked off by ST6 as an “official act to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States”, then just having the details classified.
Having something criminal declared as an “official act” is piss-easy, especially when you’re in charge of the branch making the decision and you have one of the other branches in your back pocket, possibly both.
Don’t bother with this “user”. Look at their comment history. The person showed up today to defend this obvious act against democracy. My guess is a Russian/Chinese misinformation promoter.
The laws about that were just thrown out the window with this ruling. Everything is an official act as long as he was president when he stated it to he done. Ordering fries from McDonald’s is now an official act as well.
“Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution” makes pretty much anything fair fucking game.
“The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,”
I don’t understand how you can confuse this sentence. People act like the president can commit any crime they want. That is categorically false. Crimes committed in the name in the highest office of the land are not o in an official capacity.
The U.S. Constitution includes several provisions that limit the powers of the president and prevent the president from committing crimes without consequences:
Article I, Section 2 and Section 3: These sections provide the House of Representatives the power to impeach the president and the Senate the power to try and convict the president. Impeachment is a process by which the president can be removed from office for committing “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Article II, Section 4: This section specifically states that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: The president must take an oath of office to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This oath implies a legal and ethical obligation to adhere to the law and Constitution.
Checks and Balances: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, whereby the legislative and judicial branches can limit the actions of the executive branch. Congress can pass laws, override presidential vetoes, and control the budget, while the judiciary can review the constitutionality of presidential actions through judicial review.
Together, these provisions and principles ensure that the president is subject to the rule of law and can be held accountable for criminal actions.
The problem here is that Trump stole and likely sold classified documents. This ruling now allows him to sell secrets that can cause grave danger to the country without consequence.
The president can’t commit criminal acts and claim it was an official capacity, lol.
What the fuck do you mean “lol”. That is PRECISELY what this ruling does. It removes criminal liability for anything that is done as an official act, which is entirely fucking subjective, and up to the interpretation of a corrupt, coopted judiciary. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
The stupidity of this statement truly strains belief given the actual verbiage in this ruling. May you suffer the full weight and consequences of that stupidity.
A person of power cannot commit a crime and claim it was in official capacity, because the act itself is against the law and cannot be committed without consequence.
This whole ruling is because of a person in power (Trump) who committed a crime (fake electors plot to overturn the 2020 election) and is claiming it as an official capacity of the office. That’s the whole point of the case which was appealed to the Supreme Court.
So what consequence will Trump face for his crimes now based on this ruling?
You can organize a coup to overthrow the government and claim it’s an official act, there’s absolutely nothing stopping a president from claiming assassinations are an official act now. Hell, the commander in chief already organizes assassinations on foreign targets.
The Democrats might not abuse this, but the Republicans will, and they have given themselves carte blanche to start killing political dissidents.
While i agree with you, it’s a huge grey area. Like Biden could have trump assassinated and then claim that his constitutional duties require him to protect the cotus from enemies both foreign and domestic.
In fact, it would have to be the DoJ or Congress that did so - Biden could order the DoJ to stop, and arguably could have anyone in Congress killed or jailed without trial by stating that they presented a clear danger to democracy by trying to impeach him.
deleted by creator
Who says he can’t? The Supreme Court just said that he’s immune from “official acts” without even defining what that would mean. Who determines what is and isn’t an official act? The President? The Supreme Court? Right now, as this ruling is worded, all bets are off. There’s nothing stopping a sitting President from just arbitrarily declaring someone as a threat to national security and having them picked off by ST6 as an “official act to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States”, then just having the details classified.
Having something criminal declared as an “official act” is piss-easy, especially when you’re in charge of the branch making the decision and you have one of the other branches in your back pocket, possibly both.
Don’t bother with this “user”. Look at their comment history. The person showed up today to defend this obvious act against democracy. My guess is a Russian/Chinese misinformation promoter.
deleted by creator
You’re trying to play it off like a joke, but that should really trigger some introspection.
Good. Fuck off then.
Probably is a total coincidence that you’re saying this here.
deleted by creator
The laws about that were just thrown out the window with this ruling. Everything is an official act as long as he was president when he stated it to he done. Ordering fries from McDonald’s is now an official act as well.
deleted by creator
You just showed us you didn’t lol
If it were, Trump would have been behind bars years ago.
Trumps own legal team has described political assassinations as qualifying as an official act as president
deleted by creator
It is! in the dissenting opinion in which Sotomayor explicitly describes this ruling as granting immunity for political assassinations
Shoutout to Voyager for implementing Apollo’s new account marker. It makes spotting trolls really easy.
deleted by creator
“Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution” makes pretty much anything fair fucking game.
“The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,”
I don’t understand how you can confuse this sentence. People act like the president can commit any crime they want. That is categorically false. Crimes committed in the name in the highest office of the land are not o in an official capacity.
The U.S. Constitution includes several provisions that limit the powers of the president and prevent the president from committing crimes without consequences:
Article I, Section 2 and Section 3: These sections provide the House of Representatives the power to impeach the president and the Senate the power to try and convict the president. Impeachment is a process by which the president can be removed from office for committing “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article II, Section 4: This section specifically states that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: The president must take an oath of office to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This oath implies a legal and ethical obligation to adhere to the law and Constitution.
Checks and Balances: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, whereby the legislative and judicial branches can limit the actions of the executive branch. Congress can pass laws, override presidential vetoes, and control the budget, while the judiciary can review the constitutionality of presidential actions through judicial review.
Together, these provisions and principles ensure that the president is subject to the rule of law and can be held accountable for criminal actions.
Nothing you wrote ensures anything.
Trump was impeached twice with no consequence.
“Official acts” is arbitrary.
deleted by creator
The problem here is that Trump stole and likely sold classified documents. This ruling now allows him to sell secrets that can cause grave danger to the country without consequence.
deleted by creator
So in other words, Trump can do whatever he wants as long as his cronies vote that it’s okay.
deleted by creator
The Christian Caliphate was birthed today, and Trump will be supreme Ayatollah
deleted by creator
At this point you need to present your evidence that they can’t because SCROTUS literally said they can
At this point you’ve outed yourself as a partisan hack that is stuck in binary thinking.
At this point, you’re a towel.
But as an official act, the president can strip someone of citizenship.
Removed by mod
Removed, civility, ableist slur.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
What the fuck do you mean “lol”. That is PRECISELY what this ruling does. It removes criminal liability for anything that is done as an official act, which is entirely fucking subjective, and up to the interpretation of a corrupt, coopted judiciary. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
deleted by creator
The stupidity of this statement truly strains belief given the actual verbiage in this ruling. May you suffer the full weight and consequences of that stupidity.
And who decides how to interpret law and levy consequence? And whose pocket are they in?
Wow. You are a fucking idiot lol. Ooof. I feel bad for you.
deleted by creator
It was an official act to use a drone on his political opponents.
This whole ruling is because of a person in power (Trump) who committed a crime (fake electors plot to overturn the 2020 election) and is claiming it as an official capacity of the office. That’s the whole point of the case which was appealed to the Supreme Court.
So what consequence will Trump face for his crimes now based on this ruling?
deleted by creator
You can organize a coup to overthrow the government and claim it’s an official act, there’s absolutely nothing stopping a president from claiming assassinations are an official act now. Hell, the commander in chief already organizes assassinations on foreign targets.
The Democrats might not abuse this, but the Republicans will, and they have given themselves carte blanche to start killing political dissidents.
Is this fascism yet, or are we waiting for the trains to run on time?
I think we all know that one of those two things will never happen in the land of the free and home of the mass-produced automobile.
Trainspotters are going to storm the capital when Biden loses.
But he can commit official acts that happen to be criminal. Semantics are fun!
deleted by creator
Your logic doesn’t even follow. Why would the president need immunity for a non-criminal act? Think about it for like 2 seconds dude.
deleted by creator
Supreme court literally just said he could by saying Jan 6 was fine for President to incite
Have you been living under a rock?
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama made kill lists for Americans legal.
If they are traitors and terrorists, he may have to send them to Guantanamo.
deleted by creator
That was yesterday.
Guess you missed Trump’s entire presidency.
While i agree with you, it’s a huge grey area. Like Biden could have trump assassinated and then claim that his constitutional duties require him to protect the cotus from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Official act or not?
deleted by creator
Please cite where in the ruling it says charges would be brought against him.
In fact, it would have to be the DoJ or Congress that did so - Biden could order the DoJ to stop, and arguably could have anyone in Congress killed or jailed without trial by stating that they presented a clear danger to democracy by trying to impeach him.