this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
63 points (88.0% liked)
Videos
14065 readers
180 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If it was just Trump that would already be bad enough.
Yeah, we now have the groundwork for anyone, regardless of party, to act with complete impunity at the very highest level. There is no way that doesn't backfire spectacularly at some point.
Yes it's fucking terrifying. Good luck to you all.
Good luck on the immigration paperwork you mean
There has been precedent for this for a long time. It was just never tested at the supreme court level. If you time travel back 10 years and ask a constitutional law expert whether or not the president has immunity, they would have answered "Probably, but it's never been tested. But we all assume the president has immunity while performing the duties of the office".
All that's happened here is that something people assumed would hold up in court has now held up in court.
The checks and balances here are supposed to be that if you don't like the crimes a president commits while in office, you don't vote for them again.
Oh yeah? What's one situation in which the President would have to break the law to perform their duties? The President is the Chief Executive, literally part of the job is to preserve and uphold the law of the land, not to break it.
You're absolutely wrong about the check/balance being the ballot box. The checks and balances are set up throughout the Constitution explicitly:
Article I (Legislative Branch):
Article II (Executive Branch):
Article III (Judicial Branch):
Finally, the constitution makes it perfectly clear that officers of the USA are still subject to criminal laws outside of impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: "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."
Nobody is above the law. Until now, it seems, but not because that's the way it's meant to be.
You're right that another of the checks on presidential immunity is impeachment. But you're wrong that the president is expected to abide by the laws of the land. There has always been an understanding that the office of the president is above those laws (and the checks and balances are there if anyone has a problem with the way the president exercises that privilege). This is where presidential pardons come from. The president can select anyone who is so much as suspected with any crime and grant them blanket immunity, whether or not they actually are guilty of anything. They also have the authority to alter the rules temporarily via executive orders.
Sorry, you're wrong. The Constitution gives the president the power of pardon:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1
"The President shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
And again, the Constitution holds that all officers (of which the President is one) are subject to the law:
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
"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."
It's right there in black and white. Go check any true and faithful copy you like.
I'm aware of the text. I'm also aware of how it's been interpreted by courts. Those are two very different things.
If you're aware of the text then why'd you claim the courts' interpretation gave the President the power of pardon? If you're aware of the text, why do you consider any interpretation except the obvious one as correct? If you're aware of the text, why'd you say
Instead of citing any specific thing? I'll tell you why on that last one: it's because it's never been tested, so it hasn't been interpreted this way before, and this SCOTUS is the only court in the history of the country that would declare an intepretation exactly opposite of what the Constitution says (disagree? Find another instance of it, under another SCOTUS, to prove me wrong).
You are right that
But this is yet another reason the President should never have reason to outright break the law. There is no reason the President should ever have to break the law, and I will hold that position until such time as I get a satisfactory retort otherwise.
Yeah sorry I don't have a citation handy but I remember hearing interviews with constitutional law experts and scholars in the early days of the Trump presidency that are basically verbatim what I said in my first comment here: "It's never been tested, but everyone assumes that if a case comes before Scotus, they will rule that the president is immune while carrying out the duties of the office". All that's happened recently is Scotus confirmed this assumption. I'm not saying it's a good thing. Just that it is what most constitutional scholars thought would be the ruling.
It's why most of the court cases he was battling during his presidency were for things unrelated to his presidency, like his Trump university scam or the Mar A Lago stuff.
Maybe you're partially remembering the opinion (and it was just an opinion, not legal precedent) that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted for crimes? But the whole basis for that idea was that the proper remedy is impeachment to remove them from office, and upon being removed from office they can be charged with crimes by the DOJ (which they would no longer be the head of). This is what shielded Trump while he was in office, as his DOJ declined to prosecute him citing this logic as the reason.
Yeah that's probably what I was thinking of. I didn't realize it was specific to sitting presidents. But then again any criminal trial would be heavily dependant on who the next president is. Like this very well could have played out in the 80s except that Ford pardoned Nixon. I appreciate you helping to refresh my memory.
If you're still allowed to vote after that president does what he does.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but any change to who's allowed to vote would require a constitutional amendment, which invalidates the point I am making.