|
Immunity
Jul 9, 2024 19:13:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by garycoleco on Jul 9, 2024 19:13:41 GMT -5
Presidential immunity is a necessary part of our government. Anything a president does to protect our country should be immune. Voicing concern over a possible corrupted election should be immune. The craziness that some people are voicing about “assassination” and “seal team 6” used against political opponents is simply ridiculous thoughtless ideas. Of course such actions are not done with immunity or impunity. Anything that can realistically be considered done to protect our country is done with immunity. Did you cry like a baby when Obama and Clinton took advantage of presidential immunity?
|
|
|
Immunity
Jul 9, 2024 19:43:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by johngalt on Jul 9, 2024 19:43:03 GMT -5
Former President Donald Trump has been increasingly clear about his intention to use the power of the presidency to seek revenge on those he considers his political enemies if his bid to retake the White House is successful in the November elections. Trump’s promises of retaliation are not new. Since entering the political arena in 2015, he has used the politics of grievance to motivate many of his supporters. While addressing a crowd last year at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump declared, “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” www.voanews.com/a/trump-s-vows-of-revenge-against-his-opponents-gain-volume-/7650528.html Can you name all of Trumps enemies he jailed while he was POTUS? And so what if a politician or a bureaucrat is charged with a crime such as corruption or incompetence?
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jul 9, 2024 23:06:14 GMT -5
That's one of the things that inhaling paint fumes will do to you.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jul 9, 2024 23:09:00 GMT -5
Taponator. They will win a reversal of the civil judgment also. The woman who accused him could not even remember the date or day it occurred. That finding of guilt was very dubious to say the least. Quit hating Trump and start loving America. Unfortunately Trump is the best choice for America available right now. Sure they will. There were two civil judgements, incidentally, and he was found liable both times.
Since you seem confused again: One can love America and hate Trump at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 10, 2024 0:21:49 GMT -5
Taponator. They will win a reversal of the civil judgment also. The woman who accused him could not even remember the date or day it occurred. That finding of guilt was very dubious to say the least. Quit hating Trump and start loving America. Unfortunately Trump is the best choice for America available right now. Sure they will. There were two civil judgements, incidentally, and he was found liable both times.
Since you seem confused again: One can love America and hate Trump at the same time.
Gotta Cult or die.
|
|
|
Post by toldya on Jul 10, 2024 6:20:37 GMT -5
The hate Trump cult is moving right along.
|
|
|
Immunity
Jul 10, 2024 10:17:14 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 10, 2024 10:17:14 GMT -5
The hate Trump cult is moving right along. It’s not just Trump, got to give his America hating, cultists, supporters the credit they deserve for the harm they take pleasure inflicting on the country.
|
|
|
Post by nuevowavo on Jul 10, 2024 14:38:41 GMT -5
I'm curious - All the Constitutional originalists defended overturning Roe v.Wade with the argument that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. So where in the Constitution does it mention "immunity"?
|
|
|
Immunity
Jul 10, 2024 15:13:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by illinoisfisherman on Jul 10, 2024 15:13:02 GMT -5
TDS afflicted people are very irrational.
|
|
|
Post by nuevowavo on Jul 10, 2024 15:22:44 GMT -5
TDS afflicted people are very irrational.
It's a legitimate Constitutional question, and has nothing to do with Trump. Would you care to answer it for me?
|
|
|
Post by toldya on Jul 10, 2024 15:36:15 GMT -5
" The Constitution doesn't directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, this privilege has developed over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3: "
" Is the President Immune from civil liability? The President is immune from civil liability absolutely for suits arising from actions relating to official duties. This includes all acts in the "outer perimeter" of those duties. However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct. "
As it relates to recent issues - Trump acting on a belief that the election was stolen would be an official duty . Many people are on record as saying that Trump thinks/thought the election was stolen.
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jul 10, 2024 16:20:21 GMT -5
I'm curious - All the Constitutional originalists defended overturning Roe v.Wade with the argument that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. So where in the Constitution does it mention "immunity"? That is not the basis of the overturning of Roe v Wade and you know it... or at least should know it.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 10, 2024 18:10:39 GMT -5
" The Constitution doesn't directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, this privilege has developed over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3: " " Is the President Immune from civil liability? The President is immune from civil liability absolutely for suits arising from actions relating to official duties. This includes all acts in the "outer perimeter" of those duties. However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct. " As it relates to recent issues - Trump acting on a belief that the election was stolen would be an official duty . Many people are on record as saying that Trump thinks/thought the election was stolen. Elections are a state issue according to the constitution. The President has no official duties in regards to how a state operates its elections. His only recourse is that of a candidate. Trump never stated in any legal proceeding that the election was stolen. He only used those words as a candidate who was upset he lost. He only recourse was the legal challenges that he lost. Calling state officials and demanding they find him votes was done as a candidate. That is not, under any scenario, part of the Presidential duties. His speech on January 6th was that of Candidate Trump who had lost an election. Once the states certified their election results and the courts had dismissed all his cases against the states, the President had no official duties in regards to the election except to accept defeat, no matter what he thought about the results.
|
|
|
Post by toldya on Jul 10, 2024 18:41:20 GMT -5
" The Constitution doesn't directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, this privilege has developed over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3: " " Is the President Immune from civil liability? The President is immune from civil liability absolutely for suits arising from actions relating to official duties. This includes all acts in the "outer perimeter" of those duties. However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct. " As it relates to recent issues - Trump acting on a belief that the election was stolen would be an official duty . Many people are on record as saying that Trump thinks/thought the election was stolen. Elections are a state issue according to the constitution. The President has no official duties in regards to how a state operates its elections. His only recourse is that of a candidate. Trump never stated in any legal proceeding that the election was stolen. He only used those words as a candidate who was upset he lost. He only recourse was the legal challenges that he lost. Calling state officials and demanding they find him votes was done as a candidate. That is not, under any scenario, part of the Presidential duties. His speech on January 6th was that of Candidate Trump who had lost an election. Once the states certified their election results and the courts had dismissed all his cases against the states, the President had no official duties in regards to the election except to accept defeat, no matter what he thought about the results. That's your opinion ,but I think the arguments in court will be that he was action in an official capacity. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 10, 2024 19:03:07 GMT -5
Elections are a state issue according to the constitution. The President has no official duties in regards to how a state operates its elections. His only recourse is that of a candidate. Trump never stated in any legal proceeding that the election was stolen. He only used those words as a candidate who was upset he lost. He only recourse was the legal challenges that he lost. Calling state officials and demanding they find him votes was done as a candidate. That is not, under any scenario, part of the Presidential duties. His speech on January 6th was that of Candidate Trump who had lost an election. Once the states certified their election results and the courts had dismissed all his cases against the states, the President had no official duties in regards to the election except to accept defeat, no matter what he thought about the results. That's your opinion ,but I think the arguments in court will be that he was action in an official capacity. We'll see. It is the Constitution's opinion that the state control the elections and choosing electors. The courts have supported that opinion for the last almost 250 years. Even this SCOTUS would have a difficult time rationalising many of Trump's actions as "official duties" It would be improper to allow a President to use his powers to try and negate the State's power over it's choosing of electors. no matter what his "personal" feelings were. Those "feelings" could be influenced by his loss in the election or his ego unable to accept defeat.
|
|