Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[redwallzyl]

He used executive action to bypass the fact that Congress was doing fuckall to deal with a serious situation. He didn't make anything law, but cleaned up a situation until Congress got its shit together. Their response, of course, was "how could you! You bypassed our ability to screw you over by going around and putting the onus on us! That's against the constitution!" rather than actually deal with the problem now put squarely on their plate.

As for whether it actually violates the Constitution, I doubt it.

He's ordered American citizens assassinated without trial on legal justification that's never been shown to anyone.

Not that I disagree with it, but there's certainly arguments that that's against more than a few items.

specifics? if it was some ISIS defecting traitors i don't care.

[wierd]

Careful. Due process is for all.

[smjjames]

He used executive action to bypass the fact that Congress was doing fuckall to deal with a serious situation. He didn't make anything law, but cleaned up a situation until Congress got its shit together. Their response, of course, was "how could you! You bypassed our ability to screw you over by going around and putting the onus on us! That's against the constitution!" rather than actually deal with the problem now put squarely on their plate.

As for whether it actually violates the Constitution, I doubt it.

He's ordered American citizens assassinated without trial on legal justification that's never been shown to anyone.

Not that I disagree with it, but there's certainly arguments that that's against more than a few items.

specifics? if it was some ISIS defecting traitors i don't care.

It was an American who had joined Al Quaeda. It was in one of those complex grey areas where there has been no precedent before, caused quite a lot of outcry over it. The British had their own version of it recently too.

[Culise]

He used executive action to bypass the fact that Congress was doing fuckall to deal with a serious situation. He didn't make anything law, but cleaned up a situation until Congress got its shit together. Their response, of course, was "how could you! You bypassed our ability to screw you over by going around and putting the onus on us! That's against the constitution!" rather than actually deal with the problem now put squarely on their plate.

As for whether it actually violates the Constitution, I doubt it.

He's ordered American citizens assassinated without trial on legal justification that's never been shown to anyone.

Not that I disagree with it, but there's certainly arguments that that's against more than a few items.

specifics? if it was some ISIS defecting traitors i don't care.

One was accused of being a leader in Al Qaeda; the other three, no justification was given to the best of my knowledge.  There's a reason due process exists, however, and a reason we typically reject summary justice by executive order for any citizens.  The idea that we can execute suspects based solely on a single person's decision without any external input or even post-facto justification should be highly concerning if for no other reason than because of the precedent set. 

[smjjames]

He used executive action to bypass the fact that Congress was doing fuckall to deal with a serious situation. He didn't make anything law, but cleaned up a situation until Congress got its shit together. Their response, of course, was "how could you! You bypassed our ability to screw you over by going around and putting the onus on us! That's against the constitution!" rather than actually deal with the problem now put squarely on their plate.

As for whether it actually violates the Constitution, I doubt it.

He's ordered American citizens assassinated without trial on legal justification that's never been shown to anyone.

Not that I disagree with it, but there's certainly arguments that that's against more than a few items.

Oh, thought the current uproar for Obama impeachment was over his executive action on immigration, not that stuff.

The current uproar IS over Obama using the executive action stuff to get around a do-nothing congress.

[TheBiggerFish]

If there was substantiated evidence... Well.
I don't particularly like war in general.

[Strife26]

The Republicans have a different uproar every month or so. I fully predict it to be something star wars related next.

[Shadowlord]

On the subject of due process for terrorists:
Everyone seems to agree that it doesn't apply to non-citizens, at any rate, and seemed to only be concerned when he targeted Americans. One of them (the first IIRC) was a popular English-language recruiter for Al Qaida, I think. I think the Bush administration considered them unlawful enemy combatants. Maybe Obama figures it's legal because we're at war with terrorism, or had their citizenship revoked or something.

But... doesn't due process also get ignored whenever someone gets gunned down by police instead of arrested? The only justification given for that is "I was in fear for my life! He had [a weapon, or something that was mistaken for one, as if the second amendment doesn't exist]!" Sometimes adding "they committed a crime" as if that justifies it. 

Fifth amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

I don't know how that's supposed to be squared away with swat teams and so forth, though, since IANAL. I assume that there's a reason that this doesn't come up in court or at least doesn't show up in the news.

[Strife26]

It should, ideally, but war on drugs. Much more difficult to blame the current President for that.

[Flying Dice]

There's an easy target for that one anyways, since the CIA's both scum and heavily responsible for starting up a lot of the U.S. trade in hard drugs.

[misko27]

But... doesn't due process also get ignored whenever someone gets gunned down by police instead of arrested? The only justification given for that is "I was in fear for my life! He had [a weapon, or something that was mistaken for one, as if the second amendment doesn't exist]!" Sometimes adding "they committed a crime" as if that justifies it. 

This is where the issue gets fuzzy. I am unfamiliar with the legal framework regarding killing suspects when they cannot be brought into custody.

I strongly doubt that there isn't an extant legal framework in place to support the actions of police who kill when there is a reasonable suspicion of them committing a crime. Otherwise, literally every single time the police bring down a mass-shooter, it's the police in the wrong for not bringing them into custody (assume for whatever reason they aren't coming quietly, like being wildly insane)

NINJA-EDIT: Fascinating. It seems the only relevant case I could find on the subject is (Tennessee v. Garner),  where the police argued in favor of being able to gun down a fleeing suspect. Interestingly, the Supreme Court decided on the basis of the fourth amendment, which covers unlawful seizures

Justice White wrote for the majority, first agreeing with the Sixth Circuit's determination that apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure, then framing the legal issue as whether the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure. In order to determine the constitutionality of a seizure, White reasoned, the court must weigh the nature of the intrusion of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against the government interests which justified the intrusion.

Shooting people counts as seizure of their most important property; it is thus legal, but only in the most stringent of circumstances. Legally, preventing people from committing serious violence such as rape, murder, and armed robbery falls under the ruling of "Justified Homicide", which apparently applies to police. If it is valid, it was justified. If not, it is police brutality/criminal behavior.

[FearfulJesuit]

It's not a legal thing, they're just saying (and they're not really wrong) that Trump is a shithead that isn't even remotely qualified to hold the position. They've been saying that for some time, in fact, they're just not being as quiet and diplomatic about it anymore. I suppose if he acted in that direction while he was already in office it could become a problem but that's a different question entirely.

They're correct, but since the statement was released by an arm of the White House, I imagine the average Trump supporter will take this to mean that the Muslim usurper Barack Hussein Soetaro is conspiring to keep America's greatest businessman from making the country great again. You can't really win, here.

[martinuzz]

"pre-emptive impeachment"

it does have a nice ring to it

[Helgoland]

There must've been cases of Americans - or at least British - citizens volunteering for the Wehrmacht in WWII. Who here would say it'd be illegal to shoot them as part of normal military action?

Due process is not something applicable to warfare, since warfare is by its very nature politically motivated murder. Whether the drone assassinations count as warfare though... That's an entirely different question. I guess our current body of international law - and our current understanding of war and peace - is not suited to analyzing situations involving powerful non-state actors.

[Morrigi]

So, on the Trump banning Muslims thing. Does part f of 8 U.S. Code Section 1182 mean what I think it means?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182