Print

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

[Maximum Spin]

Congress can and should have the power to criminalize abuse of executive power. If an act is done without or beyond authorization of an Act of Congress

If an act requires authorization of an Act of Congress, then it is not a core executive function. This decision still allows Congress to limit those. But most of the things the President does do not require any authorization from Congress because they are authorized by the Constitution, and, in fact, Congress does not get a say.

if an act is done in bad faith, or if an act (authorized or not) is a pretext for criminal behavior

These are not for the Congress to decide either.

Look. Let me flip this around.

The President has the power to issue orders to the executive branch, but he cannot legally order the FBI, the Secret Service, or even the military to arrest Congress and prevent them from meeting, because that would be interfering with the powers of a coequal branch of government. If a President did that, the people receiving those orders would be legally obligated to refuse to follow them, and the courts would uphold that obligation. This applies no matter what the reason for arresting Congress may be, even if the President believes that Congress are committing crimes or acting in bad faith. It's not up to him to decide, it's up to the voters.

The President cannot use his powers to dictate what a coequal branch can do with their powers, and Congress cannot use their power of passing laws to dictate what the President can do with his powers either.

State governments, being not even coequal but lesser, also do not get to dictate to either Federal branch.

So, under the principle of separation of powers, there is no body that can licitly create a law which restricts the power of the Executive, which is vested wholly in the President. The authority to do so does not exist. As the decision says, that doesn't apply to powers that Congress vests in the Executive by passing laws for the Executive to, well, execute, which Congress has the power to limit, and it doesn't apply to things the President does which are not valid exercises of Executive power at all, so the President is still forbidden from jaywalking.

The Legal Eagle dude is a civil lawyer, an ambulance chaser. He's not a Con Law scholar. He has no idea what he's talking about and just wants clicks.

And by the way...

the president's duty only extends to the faithful execution of the law.

That's completely, grotesquely uninformed. There is an entire Article II beyond that one particular clause. That's just one of the President's duties.

[nenjin]

The President has the power to issue orders to the executive branch, but he cannot legally order the FBI, the Secret Service, or even the military to arrest Congress and prevent them from meeting, because that would be interfering with the powers of a coequal branch of government. If a President did that, the people receiving those orders would be legally obligated to refuse to follow them, and the courts would uphold that obligation. This applies no matter what the reason for arresting Congress may be, even if the President believes that Congress are committing crimes or acting in bad faith. It's not up to him to decide, it's up to the voters.

Except, now they can.

President declares Congress meeting is an act of sedition and treason.
President states that defending the United States from sedition and treason is a "core power."
President orders the FBI, Secret Service and Military to arrest Congress.
Both refuse.
President removes all the heads of the FBI and Secret Service (the military already serves at the pleasure of the President) and appoints his own immediately. (Thanks to the rule change Trump did right before leaving office that allows him to reclassify 80% of Federal employees and move them to a group that he has the privilege of appointing or dismissing.)
New heads of the FBI, Secret Service or any other agency immediately do as the President demands, thereby setting the precedent that these agencies can be directly ordered by the President to do what they want.
Everyone sues the President.
The President says "the undefined scope of "core powers" means this is within my official duties, and therefore has presumptive immunity, and you cannot use the facts of what I did in my official duties to make the case for criminally or constitutionally violating the law."
Everyone eats shit.

You keep talking about what "was." Start thinking about what is.

[Maximum Spin]

Except, now they can.

President declares Congress meeting is an act of sedition and treason.
President states that defending the United States from sedition and treason is a "core power."
President orders the FBI, Secret Service and Military to arrest Congress.
Both refuse.
President removes all the heads of the FBI and Secret Service (the military already serves at the pleasure of the President) and appoints his own immediately. (Thanks to the rule change Trump did right before leaving office that allows him to reclassify 80% of Federal employees and move them to a group that he has the privilege of appointing or dismissing.)
New heads of the FBI, Secret Service or any other agency immediately do as the President demands, thereby setting the precedent that these agencies can be directly ordered by the President to do what they want.
Everyone sues the President.
The President says "the undefined scope of "core powers" means this is within my official duties, and therefore has presumptive immunity, and you cannot use the facts of what I did in my official duties to make the case for criminally or constitutionally violating the law."
Everyone eats shit.

You keep talking about what "was." Start thinking about what is.

No they can't. You are being lied to.

Your first step is unconstitutional. The President cannot lawfully use his power of defending against sedition and treason to impinge on the powers of Congress. That hasn't changed in any way. There is no immunity for it, not even after the decision. At all.

The President can replace the heads of the FBI and Secret Service, sure. That's an executive function. If the new heads carry out the President's unconstitutional orders, they are also in violation of the law and both they and the President can be charged. More importantly, the President can be impeached for it, anyway.

[nenjin]

Again, the guy quoting the rules while the building burns down around them. You only have to actually read the Supreme Court's decision to realize that what the Constitution does or doesn't say doesn't matter to them, and by extension, doesn't matter when the person wielding that intentionally undefined power also controls the military. The law doesn't mean shit when there's a gun stuck in your face. Which plenty of people experienced first hand just a couple years ago, of the military marching through the streets and shooting at people at their windows, and randomly beating the shit out of them for existing.

But keep huffing the copium.

[Maximum Spin]

Again, the guy quoting the rules while the building burns down around them. You only have to actually read the Supreme Court's decision to realize that what the Constitution does or doesn't say doesn't matter to them, and by extension, doesn't matter when the person wielding that intentionally undefined power also controls the military. The law doesn't mean shit when there's a gun stuck in your face. Which plenty of people experienced first hand just a couple years ago, of the military marching through the streets and shooting at people at their windows, and randomly beating the shit out of them for existing.

But keep huffing the copium.

Well, yeah, I'm talking about the de jure situation because that's what matters to a conversation about the SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS decision, btw, explicitly does limit the immunity to the President's Constitutional functions, it's not just magic dust and the President cannot make an act official by saying it is. To me, that suggests they do care about what the Constitution says.

But okay, let's talk about the de facto side in a hypothetical universe where the President doesn't have immunity.
The President decides to arrest Congress for whatever reason. Pretext doesn't matter, maybe he says it's sedition, maybe he says they're aliens.
President orders the FBI, SS, and military to arrest Congress, the leaders refuse.
President replaces the leaders with new leaders who will do what he says.
In the meantime, Congress probably doesn't like the order, if they know about it, and vote to impeach. Presumably, the President doesn't step down voluntarily so the Courts have to order the US Marshals to remand him into custody.
Here we have a divergence. Maybe the Courts are on Congress' side, maybe they're on the President's side. If they're on the Congress' side, they'll so order the Marshals; otherwise, they won't and there's nothing Congress can do.
In the hypothetical where they do order the Marshals to do so, the Marshals either refuse or they don't. If they refuse, who can stop them? If they don't, then perhaps the President fires the U.S. Attorney General, who is in charge of the Marshals, and replaces him with a political ally. Constitutionally, this appointment is void because the President has been impeached and is no longer the President (assume for the sake of argument that the VP is either on the side of Congress, or has also been impeached and the authority vested in the Speaker). But the question will really come down to which leader the Marshals decide to follow.
Meanwhile, the new leaders of the SS, FBI, and Army have ordered the soldiers to arrest Congress. Again, it comes down to who the soldiers on the ground decide to follow. The Courts can declare the order invalid and order them to stand down, but they cannot use mind control. The soldiers and agents will do what they choose. It will probably end up some level of civil war between them.

So what difference does the President being able or not being able to be prosecuted for it make? If the Courts are on the side of the President, then even if the President does not have immunity, they can just dismiss any charges for any reason they choose. There's no other recourse.

Complaining that I'm "quoting the rules while the building burns down" is missing the point. I'm specifically arguing against the idea that the Courts changed the rules and that's a disaster. If the rules don't matter, then the SCOTUS decision doesn't matter.

[nenjin]

If SCOTUS doesn't matter, then the Constitution doesn't matter, then the rule of law doesn't matter. That's not a victory.

But that's the situation that's been engineered. Filling the Supreme Court full of ideologically motivated justices has paved the way for filling the entire government with the ideologically motivated. Once they're in place they'll be more than happy to, just as the Supreme Court has, put ideology over the law until their ideology becomes law.

I'd be more willing to debate this as a matter of law rather than chaos, but after the Jan. 6th riots we saw just how close we came to an internal coup. Republicans politicians of every stripe lost their nerve though because they weren't sure the public or the law would support them in the aftermath. That's not the situation we're looking at this time. The Supreme Court has laid the roadway for a complete dismantling of opposition to Trump should he win.

--

I'd like to also point out the absurdity of life time appointments. The idea was that life time appointments insulate the office holder from political pressure because their position is unassailable by and large. Limited terms were understood to be open to just being used for grifting.

How far we've come. Now both are for grifting. It'd require a constitutional amendment to put term limits on Supreme Court justices and there's no way in hell this "court" would ever allow it. They've already signaled that they're open for bidding on how those with money want laws passed and none of that is considered wrong or improper in their eyes. But if ever there was an argument for never letting a position of true power be a life time appointment, it's right now. I'm just wondering, if Trump wins, how long it will take them to extra-legally enact a life time presidential appointment.

[Maximum Spin]

If SCOTUS doesn't matter, then the Constitution doesn't matter, then the rule of law doesn't matter. That's not a victory.

The Constitution, SCOTUS, and the rule of law have always only mattered exactly to the extent that the men with guns are willing to follow them. That isn't a matter of victory. It's important not to vote for criminals.

The Supreme Court has laid the roadway for a complete dismantling of opposition to Trump should he win.

By issuing a tepid and entirely expected ruling on presidential immunity that doesn't provide for any particular immunity for "a complete dismantling of opposition to Trump"? How did the Supreme Court lay this roadway? The situation I described above is BEFORE the immunity, not after it. The immunity ruling doesn't add any new power.

How far we've come. Now both are for grifting. It'd require a constitutional amendment to put term limits on Supreme Court justices and there's no way in hell this "court" would ever allow it.

The court can't disallow a constitutional amendment. IF the Executive is in sane hands, then it doesn't matter what the Justices think - they can be strongarmed right out of the courtroom by the Marshals (or whomever) when their terms are up and whatever decisions they pretend to issue soundly ignored. If the Executive is not in sane hands, it doesn't matter if you amend the Constitution or not. That's what I'm trying to explain. Every part of the government has the ability to ignore every other part of the government if it wants. The Constitution only works as far as the government is not turned against itself.

[Maximum Spin]

By the way, it's worth remembering that the Biden administration haven't just been fucking around for four years either. It's safe to say that the top echelons of those important agencies will have been loyalty tested pretty well. For Trump to purge all of them, he wouldn't really have the manpower to DO anything afterward. That doesn't mean "don't worry at all", but something like a popular uprising is a lot more of a problem.

[nenjin]

By issuing a tepid and entirely expected ruling on presidential immunity that doesn't provide for any particular immunity for "a complete dismantling of opposition to Trump"?

Funny how you call it tepid when pretty much everyone else in the legal world is calling it catastrophic. Including the other members of the highest court in the land. I guess they're telling lies as well, now?

But to answer your question, when you have immunized someone from the consequences of committing a crime then removing opposition through whatever means you decide is a reality. Whether that's stopping debate, removal from office, imprisonment or murder.

Telling people to "not vote for criminals" also deserves a hearty "no shit Sherlock." We're past that. A slight majority of voters are ready to vote for a criminal full stop, and the other half of the electorate is self-sabotaging their own candidate at the 11th hour.. The mechanisms of power and control are being radically redefined right before an election, that even if Trump loses there will be violence. Again. Even if Trump loses, there's now precedent for every president going forward to push the boundaries of what the President legally can do in 2024 terms.

So yeah. Reading what you write is like watching someone quote scripture to a victim of a car accident. 

By the way, it's worth remembering that the Biden administration haven't just been fucking around for four years either. It's safe to say that the top echelons of those important agencies will have been loyalty tested pretty well. For Trump to purge all of them, he wouldn't really have the manpower to DO anything afterward. That doesn't mean "don't worry at all", but something like a popular uprising is a lot more of a problem.

And what do you think Project 2025 is about? It's about having a ready-made pool of resources and policy to fill in once the purge starts. If it's one thing I've learned about Trump, it's that when he says he's going to do something repulsive, trust him, he will do it. And he has done nothing but talk about wreaking political vengeance on his opponents should he win. I'd believe it, and the Supreme Court decisions are 200% a reason to worry on exactly that front.

[Maximum Spin]

Funny how you call it tepid when pretty much everyone else in the legal world is calling it catastrophic. Including the other members of the highest court in the land. I guess they're telling lies as well, now?

Not "everyone", though. There are a lot of voices who understand the Constitution and explain what's really going on. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of people who have no idea what they're talking about and just want clicks, and some in the media who, frankly, I'm pretty sure want Trump to win and want to drive people into a panic to help that outcome. Yes, they're all telling lies. You can tell if you read the opinion.

But to answer your question, when you have immunized someone from the consequences of committing a crime then removing opposition through whatever means you decide is a reality. Whether that's stopping debate, removal from office, imprisonment or murder.

That hasn't happened. Instead, what happened, is that, for a very narrow and specific set of potential crimes, the Supreme Court said that the consequence is supposed to be impeachment (optionally followed by prosecution, as Article I, §3 clearly says in the seventh clause that officers convicted in impeachment are subject to prosecution) rather than prosecution directly. (And also, separately, that some things cannot legally be made crimes at all.)

[nenjin]

I just can't get over the fact that you think the dissenting judges, literally the only people left who are keeping it from being a puppet court, are also lying.

That hasn't happened.

It hasn't been tested yet.

for a very narrow and specific set of potential crimes, the Supreme Court said that the consequence is supposed to be impeachment

In a Congress that is busy trying to impeach and prosecute Democrats as retaliation for prosecuting their nominee and who openly supported overturning the results of the last election.

[lemon10]

Deleted

[femmelf]

Great, the thread's dead and/or derailed so bad that we are here.

Max comes in and ignores everyone's well thought out arguments with several cited sources, and declares themself right with no cited sources. They say their views are uncontroversial and that anyone holding another very widespread view (even one cited by 3 Supreme Court Justices) is either lying to get clicks or being lied to as some kind of conspiracy theory. They give no cited sources, ignore requests to point to language in the constitution for a constitutional issue, and even indicate cited things from lawyers on legal issues are useless, calls lawyers ambulance chasers and that they are lying to get clicks. So citing experts like freaking lawyers for legal/constitutional issues isn't even good enough and we should just bow down and listen to this one person.

Whenever anyone tries to talk, they just restate their views as some kind of self evident truth, and/or change what they said.

We had people leave, and now, we have people just straight up deleting their posts rather than deal with this mess.

I guess I'm out. There's no way forward like this.
Thread dead. Fantastic. /s [sigh]

[McTraveller]

Wait, people with unfounded certainty on the Internet? I can't believe it! 

I don't think this thread is dead by any stretch.  Sometimes a pause is good, after all.

[femmelf]

Wait, people with unfounded certainty on the Internet? I can't believe it! 

I don't think this thread is dead by any stretch.  Sometimes a pause is good, after all.

Trolls are common too. That doesn't make it right or even workable.