Can the president actually shoot someone and be protected by the office he holds?

Overnight · Oct 23, 2019

Here4money said:
this is Trump's lawyers saying this.

I understand that. I am simply responding to a scenario where their beliefs are not admonished in a court. (Which I cannot see happening.)

Bugenhagen · Oct 23, 2019

Overnight said:
If President Trump walked up to some citizen on the street and shot him dead for no reason...Committed a capital crime, and he was NOT immediately arrested and charged with a crime?

Welcome Revolutionary War mark II...This time, the rebels have MANY more guns. Big beautiful guns. More guns than any rebel force in history. Beautiful. And they have flags. Big flags.

People here are losing sight of the trees, because they are lost in the forest. Or something.

The White House would be surrounded one would hope. The presidency is a proxy for a king/emperor, something beyond a man to many who seem made to be subjects. But.. only about a third of the population are like this. He should be just the current chief administrator. Still the 1984/Brave New world shit sandwich is damaging to everyone.

kingjelly · Oct 23, 2019

Does it not bother any conservative that this is actually being argued by the president's lawyers. Whether it is true or not, just that they are doing it.

Cuddles · Oct 23, 2019

kingjelly said:
Does it not bother any conservative that this is actually being argued by the president's lawyers. Whether it is true or not, just that they are doing it.

I'm being told words don't have any power by Trump supporters

kingjelly · Oct 23, 2019

I mean this guy just tried to have the G7 at his own hotel. I know some of you spoke out against it, but for fucks sake does him just floating it not tell you something. All politicians are corrupt even if it's in a small way, but this dude is a whole nutha level. If you say you know and it's just a price you pay to get the things you want and it keeps a 'crazy socialist' out of power, I can kinda respect that. However if you just deny it completely or try to put some kind of moral equivalence with the normal political corruption you truly are fucktard.

El OchoCinco · Oct 23, 2019

I really did not see many supporters of trump speaking out against hosting the G7. Trump has become infallable in the eyes of his supporters which allows him to backtrack and shift blame to others.

"Wahhhh Dems are the reason we are not having the G7 at my hotel!"

CaptainObvious · Oct 23, 2019

Another what if story for the left to wring their hands over. Only one way to settle this debate, Trump gonna' have to off somebody.

kingjelly · Oct 23, 2019

I think CaptainO did, but there were a lot of crickets.

AAAintheBeltway · Oct 23, 2019

UsualName said:
This thread is about the court needing to weigh in on the extent to which Trump can break the law and be immune from legal action while in office.

This is in part a Separation of Powers issue in which the Supreme Court does not have the last word. The Constitution is set up so that any two branches can defeat the third in a standoff.

Let's say the Supreme Court ruled that any rogue state prosecutor, like the Manhattan DA, could misuse their office to try to stage a coup against the president. If the president defied the Court's ruling, as some previous presidents did, the only remedy would lie with the congress and the impeachment power.

I know this strikes some of you as plainly wrong, as you have been brainwashed to believe that the Supreme Court is some transcendant body whose mission is to decide all difficult issues. That is one possible form of government, just not the one our Constitution established.

The Constitutional scheme provides impeachment as the sole means of removing a president. A state prosecutor going after the president would be in effect an insurrection and should be dealt with accordingly. Any other result would invite just the sort of mischief we are beginning to experience now.

UsualName · Oct 24, 2019

AAAintheBeltway said:
This is in part a Separation of Powers issue in which the Supreme Court does not have the last word. The Constitution is set up so that any two branches can defeat the third in a standoff.

Let's say the Supreme Court ruled that any rogue state prosecutor, like the Manhattan DA, could misuse their office to try to stage a coup against the president. If the president defied the Court's ruling, as some previous presidents did, the only remedy would lie with the congress and the impeachment power.

I know this strikes some of you as plainly wrong, as you have been brainwashed to believe that the Supreme Court is some transcendant body whose mission is to decide all difficult issues. That is one possible form of government, just not the one our Constitution established.

The Constitutional scheme provides impeachment as the sole means of removing a president. A state prosecutor going after the president would be in effect an insurrection and should be dealt with accordingly. Any other result would invite just the sort of mischief we are beginning to experience now.

You’re right and you’re wrong. Marbury v Madison states the Supreme Court has the final judgment on constitutional issues. The remedy is to amend the constitution not defy the ruling.