Comment on Trump Is Immune - Legal Eagle

• Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yes it’s fucking terrifying. Good luck to you all.

  source

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Good luck on the immigration paperwork you mean

    source
• bionicjoey@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • voracitude@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    The checks and balances are set up throughout the Constitution explicitly:

    1. Article I (Legislative Branch):

       • Congress can pass laws, but the President can veto them (Section 7).
       • Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote (Section 7).
       • The Senate approves presidential appointments and treaties (Section 2).

    2. Article II (Executive Branch):

       • The President executes laws but needs Senate approval for treaties and appointments (Section 2).
       • The President can be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate (Section 4).

    3. Article III (Judicial Branch):

       • The courts can declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional (judicial review, established by Marbury v. Madison).

    Finally, you’re absolutely wrong about the check/balance being the ballot box:

    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.

    source

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • voracitude@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Once again, 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    If you’re still allowed to vote after that president does what he does.

    source

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source