There was never any implication. You are making that up. The federalist papers even covers this. No immunity.
Co-equal has also never meant that one branch cannot enforce the law against the other, otherwise congress would not have impeachment power.
Prove now that there was any implication of such absolute immunity.
You are making shit up. The president cannot pardon himself. There was never any implication that the president has any absolute immunity whatsoever just because he has pardon power. Its horseshit.
This horseshit about a president being incapable of doing any legal wrong that you are pedaling is such mindblowing nonsense i am shocked to see you defending it in fact its an insult to intelligence.
Ive never seen anyone defend this shit until trump what the **** is wrong with you?
I mean did i just get ****ing lied to in every ****ing history class or am i going through some bizarro mandela effect? Jfc this country.
But the supreme court made it black and white. Thats what absolute immunity means. Except in cases of impeachment.It's not as black-and-white as you make it seem. I wouldn't be in favor of prosecuting President Obama for ordering the killing of US citizens who happened to be presumed terrorists, would you? (see, for example, the case of Anwar al-Awlaki)
By the same token, though, I wouldn't want to give a President carte blanche to assassinate their political rivals.
BTW - there's no barrier within the text of the Constitution to stop a President from pardoning himself, is there?
Im in favor of prosecuting presidents after they have served their term. Qualified immunity would have been much more preferable but they went so so much further than that.It's not as black-and-white as you make it seem. I wouldn't be in favor of prosecuting President Obama for ordering the killing of US citizens who happened to be presumed terrorists, would you? (see, for example, the case of Anwar al-Awlaki)
By the same token, though, I wouldn't want to give a President carte blanche to assassinate their political rivals.
BTW - there's no barrier within the text of the Constitution to stop a President from pardoning himself, is there?
But the supreme court made it black and white. Thats what absolute immunity means. Except in cases of impeachment.
But the supreme court made it black and white. Thats what absolute immunity means. Except in cases of impeachment.
Not exactly.... when a President acts outside of their powers, they aren't immune from prosecution. Article II §3 of the Constitution specifically says that the President must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". When he acts to subvert those laws, then he obviously is acting outside of those powers and therefore can be held responsible for his actions.
That seems to be very different than your post before.
A President can do no (legal) wrong
He would be doing legal wrong. Hes still the president.I specifically made that point in Post #63 of this thread. As for President doing no legal wrong, I stand by it... when the President falls short of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, then he is no longer acting as President, but as an individual who happens to be holding the office. If he were acting as President, he would have taken care that the laws were faithfully executed in accordance with his oath of office.
He would be doing legal wrong. Hes still the president.
Do you think rote repetition is at all persuasive? (It's not)A "living constitution", is one that constantly changes. But it does this by being constantly changed through new legislation (like in the UK), not by constant new interpretations by the courts (like in the USA).
Do you think rote repetition is at all persuasive? (It's not)
Originalism is a hoax, used only to justify opinions. Where is the originalism in the Immunity decision?Book review, Washington Post:
“Against Constitutional Originalism” by historian Jonathan Gienapp could fundamentally reorient how we understand America’s founding.
"What are the chances that, in 2024, a new book could fundamentally reorient how we understand America’s founding? Jonathan Gienapp, a historian at Stanford, has written such a book in “Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique.” You read it, and you get vertigo.
Americans have long shared the following view: The United States Constitution consists of a text. You can find it. You can print it and hold it. It’s an object.
Sure, we argue about how to interpret it. Some people, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, are “originalists.” They believe that the meaning of the text should be settled by reference to its “original public meaning.” They do not believe in a “living constitution,” whose meaning shifts over time. Over the last generation, originalism, as an approach to constitutional law, has been elaborated and developed (and promoted) with great care.
....
Whatever their differences, all sides agree that the Constitution is a text, a thing, and that its words are the object of interpretation. Against this background, Gienapp’s book comes as a thunderclap. It is directed above all at originalists, who, in his view, misunderstand the founding — not a little but a lot. And although contemporary nonoriginalists are not Gienapp’s target, he has a lot to say to them as well.
It is important to emphasize that Gienapp’s enterprise is one of history, not politics. He is not claiming, for example, that Roe v. Wade was right and that the Supreme Court was wrong to overrule it. He is arguing instead that the past is a foreign country, and we have a lot of trouble understanding it. He thinks that originalists (and most of the rest of us) haven’t got a clue."
This has been my position for years. I'm reading Justice Breyer's book, Reading the Constitution. Now I have to get this one.
And actually followed the founder's concept of how the Constitution was expected to work.Originalism is a hoax, used only to justify opinions. Where is the originalism in the Immunity decision?
Don't think that originalism has always been a thing. The origins of originalism can be traced back to the 1970s and 1980s, when it became a prominent conservative response to the Warren Court's decisions. Remember the Warren Court? It was a SCOTUS that expanded Americans rights and liberties.
You still don't get it, but I needn't belabor the point. You're discussing bananas when the topic is literature.I'm not trying to persuade you by some form of Chinese water torture but to try and make you see the difference between the US and UK constitutions, with respect to this issue
Both countries have a "written" constitution, but whereas the US Constitution is codified into a single document, that is very hard the change, the UK employs a much more flexible constitution in the form of multiple and separate constitutional laws.
Each one of the UK's constitutional laws has exactly the same legal status of any other national law - meaning they can be repealed and replaced by a simple majority in the legislature (Parliament)
For example, in 2011 under the then PM David Cameron, Britain introduced the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 which set in legislation a fixed date for general elections in the UK, similar to what the USA has.
A subsequent UK government disliked this and repealed it in 2022, which was fairly simple for them to do.
That is a "living constitution" - it can and does react to changing political conditions to suit the requirements of the day
In the USA, if say an electoral feature was changed by constitutional amendment - say the Electoral College was abolished and the presidency was decided purely by the popular vote - then a subsequent congress couldn't just re-instate it.
It would need to go through the whole constitutional amendment process again - regardless of how beneficial it was perceived to be. IMO tis rigid constitution can act like legislative "handcuffs" on the US government and people
The USA is "stuck" with what the Constitution says.
QED: the US Constitution is much less flexible than the UK constitution. Therefore, because of its flexibility, the UK Constitution could be seen as "living", while far more rigid constitution of the USA could not be.
You still don't get it, but I needn't belabor the point. You're discussing bananas when the topic is literature.
Because - let me be explicit - You don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about. You make shit up and pretend your opinion is reality. It's not. What you're describing isn't what the term has ever meant, which is why you can't back your speculation up with any history or support, because there is none.Sorry, but I gave you a valid example to illustrate why you are wrong, which you dismissed with a child-like response rather than with any reasoned counter-argument.
I can only assume that you either can't comprehend basic politics, or more likely that you're willfully refusing to do so rather than to admit that you're wrong.
What does he mean by that?
Is that something to brag about?
Because - let me be explicit - You don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about.
You make shit up and pretend your opinion is reality. It's not. What you're describing isn't what the term has ever meant, which is why you can't back your speculation up with any history or support, because there is none.
I don't discount your opinion
Is showing the utmost respectYou don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about
....but pretending it is more than that is irritating. It's no better than the rightwing penchant for "redefining" terms to disparage them. It's straw manning, poor and simple. I think you're better than that, so it's disappointing.
The fact is, the Founders had a much narrower view of freedom of speech than we have.
Do you want legal rulings based on their point of view or ours?
So the founders supported laws against "misinformation" that contradicted the party? What Harris/Biden do when subverting the 1st Amendment is just what Thomas Jefferson would support? George Mason would be totally down with a "Ministry or Truth" such as the one the Harris/Biden Regime attempted to put in place?
The Beard and Bork books arrived today. Gienapp's book arrives in November. Just from thumbing through them I see that both books are much more than I remembered. Beard as economic and constitutional history. Bork as a practitioner and defender of originalism. By the time Gienapp's book shows up, from rereading Bork I ought to have a fair grasp of Gienapp's critique of "originalism’ Fair enough for a layman, anyway.So I must ask you?
"Would you still recommend this book in the bolded?"
To someone not familiar?
From the reviews, I think the section on the Framers' bios alone may be worth the price of admission.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?