President tRump calls in a drone strike on his political enemies.

I'm still waiting for conservatives to chime in on where they think the line stands. Can someone let me know what exactly presidents can and can't do?

It's worth highlighting that Trump's lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don't apply to the President unless they specifically say so...this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can't be impeached for conduct he can't…

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 25, 2024

bearister said:

---

There is no line with regard to any action taken to tear down our existing form of government and replace it with a White Christian regime that allows aggrieved White people to impose their religious and racial views on society, on public schools, on the public square and on the laws of the nation.*

*Robert Kagan

---

There is no line with regard to any action taken to tear down our existing form of government and replace it with a Globalist Communist regime that allows anonymous bureaucrats to impose their political and un-American views on society, on public schools, on the public square and on the laws of the nation.*

*bear2034

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm still waiting for conservatives to chime in on where they think the line stands. Can someone let me know what exactly presidents can and can't do?

It's worth highlighting that Trump's lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don't apply to the President unless they specifically say so...this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can't be impeached for conduct he can't…

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 25, 2024

---

I am uncomfortable with the proposed legal construct, as it presupposes absolute immunity exits and that such immunity must be superseded / limited by explicit legislative action. I can't think of any other C right that is absolute, so that premise here just doesn't resonate with me.

Rights have to have some origin; Presidential immunity isn't in the C. Since this is an unenumerated right I trend toward thinking the proper path is for Congress to expressly creat presidential Immunity then define the boundaries of that immunity (ie, create the right), rather than Congress having to say where it does not exist.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm still waiting for conservatives to chime in on where they think the line stands. Can someone let me know what exactly presidents can and can't do?

It's worth highlighting that Trump's lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don't apply to the President unless they specifically say so...this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can't be impeached for conduct he can't…

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 25, 2024

---

I am uncomfortable with the proposed legal construct, as it presupposes absolute immunity exits and that such immunity must be superseded / limited by explicit legislative action. I can't think of any other C right that is absolute, so that premise here just doesn't resonate with me.

Rights have to have some origin; Presidential immunity isn't in the C. Since this is an unenumerated right and it's not in the C I trend toward thinking the proper path is for Congress to expressly creat presidential Immunity then define the boundaries of that immunity (ie, create the right), rather than Congress having to say where it does not exist.

---

Thank you for responding. So given that there is no express statutory or constitutional authority for presidential immunity, is your starting point that it doesn't currently exist?

My operating assumption is that the conservative majority pays lip service to textualism in its eventual opinion. It will likely rely on cherry-picked historical precedent in order to arrive at a pre-determined outcome. Hopefully that outcome is something close to how most people would already expect it to work and which is consistent with existing supreme court precedent (eg US v Nixon). I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with some novel tweak on qualified immunity or go back to MS v Johnson for inspiration.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm still waiting for conservatives to chime in on where they think the line stands. Can someone let me know what exactly presidents can and can't do?

It's worth highlighting that Trump's lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don't apply to the President unless they specifically say so...this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can't be impeached for conduct he can't…

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 25, 2024

---

I am uncomfortable with the proposed legal construct, as it presupposes absolute immunity exits and that such immunity must be superseded / limited by explicit legislative action. I can't think of any other C right that is absolute, so that premise here just doesn't resonate with me.

Rights have to have some origin; Presidential immunity isn't in the C. Since this is an unenumerated right and it's not in the C I trend toward thinking the proper path is for Congress to expressly creat presidential Immunity then define the boundaries of that immunity (ie, create the right), rather than Congress having to say where it does not exist.

---

Thank you for responding. So given that there is no express statutory or constitutional authority for presidential immunity, is your starting point that it doesn't currently exist?

My operating assumption is that the conservative majority pays lip service to textualism in its eventual opinion. It will likely rely on cherry-picked historical precedent in order to arrive at a pre-determined outcome. Hopefully that outcome is something close to how most people would already expect it to work and which is consistent with existing supreme court precedent (eg US v Nixon). I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with some novel tweak on qualified immunity or go back to MS v Johnson for inspiration.

---

Basically, yes. Caveat that there is existing SCOTUS case law in this area (Nixon, Clinton, etc) and I'm not up to speed on those cases or how/why they allow for President Immunity. So I'm pretty sure my view isn't going to purely happen and I am not sure where to go from the existing case law.

bear2034 said:

---

bearister said:

---

There is no line with regard to any action taken to tear down our existing form of government and replace it with a White Christian regime that allows aggrieved White people to impose their religious and racial views on society, on public schools, on the public square and on the laws of the nation.*

*Robert Kagan

---

There is no line with regard to any action taken to tear down our existing form of government and replace it with a Globalist Communist regime that allows anonymous bureaucrats to impose their political and un-American views on society, on public schools, on the public square and on the laws of the nation.*

*bear2034

---

bearister said:

---

After the SCOTUS rules in favor of tRump's immunity argument and tRump "wins" the election….


A tRump political enemy getting a firm Putining.

---

Which is why Biden needs to take Trump out after this Scotus ruling.
Congress will be shocking into passing a law or an amendment overturning scotus.