Right, this is why we fought a war to get rid of the monarchy.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected, I always had the impression that he just doesn’t properly understand that being elected president is a fundamentally different thing from being crowned king.
I’ll go one better, I think a plurality of Americans think similarly to this
The whole leader != ruler thing seems to trip up a lot of people on the right.
To be fair, there seem to be many on the left that don’t get this either. I’ve seen people insisting that they won’t vote for Biden again because he didn’t enact a long list of Progressive desires.
They completely ignore that Biden can’t just singlehandedly declare new laws. He needs things to get through Congress. Then, he can pass them, but they can be overturned by the Supreme Court. With the 50-50 split Senate and the Republican controlled House, it’s difficult to get much passed. With the conservative Supreme Court, it’s hard to keep things from getting overturned.
If Biden had large Democratic majorities in the House/Senate/Supreme Court, then perhaps there would be a valid criticism, but even then blame wouldn’t be focused on Biden alone.
You mean losers dont understand power.
He didn’t want it to be a fundamentally different thing, so he did everything he could to eliminate all differences.
deleted by creator
Right. Presidents have actual authority.
“Terrorists in Boston dumping perfectly good British tea in the harbor. In my day we knew what to do with traitors to the crown. Many such cases in our colonial carnage. Tell good king George to make me royal governor!”
Except over 100 years before the war of Independance you had the trial of King Charles I, where thr Britjsh Parliament made a point that not even Kings were above the law.
What a crazy legal defense. ‘Your honor, I’d like to dismiss these charges because I privately unilaterally decided while president that silently dissolving the the Constitution, usurping all powers of the other branches of government and asserting the divine right of kings is actually an unenumerated presidential power, which I secretly exercised three years ago but only decided to reveal now. Anyway, because of this, I’m actually the presiding officer in this court. Case dismissed.’
Obviously, I’m aware that it’s just a delay tactic, but even so, it’s truly bonkers.
Have you ever watched the Air Bud movies? They say things like “well there’s no rule that says a dog can’t play basketball.” A lot of things are like that, unless there is someone to say “yeah, but if you do that we’re picking up the ball and leaving” or the better “yeah, but if you try we’ll pick you up and throw you out.”
“I’m the boss, now you’re fired. How’s that for a fantasy, my friend?”
That’s actually what the prime minister did in Australia during Covid. He took all the power, secretly.
It takes 6 to tango
Stupid senile Brandon is at it again, spouting stupid bullshit. Everyone knows if you don’t want to be criminally prosecuted you need to put an ® next to your name. The rule of law only applies to Democrats.
Well yes, Democrats get rule of law. Republicans get law and order, which is usually existing systems of power to effect maintenance of existing social hierarchies and oppress the outgroup. It’s all very clear.
That’s great, but unless you codify it, it’s not exactly binding or even guiding (like past legal precedent).
There’s no reason to codify it because it’s a like proving a negative. Unless a law exists saying that a president can’t be prosecuted, then that automatically means he can be prosecuted.
deleted by creator
The standing DOJ policy is that presidents will not be criminally prosecuted while in office – not that they are immune from criminal prosecution forever for any acts taken while holding office. Two wholly different things.
Right, the DOJ doesn’t want to look like a political tool for corruption.
I really have to wonder, though, exactly how firm that policy really is. Any crime? Say the sitting president shot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue, on carmera, in front of a huge number of witnesses. No charges until after impeachment and removal from office?
No, it’s no charges while in office for things that are related to presidential duties, but that can be stretched as it’s very vague.
No, we’re referring to the 1973 Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum:
In 1973, amid the Watergate scandal, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum concluding that it is unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting president.[22] Its arguments include that the president “is the symbolic head of the Nation. To wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus in both foreign and domestic affairs.”[23] It says that the statute of limitations should not be tolled while the president is in office, but suggests that Congress could extend the statute of limitations specifically for presidents.[24] After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Clinton, the OLC issued a second memorandum in 2000, distinguishing civil and criminal presidential immunity and determining that it was still improper to prosecute a president due to the adverse affect it might have on his ability to govern.[25]
Like you said, it’s a memorandum. If someone committed, like homicide and cannibalism, a prosecutor would probably file charges and then it’d be up to a judge to determine if the reasoning in the memorandum is correct.
Can be and shall be are two different things.
What no one is asking: What’s the first illeal thing Biden should do to Trump if Trump were to win this argument?
