this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
457 points (96.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35737 readers
948 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don't see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.

I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don't want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it's actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.

What am I missing?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fubo@lemmy.world 145 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (9 children)

The immunity from criminal prosecution has to do with official acts, not personal acts. It wouldn't apply to Biden personally shooting Trump.

It would apply to a military proclamation as commander-in-chief that the Trump movement is a domestic insurrectionist movement that carried out an armed attack on the US Congress; that the Trump movement thus exists in a state of war against the United States; and directing the US Army to decapitate the movement by capturing or killing its leaders, taking all enemy combatants as prisoners of war, etc. (Now consider that the Army is only obliged to follow constitutional orders, and would have Significant Questions about the constitutionality of such an order.)

Further, the immunity is only from criminal prosecution and would not protect Biden from impeachment and removal from office by Congress while the Army is still figuring out whether the order is constitutional.

[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 59 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That sounds both crazy and not actually wildly far fetched. If the tables were turned and Trump was in the position of having the power to declare Biden's movement as an enemy and carry out violent ways to stop them, I would almost expect it to happen.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It would make for an interesting movie, thatxs hopefully based in fiction.

[–] GuStJaR@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you've not seen it already, watch Civil War. It's excellent!

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

......gonna need some more info. Who's in it? What year was it released? Is it on Hulu?

[–] reev@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago
  1. Nope
  2. Certainly not
  3. Tara Strong
[–] GuStJaR@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Wow. I was honestly expecting a movie called "Civil War" to be from the 60s, or something, and actually cover the American civil war. The bad part is, I probably can't find this on dvd for $3.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 37 points 4 months ago (2 children)

He can just pardon himself if he shoots Trump because he has immunity when issuing the pardon, since that is an official act.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Better do it in DC. Murder can be charged under state law, and the presidential pardon power only applies to federal charges.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If the president crossed state lines to commit the murder it is federal!

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

For that matter, immunity from criminal charges for attempting to pardon oneself is not the same as the pardon being valid.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

So, what happens if the president is charged? Is he automatically ousted? I mean, apparently a felon can run for president, so does them being a state criminal actually impede them at all, or no?

[–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago

DC has a local criminal code.

[–] gramathy@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 months ago

Not just an official act, it’s explicitly a constitutional power which is given absolute immunity.

[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So Biden could officially flood the supreme court with democrat judges, then officially ask them to revoke this stupid ruling?

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Supreme Court judges must be confirmed by a majority of the Senate before being seated.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The ratio is 50, and dems have 51 senators.

Biden can order the murder of all the right wing justices and then the senate can rubber stamp them in.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

the dems would never go for that, though, because then they'd actually be doing something. even if you took away oh no the two senators that somehow always conveniently oppose any action they take, you can be sure that they'd pull some other poor sap up out of the bowels in order to play the villain.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, I would hope senators of any party would oppose a president that "legally" murders a supreme court justice, let alone 6 of them.

The fact that these 6 have it coming is besides the point.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I mean, do I have to say what you could just do to any senators which oppose you? It might be getting into coup territory, but eventually you'd probably reach a point where things just proceed as normal. Or you, as biden, could just take the L on it, make sure the newly stacked supreme court shuts it down, eat the, what, next 10 years of your life, if that, in federal prison or whatever it is, and blammo. Could probably even use the opportunity to step down but I imagine if he did some shit like that his approval rating might go through the glass dome protecting the flat earth aaaand post

Can the president declare them traitors and no longer fit for duty, thus ousting them physically?

[–] Squorlple@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Could Biden just say “I officially declare Trump the head of a terrorist organization” before firing the gun?

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

All Biden has to do is claim that it's an official act, because Trump is a terrorist, a threat to the Constitution, or some other questionable legal pretext. The problem is that there's no remedy against such a claim. It could be litigated and go to SCOTUS again, who would have to decide whether it's an official act or not. But this ruling gives no definite rule on what does or does not count as an official act.

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The ruling is limited to "official acts", but the same court is the one who decides if an act is official or not

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Feel like the next logical step is to throw the 6 justices in question into jail. They obviously can't rule on their own trial so...

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why couldn't they? The supreme court is literally the final authority, and there is no mechanism to automatically remove a justice from the bench. There is an ethics code that says they should recuse themselves if they have a conflict in a case but it has no enforcement mechanism - two sitting justices have literally taken bribes in violation of the ethics code

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

The obvious thing would be the 14th amendment due process clause. Can't have a fair and unbiased case against someone if they're the one judging it. Thats been affirmed as far back as The Federalist.

Beyond that, though I said it'd be up to the remaining 3 judges, I'm pretty sure it'd have to go up through the court system, and as Trump has shown, that can be slowboated to the end of time, or until those SC judges wisely decide to retire/get forcibly "retired", after which the charges get dropped and everyone goes on their merry way, and then the courts (crazily enough!) establish again that the pres does not have that kind of immunity so history doesn't repeat itself.

But I already know Joe wouldn't play that kind of hardball.

[–] Somethingcheezie@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Well since 2 judges are pro Jan 6 I’d remove them too as part of the conspiracy.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 9 points 4 months ago

So he just has to order the CIA to do it.

The... the CIA and many other government agencies have a stories history of doing absolutely insane things that are absolutely crimes...

...And many of those things only get brought to light by a whistle lower or leak ot some Watergate level fuckup of being caught in the act, or years or decades of actual investigation later.

There are so many problems with this ruling its mind boggling.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The immunity from criminal prosecution has to do with official acts, not personal acts

Trying to overthrow a court and Congress sanctioned vote of the people to retain power is most certainly a personal act.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

That's your OPINION!

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

They can't impeach if they can't assemble a quorum.