Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
Why? All he has done is correct you on erroneous comments you've made about EOs and how US elections are handled.
That was not the issue, the impatience, questioning others honesty, questioning where people live as if that discredits what people have to say. Those where the issues. Yet do not be concerned, I still gotta learn to block those people that are least prejudicial/biased, blatant racist at worst.
In my opinion, "official acts," seems to me to be a facade of a safeguard or facade of a check and balance. That term was only placed, to allows certain people an out, to accept a president now, "immune to prosecution." When again, "immunity from prosecution" in any form,, is something the Founding Fathers were vehemently against. The Supreme Court steps on another precedent.
Place all the emphasis on "officals acts" you want, while blowing past what is actually important here, "immunity to prosecution."
Of those two phrases, only one goes against what America was founded upon.
However you look at it, The Supreme Court moves us from the principles established by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in the Constitution, "the rule of law for all" to an "immunity from prosecution" for a select few, currently one.
That is nothing less than a direct attack by the Supreme Court on the Constitution, the vision of our Founding Fathers and the democracy the USA represents.
If by whatever logic/reasoning the Supreme Court is allowed to change at will, whats enshrinened in the Constitution, then any other branch of the checks and balance, say an executive branch whose now, "immune to prosecution/above the rule of law" is allowed to do the same.
Such was my prepared response. Until I learned about Marbury v Madison, from way back when. For which ever reasons its considered a cornerstone/foundation that America has been built on. I consider that ruling/decision to be the issue. Without so much power in the judicial branch, we would not have Nixon v Fitzgerald, Trump v United States, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. But also there wouldn't be/have been Roe v Wade, Brown vs Board of Education etc. Either way, due to Marbury v Madison, it seems the Constitution is what ever the Supreme Courts says it is. Other decisions which seem to further strength of the judicial branch, Martin v Hunters Lessee and Cooper v Aaron.
I wonder but do not ask, who was sleeping at the wheel as the Supreme Court grabbed all that power/authority.
The immunity is literally based on official acts.
Did you know there's immunity from prosecution for a bunch of other things? Stuff like whistleblowing. Hell, police and investigators literally make deals to make people immune from prosecution for helping them.
To imply that phrase is some type of 'anti-American' thing is extremely asinine.
Like being president is equal to petty crime. Not like they are going to let a murder off for catching some street corner drug sellers.
The guy is shady and, well let's face it, insane. And you are going to put him in a position to be insane? When Obama was asked by the press why on Earth he would sign a law allowing indefinite detention he reply was "I'll never use it" ... and 13 years later, and with supreme court backing now.. may God forgive us for this madness we have brought upon ourselves.
Obama ordered drone strikes on US citizens. No trial, no day in court, no jury, no judge, no nothing. He has yet to ever see the inside of a courtroom for that act, because that act fell under the umbrella of an official act. What the Supreme Court just reaffirmed is not anything new. It doesn't open the door to something suddenly dangerous, it doesn't suddenly grant a president new powers. Whomever is preaching this kind of melodramatic fear porn to people really needs to stop because it's not healthy for a nation. And intelligent people need to wake up and begin seeing that for what it actually is.
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was 16 years old and a US citizen when he was killed by a US drone strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011. A drone attack carried out only by being signed off on by the US president at the time.
It's freakin worse than I thought too. Legal Eagle just released a video covering the broader scope of the ruling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQ43yyJvgs
He was a minor, first and foremost. Secondly, it's up to a court of law, and a jury of your peers, given a day in court to contest the charges to determine that in front of a judge. Not for one man to sign his name to an order and seal your execution. Are we going to claim government can now start executing US citizens, all they have to do is 'claim' they're a terrorist with no chance to defend themselves or contest those charges? No.
Whether he was or wasn't. As a US citizen, he still had the same 5th amendment rights as all other US citizens, as also protected under the 14th amendment which guarantees equal application under the law regardless of race, gender, or creed.
The ONLY reason Obama hasn't been charged for violating those rights is presidential immunity for official acts.
They did sue, and the government motioned to dismissed the case on grounds of qualified immunity, and on those grounds the case was dismissed.
You can read the court filing here.
https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-killing-three-us-citizens?document=al-aulaqi-v-panetta-governments-reply-support-motion-dismiss
Cool.
Here is the other.
https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-obama-constitutional-challenge-proposed-killing-us-citizen?document=al-aulaqi-v-obama-defendants-motion-dismiss#legal-documents
Notice how they had another reason for trying to dismiss the first lawsuit and weren't using immunity as the initial argument.
Then you look at the dismissal on the second lawsuit. The administration tried and succeeded to dismiss the charge based on "qualified immunity". The Supreme Court is upgrading the President from qualified immunity to blanket immunity with any official related actions. You guys are ♥♥♥♥♥♥ as a country if the wrong President gets into office now. Especially since one of the two currently running Presidential candidates just had it revealed they did a lot more pedo stuff with Epstein then we previously thought.
The Supreme Court didn't "upgrade" ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Biden's DOJ attempted to challenge previous court precedent on the matter and got slapped down. It's status quo on the matter. Nothing more, nothing upgraded, nothing taken away. Whomever told you otherwise is talking out their asses for the clicks and views you've so clearly given them.
Too many people actually believes that this ruling gives Trump unlimited power.