Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has introduced the “No Kings Act” with great fanfare and the support of most of his Democratic colleagues. Liberal groups have heralded the measure to legislatively reverse the ruling in Trump v. United States. It is obviously popular with the press and pundits. It is also entirely unconstitutional in my view. The “No Kings Act” is not just a cynical abdication of responsibility by Democrats, but would constitute the virtual decapitation of the Constitution.
I have previously written about the false claims made about the Supreme Court’s decision by President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other leading democrats. The press and pundits have reached a new level of sensationalism and hysteria in the coverage with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow even claiming that it was a “death squad ruling.”
The Trump Decision
The Court actually rejected the most extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower courts.
As it has in the past, the Court adopted a three-tiered approach to presidential powers based on the source of a presidential action. Chief Justice John Roberts cited Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which the court ruled against President Harry Truman’s takeover of steel mills.
In his famous concurrence to Youngstown, Justice Robert Jackson broke down the balance of executive and legislative authority between three types of actions. In the first, a president acts with express or implied authority from Congress. In the second, he acts where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area). In the third, the president acts in defiance of Congress.
In this decision, the court adopted a similar sliding scale. It held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.
Where the coverage has been wildly inaccurate, the No Kings Act is cynically dishonest.
To his credit, President Joe Biden was at least honest in proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision in Trump. However, that was dead on arrival in Congress since under Article V it would require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses and then ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The Democrats are seeking to circumvent that process with simple majority votes with the No Kings Act.
The bill is being presented as a jurisdiction-stripping measure, not an effort to dictate outcomes.
Congress does have authority to change the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That authority was recognized by the Court itself in Ex parte McCardle (1869). Chief Justice Salmon Chase ruled that it did have the authority “to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court.”
However, Chase also emphasized that the law did “not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised” so that prior decisions would remain fully enforceable.
Moreover, shortly after McCardle, the Court ruled in United States v. Klein (1871), that Congress may not use its authority of court jurisdiction to lay out a “rule of decision” for the Supreme Court, or effectively dictate results in court cases.
The No Kings Act
The No Kings Act does more than just strip jurisdiction and makes no secret of its purpose in dictating the outcome of future cases.
It purports in Section 2 to “clarify that a President or Vice President is not entitled to any form of immunity from criminal prosecution for violations of the criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress.”
That is a rather Orwellian view of “clarification” since it directly contradicts the opinion in declaring in the very next section that “[a] President, former President, Vice President, or former Vice President shall not be entitled to any form of immunity (whether absolute, presumptive, or otherwise) from criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress.”
Schumer and most of the Democratic senators actually believe that they can simply instruct lower courts to ignore a Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the Constitution. It would undermine the basis of Marbury v. Madison after 221 years.
To be sure, it is stated in strictly jurisdictional terms. Yet, it crafts the jurisdictional changes to mirror the decision and future immunity claims.
The bill declares that federal courts “may not consider whether an alleged violation of any criminal laws of the United States committed by a President or Vice President was within the conclusive or preclusive constitutional authority of a President or Vice President or was related to the official duties of a President or Vice President unless directed by Congress.”
But the Democrats are not done yet. Section 4 actually removes the Supreme Court from such questions and makes appellate courts the effective highest courts of the land when it comes to presidential immunity:
“The Supreme Court of the United States shall have no appellate jurisdiction, on the basis that an alleged criminal act was within the conclusive or preclusive constitutional authority of a President or Vice President or on the basis that an alleged criminal act was related to the official duties of a President or Vice President.”
Notably, this is one of the wacky ideas put forward by the President’s Supreme Court Commission. After all, why pack the Court if you can just gut it?
Of course, some sponsors like Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) want to both pack the Court and strip it of authority. Presumably, once packed, the authority to act as a court would be at least restored with the liberal majority.
By making the D.C. Circuit (where most of these cases are likely to be litigated) the highest court of the land on the question, the Democrats are engaging in the rawest form of forum shopping. The D.C. Circuit is expected to remain in the control of Democratic appointees for years. (The Act expressly makes the D.C. courts the only place to bring a civil action in this area and states that “a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall be final and not appealable to the Supreme Court of the United States.”)
The Supreme Court of the United States shall have no appellate jurisdiction to declare any provision of this Act (including this section) unconstitutional or to bar or restrain the enforcement or application of any provision of this Act (including this section) on the ground of its unconstitutionality.
But wait there is more.
The No Kings Act reads like a fairy tale read by Democratic senators to their grandchildren at night. Not only would the evil conservative justices be vanquished by a lower court controlled by Democratic appointees, but the bill is filled with other wish list items from the far left. It would strip the Court of the ability to take other cases, to dismiss a criminal proceeding, to suppress evidence, and to grant a writ of habeas corpus, or “the Great Writ” that is the foundation of Anglo-American law for centuries.
The Democrats even legislatively dictate that any review of the law must meet a standard of its choosing. They dictate that “[a] court of the United States shall presume that a provision of this Act (including this section) or the enforcement or application of any such provision is constitutional unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that such provision or its enforcement or application is unconstitutional.” Thus, even the clear and convincing provision of the Act must be subject to a clear and convincing evidence review.
The Death of Marbury?
Again, Democrats are insisting that they are merely changing the jurisdiction of the Court and not ordering outcomes. However, the sponsors make clear that this is meant to “reaffirm that the President is not immune to legal accountability.” Sponsors like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) declared that “Congress has the power to undo the damage of this decision” by a “captured Court.”
The greatest irony is that the Democrats are practically reverting to the position of critics of Marbury v. Madison, who argued that the Framers never intended the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the law means. That principle has been the touchstone of American law since 1803, but the Democrats would now effectively revert to the English approach under the guise of jurisdiction stripping legislation. Before the Revolution, the Parliament could dictate what the law meant on such cases, overriding the courts. On a practical level, the Democrats would regress to that pre-Marbury approach.
Marbury introduced a critical stabilizing element in our system that contributed greatly to the oldest and most successful constitutional system in history. Democrats would now toss much of that aside in a spasm of partisan anger. Calling the No Kings Act a jurisdiction stripping bill does not conceal its intent or its implications for our system.
It is all a rather curious position for the party that claims to be defending the rule of law. The No Kings Act would constitute a radical change in our constitutional system to allow popular justice to be meted out through legislative fiat.
Sponsors like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., previously promised a “revolution” if the conservatives did not rule as the Democrats demanded. They have now fulfilled those threats, though few expected that they would undo the work following our own Revolution.
Just to be sure that the sponsorship of this infamous legislation is not soon forgotten, here are the senators willing to adopt this Constitution-destroying measure:
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), Peter Welch (D-VT), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Laphonza Butler (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Angus King (I-ME), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Raphael Warnock (D-GA).
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
“Emerald Robinson ✝️
@EmeraldRobinson
Stop listening to the midwit GOP pundit class telling you: Kamala/Obama is stupid or incompetent!
They’re communists demoralizing the West, and they’re in control of everything.
They’ve got the CIA & FBI & Pentagon in their pocket.
They’ve got the voting machines too.”
“Emerald Robinson ✝️
@EmeraldRobinson
Infowars: shut down.
Navarro: put in jail.
Gateway Pundit: sued to death.
Bannon: in jail right now.
Trump: headed to jail.
It’s basically a crime to vote for Trump.
It’s time to consider the reality that you’re in the middle of the communist takeover of America.”
To understand where this line of thinking is headed, look no further that Biden’s refusal to abide by the Supreme Court decision prohibiting the voiding of student loan debt. The Court clearly stated that absent a law from Congress permitting it, the requirement to repay one’s college student loans could not legally be voided by the executive branch. So tell me, who is the King here?
Comments are running on the Supreme Court decision instead of the unconstitutional of the No Kings Act.
Clearly gutting the Supreme Court would be a disaster for our country and would open the door to one party tyranny.
Not good for either party or the country.
The ends justify the means.—-modern libturds
Svelaz-George, who thinks he knows anything says:
“False. Conviction occurs when a jury finds you guilty. Sentencing is just the punishment AFTER conviction. You don’t know how the legal system works, clearly. A jury convicts. A judge issues the punishment (sentencing). Trump is already a convicted felon. All that is left is his punishment (sentencing).”
Svelaz-George is clearly the most ignorant commenter ever to appear here.
Is this just your “opinion” again Svelaz?? Because it sure sounds like a statement of fact.
In United States practice, conviction means a finding of guilt (i.e., a jury verdict or finding of fact by the judge) and imposition of sentence. If the defendant fled after the verdict but before sentencing, he or she has not been convicted,
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-609-evidence-conviction#:~:text=In%20United%20States%20practice%2C%20conviction,judge)%20and%20imposition%20of%20sentence.
Why does Svelaz make it so easy to prove he is an idiot? One can only guess. Is it daddy issues that cause him to want to contradict Turley every day, regardless of the fact he is woefully lacking in knowledge or standing? Perhaps. Its apparent he has zero shame or self respect, because he will be back again to make more ignorant statements. Of course, if you think the DOJ definition contradicts Svelaz, you probably just have “reading comprehension problems”/sarc
@ Waters: Whether Svelaz proves himself correct or wrong is meaningless to him. He fails to have self-respect and is happy when he hears his name, becoming ecstatic when there is a rare agreement with him on the most minor point. People are not pleased to be known as ignorant, but he is because he strives for name recognition no matter how sullied that name is.
“Pavlovian”, you might say, SMeyer.
Waters, S. Meyer,
Just scroll past. Nothing he says is of interest.
You are cruel, Upstate 🙂 If Svelaz doesn’t see his name in print, no matter how stupid he sounds, he fears he will dissolve. The only thing to keep him alive and remembered is his ignorance.
Apparently they can’t help themselves. They just have to respond because that’s all they can offer, insults and comments devoid of substance. I know even you read what I post after you “scroll past”.
S. Meyer, you’re even worse on the reading comprehension scale. For some weird reason you say things as if you can read people’s minds and know all they know. You’re just…an amusing idiot.
“as if you can read people’s minds”
@ George the Ignorant: That is a lie. Where you are concerned, there is no mind to read.
Waters, why are you using a rule for fugitives? Trump is not a fugitive.
No. A conviction is when a jury/ judge funds you guilty.
As usual you really, really have atrocious reading comprehension issues. Pay attention,
From your post,
“If the defendant fled after the verdict but before sentencing, he or she has not been convicted,”
Trump is NOT a fugitive, he has not fled. Trump has indeed been convicted he’s already guilty of the crime and he’s clearly a convicted felon. All that remains is sentencing. Sentencing is separate from the conviction. The JURY convicted by finding him guilty.
You really walked into that one didn’t you? Since you have this bad reading comprehension every time you think you have figured it out you it comes back to bite you in the a$$.
Trump is a felon, convicted by a jury. Just because he hasn’t been sentenced yet does not mean he hasn’t been convicted.
You and John don’t know how the justice system works.
I will reiterate, Trump is NOT a fugitive and he has not fled….yet. He’s a convicted felon awaiting sentencing.
I gave you the definition. Thats the ONLY definition. Show me another DOJ definition. You can’t. You’re just making shit up.
What will Trumps date of conviction be, retard? Take a wild ass guess. Thats right, the day he is sentenced.
Double down on stupid, thats your MO
He can’t have fled or not fled until he appears or doesn’t appear for sentencing. What an idiot . Can you be that dumb?
You walked into that one didnt you?
The title of 609 is EVIDENCE OF CONVICTION. The definition it gives of convicted is the only recognized DOJ definition of convicted. Its listed elsewhere as well.
So what happens if Trump flees before his sentence, dum dum? Then he magically ceases to be “convicted”?? Try to use some reading comprehension, will you?
You are wrong, and once again, too small to admit it.
You realize everyone can see this, right? Zero shame.
Here ya go for good measure, coward.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) defines conviction as a finding of guilt and the imposition of a sentence. This can be a result of a jury verdict or a judge’s finding of fact.
(3) Conviction .— The term “conviction” means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere), and imposition of sentence, by a judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of Federal or State criminal drug statutes.
1101(f)(8), the date of conviction is the date of sentence: “In sum, we hold that, under the plain meaning of the definition of “conviction” in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), the entry of a “formal judgment of guilt . . . by a court” occurs when judgment is entered on the docket, not when a defendant pleads guilty.
(48)(A) The term “conviction” means, with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where-
(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and
(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed.
Wow, this sentencing thing just keeps popping up everywhere. Shall I go on?
A person isn’t convicted until the Judge enters the JUDGEMENT (formal conviction and sentence). Period. You don’t get your own reality here, Svelaz.
I don’t care what DOJ says, Trump is a convicted felon because I say so—Svelaz.
Taking away existing rights (without new evidence of cause) usually results in a national disaster.
Before Dobbs, this was Alcohol Prohibition – outlawing beer, wine and liquor on a national level. Not done for cause but ideology of far right religious extremists.
This practice (taking away rights based in ideology, not cause) along with denying Democrats about 100 federal judge picks and a U.S. Supreme Court pick is far more harmful than this.
Republicans chickens simply came home to roost, they created this mess!
“along with denying Democrats about 100 federal judge picks and a U.S. Supreme Court pick”
Elections have consequences Barak Hussein Obama
Yep election have consequences. trump did not get the majority of popular votes in 2016 but did get a majority of electoral votes.
In 2020 trump did not get a majority of popular votes and also did not get a majority of electoral votes.
But, trump has taken over the Republican Party and turned into a trump cult. Elections have consequences, so now you are stuck with this guy that owns the remains of the Republican Party and says sh-t like this…
“What are the chances that Crooked Joe Biden, the WORST president in the history of the US, whose presidency was unconstitutionally STOLEN from him by Kamabla, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Shifty Adam Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer and others on the lunatic left, CRASHES the Democrat National Convention and tries to take back the nomination, beginning with challenging me to another DEBATE. He feels that he made a historically tragic mistake by handing over the US presidency, a COUP, to the people in the world he most hates. And he wants it back NOW!!!”
The guy doesn’t even know who he is running against. Sad, so sad.
“Yep election have consequences. trump did not get the majority of popular votes in 2016 but did get a majority of electoral votes.
In 2020 trump did not get a majority of popular votes and also did not get a majority of electoral votes.”
Is this your idea of something that needed to be said? What, in defense of your prior ignorant statements?
Bwahahahahaa what a spastic idiot.
What precisely is inaccurate about what he says? Kamabla was the first name he mentioned.
Seems you’re the one who isn’t very bright.
You want to vote for a guy that acts like he is 6 years old with all his name calling, go ahead. And it looks like his VP pick has a close relationship with a white nationalist holocaust denying person whom he asks advice of. Great pick. Even the cat ladies don’t like JD. But hey maybe the cats do?
words have meaning. Use them wisely.
Thank you for permission to vote for the candidate of my choosing.
Why would i vote against my beat interests because you think he “acts like a 6 year old”.? If you ask me, thats voting like a 6 year old.
Seems to know who he is running against – you do not appear to like the rhetoric. I agree this is inappropriate language for someone running for president – but Democrats sailed that ship long ago accusing every republican presidential candidate in my lifetime of being Hitler and/or a Nazi. This is all free speech. But it has changed the norms. That is YOUR fault. Trump is just doing to democrats and the press what they have been doing for decades. Turn about is fair play.
That you do not grasp that YOU made Trump is “sad, so sad”
The moron thinks a duly passed Constitutional Amendment was how “far right religious extremists” “took away rights”.
Spastic idiot.
He compares Dobbs to Prohibition, as though SCOTUS outlawed liquor.
Bwahahahahahaaha
Nothing “came home to roost”, unless you think this joke of a bill has a snowballs chance. Try to be serious.
The problem is that when Democrats have had the power to do so – they have done things this stupid.
Who would have beleived that a president would have allowed tens of millions of immigrants into the country illegally ?
Who would have beleived that a president would have unilaterally given away over a trillion dollars of our money without the constitutional or legal authority to do so ?
This Bioll has no chance – but it is the work of the purported best legal scholars on the left. It has the support of the leading democrats in the country. Many of whom are purportedly highly qualified lawyers themselves.
This is not some hairbrained scheme by Rep Omar.
Do you understand that rulings like Gideon (the right to a lawyer) and Miranda,
Do you understand that this is even reverses the Magna Carte – 1215 ?
Do you understand if the legal principle in this law was extended to civil cases – there would be no Loving, no Griswald ?
This is an absurdly stupid idea, and anyone associated with it should be run out of office on a rail.
How do we do that when Democrats have rigged and corrupted all of our election “systems”?
They are flooding the zone again with mail-in ballots.
No signature verification will be done.
Corruptible machines. Ballots ‘mishandled’ by the USPS, drop boxes galore.
Giving illegal aliens drivers licenses and voter registration.
“Finding votes” will continue until someone DOES SOMETHING to stop these Democrat crooks from stealing another election.
The Supreme Court is on the line in this election.
If Trump loses (by them stealing it again) there goes the Supreme Court – our last line of defense against the Comminist takeover of our country.
@Anonymous
Sorry, wrong Anonymous, my bad. You all should perhaps use screen names.
@Anonymi
You are not smart. And the mental bubble you live in must be ten feet thick. Or, perhaps you are paid to do this everyday. 🙄
Turley, it’s funny…, when you cite Orwell it’s always because you’re taking the Orwellian position (which is almost always these days…, by product of those fox hits, no doubt).
Standing against the No Kings act is anti-democratic, no matter how much you don’t like being on the losing end of the rhetorical battle in that respect. It’s also why you stand AGAINST anti-facism (via your snarling hatred of Antifa).
I mean, it’s a done deal, Turls…, you are a solid member of the legal circles that use the Constitution to bash the Constitution. I believe that’s a solid indicator of raging hypocrisy…, but you be you, ayy?
Party on!
.
Here comes the booger eating spastic idiot to raise his glass to facism.
Because calling yourself anti-fascist means you are —-Drunktard known as Lawn Boy
Voting against something is anti-democratic—Drunktard after his first jug of cooking sherry.
^^^ Cretin moaning at a circle jerk ^^^
Your arrows are pointing at your own name
It continues to groan., somehow thinking he’s not also using an anonymous tag.
It continues to beat meat, and howl at the moon
“Standing against the No Kings act is anti-democratic”
Absolutely correct. Every single landmark individual rights decision of the US supreme court ever has been anti-democratic. \\
as to Antifa – they are actual fascists. There is little to distinguish antifa from Hitlers brownshirts.
They are the ignorant thugs using violence to obtain unpopular political objectives.
What distinguishes them from actual fascist brownshirts is that they are all impotent soy boys
I can’t wait until President Biden or the future President Harris use that law that the SCOTUS just made up for Trump. Turley will be screaming how unconstitutional it is. Republicans wanted the “line-item veto” for St. Ronnie of Reagan until Bubba Clinton got his hands on it in 96, two years later the SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional. The Alito-Thomas court made up that “rule-law” only to be used for a republican administration. The SCOTUS should have named it the “void after Trump Act”
Posting as Sammy got old, there, fishysmell?
SCOTUS doesn’t name Acts, dum dum.
I recommend a basic civics lesson.
I would not expect you to understand sarcasm on “void after trump act” Just because you trump sock puppets fill this site everyday doesn’t mean others do the same.
Admit it, Metamucil. We know its you. Not possible that 2 of you could be so dumb.
It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, It’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict. Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is the cornerstone of America. The justice system should be respected. And we should never let never allow anyone to tear it down.—Joe Biden May 2024
Fishysmell/Sammy Metamucil is an unAmerican asshat, clowning his way thru life and making reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible claims.
So says President Joe biden
Tim Walz said he carried a weapon of war into war but he never went to war. Instead he decided to become a politician and quite the National Guard before his unit went to Iraq. John Kerry didn’t do so well with stolen valor.
Tim Walz is a coward.
“Tim Walz said he carried a weapon of war into war but he never went to war. ‘
He must have decided that the unbridled mayhem he could wreak with a single weapon of war was inadequate to his ambitions, so he segued to a path that would allow him to do virtually unlimited damage to any and all who crossed his field of vision.
TiT,
According to the Minnesota National Guard, he was demoted per regulation, AR 600 – 8 – 19, and disputes his claims of rank at retirement of Command Sergeant Major.
During his 2018 run for Governor, two National Guardsmen disputed that Walz retired with the rank of CSM, and claimed that he was demoted upon retirement because he had declined to be deployed to Iraq with his unit (one of his accusers was the Guardsman who was sent in Walz’ place). The MNG claimed he was demoted because he failed to complete training required to retian the CMS rank after his provisional promotion. Of course, he could have committed both infractions, with the MSG choosing to cite the reason least damaging to Walz’ reputation. Frankly, I have never had any desire to become cannon fodder, and I would defend my right to elect not to serve in any U. S. military branch against anyone who challenged it. However, I did not join a military unit, enjoy and accrue all the possible benefits of doing so, then run for cover when the bill for those benefits came do, as Walz did. He is a weakling, a liar, and a coward, which imo would make him the ideal understudy and Second in Command to Kamala Sutra Hairiazz:
Minnesota National Guard confirms VP nominee Tim Walz demoted, calling into question official bio
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/past-criticisms-vp-nominee-tim-walzs-retirement-military-resurface
ERRATA: “retain” “due”
You now see the beauty of the irony: The very party of a POTUS who rules by fiat proposes legislation to destroy the separation of powers balancing act that is inherent in the Constitution.
And you really thought there was no wisdom in keeping the populace poorly educated and on-the-dole?
It is only a “curious” respose if one doesn’t understand that the democrats are NOT interested in preserving Democracy when they aren’t in complete control. They willingly subvert or destroy democracy to gain power. That is their whole raison d etre!
Turley ignored the fact the Supreme Court went beyond the question before them and created new rules out of thin air. They did not follow the constitution in an effort to protect Trump.
They did not define what is and isn’t an official act. That was deliberate. By leaving it to the lower courts it guarantees that any decision by a lower court determining what is an official act will be challenged and sent back to SCOTUS. That way they can overturn any decision unfavorable to Trump and further delay justice. These actions and the increased corruption within the court will only make it easier to justify increasing the number of justices and balancing the ideological makeup of the court.
Svelaz-George
Yesterday, you ignorantly claimed that a conviction does not include sentencing.
The DOJ says otherwise. Care to retract your stupidity today?
In United States practice, conviction means a finding of guilt (i.e., a jury verdict or finding of fact by the judge) and imposition of sentence. If the defendant fled after the verdict but before sentencing, he or she has not been convicted,
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-609-evidence-conviction#:~:text=In%20United%20States%20practice%2C%20conviction,judge)%20and%20imposition%20of%20sentence.
While you’re at it, you could admit that you often just make shit up with no basis, and claim it as fact, just as you did yesterday with John Say, when he led your ignorant ass to water, but you refused to drink.
Waters, is that what you are calling yourself now or will you revert to ‘anonymous’ when you want to start insulting?
Again, and again, your reading comprehension problem is proving to be an obstacle.
You’re citing a resource manual on FUGITIVES. You didn’t notice that? Is Trump a fugitive Waters? No.
The whole section you used is about fugitives.
Here’s what you are purposefully leaving out,
“For fugitives who have been convicted and either escaped or otherwise failed to complete their sentences, extradition treaties dispense with the requirement of establishing the crime through affidavits. Instead, the treaties require proof of conviction. In United States practice, conviction means a finding of guilt (i.e., a jury verdict or finding of fact by the judge) and imposition of sentence. If the defendant fled after the verdict but before sentencing, he or she has not been convicted, and the prosecutor must supply the affidavits described in this Manual at 608, unless the treaty specifically equates conviction with a finding of guilt.”
When they mean “an imposition of a sentence” they mean the burden of a sentence. Trump is facing a sentencing soon, THAT is the imposition. It does not mean he has to be sentenced to be deemed convicted of the crime. A jury or judge does that.
A conviction is a finding of guilt.
Blacks law definition of conviction,
“In a general sense, the result of a criminal trial which ends in a judgment or sentence that the prisoner is guilty as charged. Finding a person guilty by verdict of a jury.” Notice it says judgment OR sentence. Not judgment AND sentence.
When you used the fugitive section the mentions that it is GENERAL practices, meaning sentencing is not always going to be required to considered to be convicted.
Geez Waters you really have issues comprehending your own language.
Here’s the FEDERAL statute defining conviction, you know an actual law instead of a guide like you posted,
41 U.S. Code § 8101 – Definitions and construction
“(3)Conviction .— The term “conviction” means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere), an imposition of sentence, or both, by a judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of Federal or State criminal drug statutes”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/41/8101#a_3
Notice, “OR BOTH.” It can be one or the other.
Why does it say, OR BOTH, dumbass? LOL you are so childish. Your IQ def <90 You have serious reading ccomprehension issues. It doesnt say either/or. Are you really that stupid? LMAO
Does BOTH apply in this case? Why yes, it does.
If Trump flees before sentencing, does he magically cease to be convicted?
Shoud I use your logic and say "thats a drug statute". Why are you using a drug statute and claiming thats THE definition?
By the way, you posted a link to Cornell Law, not to the FEDERAL STATUTE. See how stupid one can be?
Lets make this simple. What will Trumps date of conviction be? Do you have a guess. I know the answer. Do you?
Waters, you’re backpedaling now. You’re making yourself look really stupid.
You tried to use a guideline for fugitives to prove that to be convicted you have to be found guilty AND sentenced. You tried to use that to prove that I was wrong. I was not.
“It doesnt say either/or. Are you really that stupid? LMAO”
Your guideline is not a statute. You do understand the difference, right?
I gave you a law defining that conviction is a finding of guilt by a jury it judge OR the imposition of a sentence. John say claimed that Trump was not convicted because he was not sentenced. You rushed in to defend his position after pointing out to him that he was wrong and cited a guideline for fugitives. Not an actual statute.
Because if your poor reading comprehension problems you went ahead and made yourself look really stupid.
“ By the way, you posted a link to Cornell Law, not to the FEDERAL STATUTE. See how stupid one can be?“
You really are a moron. The link to Cornell law was referencing a federal statute. It’s a search engine for finding specific laws.
You’ve clearly demonstrated that you’re an idiot trying to save face because you used a guideline for handling fugitives instead of using an actual law.
Like I said. You really walked into that one and confirmed your reading comprehension problem.
Nice backpedal, george. You have the definition, from the DOJ RULE. The RULES dont change when you flee LMAO.
What will the date of conviction be?
You also havent answered what happens if Trump flees. Is he no longer convicted??? The answer is obvious. He is not because he never was. Its right there in black and white.
The staute you quoted does not say either/or, dum dum. Thats what I asserted. Its not either/or. Its whichever applies. In this case both apply. Thats how english works.
Go look at where I shoved blacks law up your gazoo. A jury doesnt render JUDGEMENT. A JUDEGE does.
Keeping it simple, stupid.
What will the date of conviction be?
You also havent answered what happens if Trump flees. Is he no longer convicted?
If the defendant fled after the verdict but before sentencing, he or she has not been convicted,
This applies to everyone. If Trump flees, it applies to him. Why do they call him a defendant, and not a convict, douchebag?
so
1. What will Trump’s date of conviction be?
2. If Trump flees, does he cease to be convicted?
3. Why is the guilty person still called a defendant?
4. How will the judge refer to Trump when he sentences him? Will he ask the defendant to rise, or the CONVICT?
5. What is Black’s definition of JUDGEMENT. Does a jury render JUDEGEMENT.
I have 5 bucks that says you wont answer these simple questions.
In United States practice, conviction means a finding of guilt (i.e., a jury verdict or finding of fact by the judge) and imposition of sentence.
Svelaz
When they mean “an imposition of a sentence” they mean the burden of a sentence.
The imposition of sentence occurs at sentencing, you idiot. You dont get to make up your own definition of “imposition”. The judge IMPOSES the sentence at Sentencing you moron. Else, how could it say THIS
“If the defendant fled after the verdict but before sentencing, he or she has not been convicted,”
LOL you are so pathetic.
Please note, THIS applies to EVERYONE. ANY defendant who flees before sentencing is guess what? NOT CONVICTED. Because conviction requires a formal JUDGEMENT and IMPOSITION of SENTENCE.
Sorry.
And you want to somehow wish that away. Its a fact. Its in the DOJ CRIMINAL RESOURCE MANUAL.
Eat it. Live it. Love it.
Feel free to start here, Svelaz, and find me ONE COURT DOCUMENT that refers to Trump as convicted or a convict.
Do you think words matter or not, pinhead?
Count how many times he is referred to IN COURT DOCUMENTS since the verdict, as the DEFENDANT.
The Defendant has been found guilty. When the JUDGE enters his Judgement (formal ruling AND sentence), Trump will be convicted.
You dont get your own reality. Other than stepping in doo doo.
Another QUESTION…Why is the restraining order still in effect??? LMAO this is like taking candy from a toddler.
Another question…Why can’t Trump appeal before sentencing??? LMAO bwahahahahahaha
Thats right, because he hasn’t been CONVICTED yet.
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Presence%20of%20Counsel%20at%20Presentence%20Order%206-7-24.pdf
My guess is that George won’t answer any of your questions. He never does. He just doubles down on his previous falsehoods.
I have a question. What if Merchan issued a JNOV on Sept 18th? Would Trump still be a “convicted felon”?
Google it, since you dont know what that is, George.
I think we all know the answer. So, it would appear he has not yet been “convicted”.
You lose, George.
It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, It’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict.
Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is the cornerstone of America,. The justice system should be respected. And we should never let never allow anyone to tear it down.—Joe Biden May 2024
Svelaz George is an unAmerican asshat, clowning his way thru life and making reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible claims.
So says President Joe biden
Uh, that is how the system works, right? Decisions on a particular with the chance to appeal and an opportunity to appeal again?
Your really think that the SCOTUS can “define” an all encompassing definition of what is an “official act” and then have that accepted as the law of the land? Would it not that not be a more appropriate duty of the people that hired the POTUS acting through their representatives in Congress? And, if so, do you see the Congress coming up with a comprehensive definition of what is and what is not “an official act”? Do you not see an endless preoccupation and attempts at modifying that definition for ages? Add to that, this proposed legislation further removes the SCOTUS from involvement. Forget Trump, and set Constitutionality aside, this sounds like a recipe for unending chaos.
And “increasing the number of justices and balancing the ideological makeup of the court” will address corruption? Exactly where is the evidence supporting such a claim?
Contra George they did “define” official acts – official acts are the execution of powers and duties given the president by the constitution or by congress by statute. The outer limits are the further conduct that is necessary and proper to execute those powers and duties.
Conmgress has the power to limit presidential immunity by limiting the power and duties it confers on the president or amending the constitution to do so.
John Say, you didn’t cite what the opinion actually said.
They did not define what constitutes an official act. They left it up to the lower courted to determine what an official act without a clear definition from SCOTUS. The one thing they were supposed to do and they didn’t.
As you say, back up your claim. Cite exactly what they said defining official acts.
The vague general assertion you made is not defining what exactly constitutes an official act and what doesn’t. They don’t cite any examples at all.
“The one thing they were supposed to do and they didn’t.”
Please cite in the pleading where the defendant asked SCOTUS to define an official act.
Just making shit up again, eh Svelaz?
George, think of this as father-son advice. Do you realize how stupid you sound? You blather about SCOTUS “new rules out of thin air” and then you write, “They did not define what is and isn’t an official act.” What an idiot.
Anonymous, it’s evident you don’t know what you’re talking about.
its pretty evident he is right. You want them to make it up or not?
Joe says you shouldn’t question the Court. Why do you keep doing reckless, dangerous, irresponsible things?
This is an absurd argument. You say they went beyond the question before them – did you actually read the DC appellate decision on immunity ? The entire reason that SCOTUS defined immunity and established rules is because the rule that the DC appellate court proposed was subjective and ambiguous and rife for abuse.
Regardless iot is 100% the supreme courts job to set rules for lower courts.
One of the more absurd aspects of this idiotic legislation is that it is so reminiscent of the confederate south’s view of federal law.
Eah state each individual court gets to do as they please – there is no federal law and certainly no supreme court to impose rules on lower courts so that the constitutional rights of someone in Manhattan and those of someone in West Palm are the same.
Do you understand this law is so stupid it actually tries to undo the Magna Carte ?
That you are stupid enough to support this is only mildly disturbing – that prominent left wing nut legal scholars as well as the leaders of the democratic party do not understand this is unbelievably stupid and dangerous.
This should not be called the no more kings act but the “every local judge is king act”. This does not dis-empower the president.
It empowers every single partisan judge – left or right in the entire US. Nor is it limited to presidents.
If Republicans had proposed something like this you would be calling it fascist.
And that is the CORE of your idiocy – Every single defense of this you make – you would be laughing hysterically at if this exact law was proposed by McConnell while Obama was president.
There is a reason that you are terrified of Trump that you are accusing him of being anti-democratic and authoritarian – because if elected he will be highly motivated by YOUR authoritarian BS and fascism to do to you what you have fone to him.
“The entire reason that SCOTUS defined immunity and established rules is because the rule that the DC appellate court proposed was subjective and ambiguous and rife for abuse.
Regardless iot is 100% the supreme courts job to set rules for lower courts.”
They don’t set the rules based on what they feel like John. That’s the flaw in your argument. They have to base the rules using case law and the constitution. They made law from the bench. That’s congress’s job. Not the court.
SCOTUS sets rules based on current statutes. Not made up rules based on what they feel are justified. That’s why SCOTUS went beyond what it’s supposed to do. They completely ignored the constitution and plain meaning of current statutes and made their own.
I’m not terrified of anything. You meme assumptions out of ignorance when you know you’re not sure what you are claiming is actually true.
The defintiion of an official act is any excercise of the power delegated to the president explicitly by the constitution or valid laws passed by congress.
The definition of the outer perimeter of acts that are protected – is any act that is necessary and proper to fulfill the constitutional and statutory powers and duty of the president.
I would not that the DC court of appeals did NOT define official acts and left everything up to individual judges without any guidance.
This idiotic No Kings act should make it perferctly clear that it is democrats whose thinking if blinded by Trump.
SCOTUS understood that their decision applied to Bush and Obama and Clinton and Biden and not just Trump.
Democrats are incapable of grasping that is true of this abomnation from the left.
Do you really want some local DA and judge in Nowhere Alabama deciding however they wish what Biden can be charged arrested prosecuted and convicted for ?
But like normal left wing nuts you presume that no one will ever do to you what you do to them.
The supreme court does not need to be ideologically balanced, It needs justices that follow the law and the constitution.
Why is it that you think ideology rather than the constitution should decide ?
The law and constitution is not about ideology.
Please propose a means of reading the law and constitution that whether we agree with that reading each of us can if we are willing to put in the effort know with certainty what the courts will decide and that method of reading statute and constitution will produce the same result if rigorously applied – in every court and across centuries.
It is not the job of the courts to MAKE laws – that is what we have legislatures for. It is explicitly the job of the court to assure that whatever we write in the constitution or statute or regualation that meaning does not change over time based on who is in power or even the change in the meaning of words over time.
If we do not like the law or constitution we can change it. our ability ot trust that the courts will apply the new law and constitution we passed as we intended is dependent on our trust that they did exactly that with the law and or constitution that we did not like.
As to presidential immunity -= it was crystal clear that the left was going to lose the idiotic claim that there is no such thing.
No one ever considered prosecuting Barack Obama for ordering the murder of two US citizens without indictiment, without arrest, without trial.
Do you want a DA and judge and jury in nowhere Alabama to prosecute convict and jail Obama ?
Notice that none of them gave a shit about “ideologically balanced” when the court was libturds.
More shocking and disturbing at this effort to establish an autocratic state are the gullible and mindless lemmings who support that party as it attempts to lead us over the cliff. Schumer, the Judas Jew, whose people supported him decades ago for cause, is doing his best to earn his thirty pieces.
If Jews stopped supporting Democrats, if Catholics stopped supporting Democrats, if so called Evangelical Christians stopped supporting Democrats, there would be less than 1,000,000 voters left, all sterile, childless cat ladies and “male” eunuchs
But asking Jews, Catholics and evangelical Christians to honor their covenant relationship with YHWH / God is just too much of a sacrifice for individualism. So the guillotine it is, assuming the nation does not collapse from anarchy.
There are about 4 million Muslims in the USA and about 28% of Americans are non-religious… But keep spreading misinformation.
Way to miss the point entirely, dum dum
Did your mother have any childrern who survived the birth canal without brain damage?
The point of the post was to spread false information about the number of Americans who subscribe to Estovirs religion
Thanks for doubling down on admitting you missed the point of the post, and for answering the question about being brain dead.
“However, 68% of all the unaffiliated expressed belief in God and out of the whole US population, only 2.4% self identified as “atheist””
“But asking Jews, … to honor their covenant relationship with YHWH / God is just too much of a sacrifice for individualism. “
@ Estovir: I sympathize with your desired end product. The covenant relationship with G-d by the Jews is their adherence to the Torah, not to any government.
The one that justifies slaughtering your enemies, or another Torah?
You are ignorant. Try again using the intellect of someone older than five years.
Lev 26:7, 8
Deut 33:27
Care to interpret? Clearly the KJV has it all screwed up.
The understanding of the Torah involves more than a quote of numbers. It requires content and elaboration based on time and place. It also requires some sense of the Mishnah. Do you have the necessary knowledge to engage in this type of discussion?
You have no name, so you have already failed the credibility test.
Lev: There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of enemies.
Deut: What do you do to your enemies?
Ohhhh, yes, time and place. That old excuse. Works for the slavery apologists too.
@ An Ignorant Fool: The stupid always get the time and place wrong. You don’t understand slavery apologists. Some of those slavery apologists were the most important in ending slavery. Your type talks, but demonstrating their ignorance, shows a lack of concern over slavery.
Dont bother to answer the question, Svelaz. I suppose its just too complex
“Dont bother to answer the question, Svelaz. I suppose its just too complex.”
Whatever question you are referring to may be too complex for Svelaz, but the placement of your comment and what is said is unintelligible.
By the way, any idea when the Messiah will arrive?
Lev 26:7, 8
“You shall give chase to your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. Five of you shall give chase to a hundred, and a hundred of you shall give chase to ten thousand; your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.”
Are you saying that Ukraine is not allowed to fight Russia or that the US could not wage WWII ?
Deut 33:27
The eternal God is your refuge,
and underneath are the everlasting arms.
He will drive out your enemies before you,
saying, ‘Destroy them!’
What is the problem ?
I am guessing that because as a left wing nut you beleive that enemies means anyone who disagrees with you that you are entitled to murder republicans ?
Dont be a douche, Johnny boy. I said Jehovah ok’d wiping out entire populations just because they didn’t worship YAHWEH.
Sound a lot like radical Islam?
Meyer wants to rewrite history, or explain it away with another book written thousands of years later.
@ An Ignorant Fool: You are killing the gene pool. Your lack of history and perspective are astonishing. Try making an argument so one can see a brain exists inside your skull.
Radical Islam is quite different than the other two Abrahamic religions. You are too busy playing with your toes to look anything up.
Oh yes, very different. If you say so, and just because you do, tool.
Tell us about Joshua Chapter 6. Is that in the Tnakh? What happened to all those people and why?
Then educate me on what happens if anyone had even tried to rebuild a city there. Anyone at all.
Do that, then, go back to playing with your toes.
“Tell us about Joshua Chapter 6. Is that in the Tnakh? ”
Am I your Teacher? Yes. Joshua is in the Nevi’im part of the Tanakh. The Torah contains other events leading up to this event, which the Gemara (Talmud) discusses further. There are also archeological digs that have an exciting twist.
Have fun.
So you want me to answer? You might have surmised that I already knew, which is why you didn’t want to answer.
Jehovah ordered the killing of EVERY LIVING THING in Jericho (except Rahab and those in her house), because they did not worship YAHWEH. EXACTLY like radical Islam.
Then the radical Joshua went on to proclaim that if ANYONE ever tried to rebuild there, they would lose their first born son and youngest child.
Gee, that sounds so different from radical Islam./sarc
Would you care to deny these facts, or just explain them away? Or would you prefer to claim some higher knowledge that doesn’t exist to the “infidels”?
“So you want me to answer?”
@ An Ignorant Fool: No, because the story is well-known to children, even the unintelligent ones you represent. Your narrative is incomplete and, therefore, incorrect based on the Bible, but what can we expect from you?
There is a bit more to the story and more in the Torah in other places than Joshua 6. The narrative is complex and multifaceted, with additional insights from the Gemara and archeological digs.
We first need to know whether you think the Bible is literal or not. Since you are drawing literal interpretations (based on your own errors), so one must assume you take the Bible literally.
I am dealing with a fool, and because the fool is anonymous, I cannot tell whether I am dealing with one or many.
“We first need to know whether you think the Bible is literal or not. Since you are drawing literal interpretations (based on your own errors), so one must assume you take the Bible literally.”
Yep, its always the interpretation, isn’t it? And the context, and the unknown.
You’re asking me if I think Joshua literally made the sun stand still, since it doesn’t move? Or if the Serpent once walked upright and could speak to humans??? LMAO
I don’t believe it’s literal. I believe it was bedtime stories, written 1000’s of years after the supposed events, and not by Moses, or Joshua, or Samuel. Were these morality tales literal to the people who told them to their children? Maybe.
Therefore, YAHWEH is not literal either. “HE” is a figment of some very active imaginations.
However, the book of Joshua clearly extolls the virtue of slaughtering humans who don’t worship YAHWEH. Exactly like radical Islam. And thats far from the only place it happens in the Hebrew Bible.
You got something to add to that, feel free. But your lame ass vague claims about other texts and mutifaceted narratives sound a lot like our friend Svelaz, who, rather than substantiate his claims, resorts to “comprehension issues”.
“Yep, it’s always the interpretation, isn’t it? And the context, and the unknown.”
What you believe is your preference. I don’t care if you are Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist. I do care if your religion is Leftism because that religion cannot build. It can only destroy.
“However, the book of Joshua clearly extolls the virtue of slaughtering humans who don’t worship YAHWEH. Exactly like radical Islam. ”
That is your ignorant interpretation because you are not well-versed. How can a religion extol the virtue of slaughtering humans if that is not what the religion teaches? Less you forget the Bible is part history, the accuracy of which can be debated.
Your problem is that you are comparing it to radical Islam and the passages of the Koran that call for the murder of today’s living beings and everyone in the hereafter. If you know anything about the Torah, you should know It is not advocating the murder of others today or in the future, though one is permitted to defend their lives.
The Torah, in part, is a historical story of the Jews up to the death of Moses.
Show me where the Torah calls for killing in the following fashion.
Koran 2:19: “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”
Koran 8:12: “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran.”
You can add more, but the point is made, and the ball is in your court to show that the Torah requires such actions.
(I am not saying that all Muslims believe verses of this type, but you brought up the comparison “Exactly like radical Islam.” )
The Torah is concerned with life, including those not Jewish. The 613 commandments include those that tell Jews to help others who may not be Jewish. It doesn’t say kill the non-Jew.
You also trash the idea of time and place.
“Ohhhh, yes, time and place. That old excuse.”
An excuse? Are you an idiot? Do you prefer the sacrifice of women and children to a non-human type of sacrifice? You reject that with your lack of appreciation for time and place.
What was the Torah telling the Jew in Joshua 6? The people of Jericho were wicked and enemies. Jews should learn to follow G-d’s laws (for example, the Ten Commandments). G-d showed the Jews his power by destroying the walls of Jericho, just like when he parted the seas and made the walls of water stop their natural movement.
Is the Torah accurate in its recount of Joshua? You and everyone else will decide. Archeological evidence shows that the walls may have fallen before the Jews arrived. The exact incident is not the takeaway part; the 613 commandments are.
Accept that the Torah provides commandments that lead to goodness. It even touches on slavery, where some of the commandments under certain conditions involve the freeing of enslaved people. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good start for the times. You may not consider time and place, but the world was filled with ugly slavery.
Again, take note of your comment, “Ohhhh, yes, time and place. That old excuse. Works for the slavery apologists too.” You might have a gripe with apologists, but that gripe shouldn’t include the Torah’s actions toward the ultimate elimination of slavery.
That comment was nothing but foolishness where you tried to climb up by pulling others down. (review your comments)
Before making your judgemental remarks, consider how the Torah impacts the laws you live under, education, cleanliness, loyalty, etc.
You do not need to be Jewish to learn from the Torah.
I will end with much left unsaid because you have enough to consider.
Are you saying that after Perl Harbor FDR should have sued for peace ?
@ Estovir: I sympathize with your desired end product. The covenant relationship with G-d by the Jews is their adherence to the Torah, not to any government.
The reason the Physician Orthodox Jews at Mt Sinai / Miami Beach were the best of the best is because of their observance of the Torah. Setting aside the hundreds of rules in Judaism, they had self-discipline. Find me a man with self-discipline, and I’ll show you a man who is healthy beyond compare. There is a reason why Catholicism has taught about the seven deadly sins.
Question: (to quote Karl Menninger, MD): Whatever became of sin?, 1973
https://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Became-Karl-Menninger-1973-09-02/dp/B01K15UCG0
Answer: The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, 1978
https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Narcissism-American-Diminishing-Expectations/dp/0393011771/
When Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century declared Christianity to be the official religion of the empire, aka the Constatinian shift, supplanting paganism, it propelled Western Civilization into an enviable position in the world. Then came the Marxists in XX Century, and we continue that trajectory in spite of the horrors of atheism, relativism and self-referrential individualism under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Maduro and now Democrats
Apparently you’ve never met anyone who fasts.
“The reason the Physician Orthodox Jews at Mt Sinai / Miami Beach were the best of the best is because of their observance of the Torah. Setting aside the hundreds of rules in Judaism, they had self-discipline.”
@ Estovir: Judge your fellow favorably is one of the 613 Mitzvahs (“rules”).
“. . . Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century declared Christianity to be the official religion of the empire [. . .] it propelled Western Civilization into an enviable position in the world.”
Whitewash history much?
That “enviable position” is the Dark/Middle Ages — some 1,000 years of deprivation, slavery, ignorance, wars.
Nice column. I like that professor Turley named and shamed those who support this travesty.
Everyone should realize that all of this is a direct result of lawfare. Start on a bad path and lots of bad unforeseen things happen.
Every day it seems, the Democrats demonstrate to us, obviously without realizing it, the wisdom of Separation of Powers.
In other words, “No one is above the law except us, of course. 😉 ” Signed…Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), Peter Welch (D-VT), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Laphonza Butler (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Angus King (I-ME), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Raphael Warnock (D-GA).
This is a list of people who think the Magna Carte was a mistake.
For me, the import of this initiative is neither the language nor the intent of its reach.
Rather, it forces serious contemplation of what would happen to our country if Democrats suddenly decided to ignore the Supreme Court. This slow, metastatic unraveling of the structure and fabric holding our nation upright and globally admirable, …surreptitiously hints at its desire to bring it down.
To replace with what? To what end? We all know where this political ideology intends to take us…..
Where? Into hell of course.
Have you ever wondered what Harris means when she says—> we aren’t going back.
? Back where, Ms Harris?
“what would happen to our country if Democrats suddenly decided to ignore the Supreme Court.”
That scenario raises the specter of several possible consequences: some complimentary, some mutually exclusive. Without classifying which group it belongs to, a sizable number of dead democrats is one such possibility. Demagoguery ultimately will be held accountable, if not incrementally, then suddenly.
BTW, that is a prediction, not a threat.
I would have thought that the natural opposition to Mr. Trump would be to strengthen our institutions, not try to beat him in a race to tear them down.
Giving the president immunity was an egregiously wrong opinion. It has zero basis in the Constitution. Even worse, the concept of “core executive power” is also completely made up. The Constitution only gives the President one power that is not checked by Congress; the pardon. Everything else the President does has to be either initially authorized by Congress or approved by Congress.
The MAGAs accuse the Ds of being communist fascists, but it is the MAGAs who want to have a completely unaccountable President.
Also, the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to deny the court appellate jurisdiction on some cases. Republicans love to deny what is written in the Constitution and substitute their own wording.
That clause obviously does not mean what you claim – otherwise the entire rest of Article III can be obliterated by congress.
Lets make this clearer., can congress in a fi of pique deny the federal courts jurisdiction over anything – essentially making the judicial branch impotent ? If so – why bother to put federal courts in the constitution at all ?
Regardless the constitution explicitly states that Habeas Corpus can not be suspended except during rebellion or invasion.
Congress does not have the power to restrict Habeas Corpus jurisdiction.
And that means the federal courts and the supreme court ALWAYS have jurisdiction over the legality of anyone’s detention.
I would note that Habeas Corpus – can only be suspoended and only during rebellion and invasion. It can not be repealed.
And do you recall that little incident where Obama ordered the murder of an American without due process via drone strike, and a number of others killed in that strike?
I would not be surprised if Obama was a-okay with the SCOTUS ruling.
Being an American does not protect your ass from being killed if you are also a terrorist in a foreign country.
Where in the law or constitution does it say that presidents can order murders – if you are a terrorist is a foreign country ?
But lets presume for the sake of argument the constitution actually said that.
Does that mean Biden can label Trump a terrorist and order him assassinated the next time he leaves the country ?
I would not that Obama stated that he could execute terrorists in the US.
It applies to your candidates as well.
The Constitution gives the president several powers that are exercised by him. For example, he can require the heads of departments to give opinions in writing. Even some of those powers “checked” by Congress have an element of pure discretion on the part of the President. So, for example, Congress cannot criminalize the veto of a bill. Congress can override the veto, but it cannot stop the President from vetoing the bill in the first place. Still other powers are implicit in his duty to faithfully execute the law. The President can fire department heads at will. None of this can be criminalized.
The power to fire at will is not in the Constitution. Also every department is created by Congress, and has to follow laws written by Congress, and political appointees are approved by the Senate. Thus it is absurd to think that all this means the President gets criminal immunity while communicating with subordinates.
You say it is “absurd to think” but that is NOT how we read statute and constitution. We are not permitted to go – “I can not beleive they meant this”. We must go – what is it they actually wrote in the law, and if that is not clear – what did they write while drafting or seeking to ratify, and what did the words used mean at the time they were written.
What you think is absurd others might think is reasonable.
The power to fire at will is in the constitution – the necessary and proper clause.
Without that there is no power to fire at all, and no power to hire at all.
It is not at all absurd to think the president gets criminal immunity communicating with Subordinates. Obama ordered the murder of two US citizens. There is nothing explicit in the constitution that says that he may do so. It is clearly a crime – both in the US and in the country in which they were murdered. The murder was conducted by communicating with a subordinate.
I think that SCOTUS made a mistake in the immunity decision.
I do not beleive it is possible or desirable for the courts to sort out when the president is and is not immune, the better way to sort this out – and the one most consistent with the constitution is Impeach, remove, and only then can you indict and prosecute.
If you can not convict half the house and 2/3 of the senate then you should not be allowed to get to a jury.
I have problems with leaving it to congress – Congress is far to political and that opens the door to criminally weaponizing justice.
But what we have seen in the past 2 years is far worse, What SCOTUS did which was decide that the courts are going to work this out with rules that determine what is an is not immune is an improvement – but it also politicizes the courts further.
We want to keep politics in the congress to the greatest extent possible. It is better to require impeachment and removal before any indictment or criminal prosecution.
So, Sammy… You’re on board with prosecuting President Obama for the murder of U. S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, in defiance of the Fifth Amendment and without due process?
I’ll bite. Yes, I would be. I don’t think any President should be above the law, whether GOP or Democrat.
So instead Obama was obligated to send in a seal team to abduct Al Awaraki, and drag him back to the US for trial ?
And if the Seals ended up killing someone as they tried to abduct Al Awaraki , then do we allow Yemen to extradite the seals ? Or even Obama himself ?
What about Afghanistan ? We sent in Green Berets and Air power to obliterate a government that essentially refused to extradite Al Queda. Then we sought to kill off all of Al Queda. Aren’t those crimes ?
Said by someone who clearly has no understandihg of the application of immunity to all federal employees and who probably has never read, much less analyzed the Bivens case. Immunity is a long-standing, well-established and necessary legal doctrine.
1. Bivens is about civil immunity. 2. SCOTUS has effectively overruled Bivens.
The Court relied on Justice Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown to hold that Congress could not legislate in areas that the Constitution delegated exclusively and conclusively to the President. This is the source of the concept of absolute immunity for core powers.
Jackson went on to find that no core power gave Truman the authority without more to seize the steel mills.
The Court found that the President’s removal power with respect to the AG and his decisions regarding the conduct of investigations by the DOJ were core powers.
The Court lied. The Constitution delegates very few powers exclusively and conclusively to the President (few, as in one). There is no such thing as “President’s removal power” in the Constitution.
The Court didn’t actually use Youngstown. They completely butchered Jacksons concurrence.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-rule-for-the-ages–or-a-rule-for-trump
So Sammy! Where do you think qualified immunity comes from??
Qualified immunity was made up by SCOTUS.
Forgot veto when congress goes awry of the Constitution?
The Constitution is law. It’s based in principles. Let’s identify the principle being defied in the No Kings Act.
“The Constitution only gives the President one power that is not checked by Congress; the pardon.”
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
You can argue that is checked by congress – but it is still the power of the president.
What does “checked by congress” mean and how is that relevant to the question of immunity ?
Congress can give a president power or they can remove it – that does not change the fact the president is immune from prosecution for weilding that power.
The ultimate check on presidential power is impeachment and removal.
I do beleive SCOTUS erred – in that the cleanest and most constitutionally sound immunity decision is that congress must impeach and remove a presdent befoire they can be indicted or prosecuted.
SCOTUS engaged in a power grab they gave the president absolute immunity – with the courts deciding the boundaries of that immunity.
The constitution gives the president immunity – until Congress impeaches and removes to take it away.
The Constitution does not in any way give presidential immunity. It says it no where. SCOTUS made it up. The constitution is not that long, why are MAGAs so bad at reading it?
The president can ALWAYS be impeached and removed.