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

No Stupid Questions

35907 readers
1229 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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fubo@lemmy.world 145 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (14 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 (6 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] 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!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago (3 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 (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 85 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Because what they really did was set themselves up as the ones who decide what is and isn't an official act.

As long as there is a right-wing supreme court, any action by a republican president will be official and immune, but if a democratic president tried to throw their weight around in the same... They'll get shut down.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Simply replace the SC judges in an official act.

[–] eightpix@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Wait, maybe the justices just gave Biden the authority to do just that.

...

Naw. See, if he did, that'd delegitimize the presidency and cause a constitutional crisis.

But, if a Republican President does it, it's an exercise in upholding American freedom and the true authority of the office. See the difference?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 73 points 4 months ago (2 children)

don't be ridiculous; it says official acts, so he can't bring a gun himself.

he has to use seal team 6 instead. see? democracy isn't dead!

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 28 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

"As an official act as President, I have issued an Executive Order that I blast Trump in the face."

Boom, checkmate libruls

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (3 children)

For the record, that would be an illegal order and should be refused by everyone involved in the military chain.

(Whether or not it is refused is a different matter.)

They sent back the question of what is an official act. And when the judge comes back with something like “official acts are those in which a president is acting in an official capacity as the president to fulfill obligations and duties of the president.” (IANAL….so there’s probably some anal retentive detail that is super critical in missing)

In any case, when challenging the election, that is not an official act- that was something done by Trump-the-candidate.

Inviting foreign dignitaries, however frequently is. (But probably not when selling out America and other spies to keep compromat from leaking)

Organizing an insurrection in the US never is, however.

I’m alarmed by the alarm in the dissent- they probably know where this is going, but POTUS has enjoyed some immunity anyhow as far as official acts go. And when it’s kept to a reasonable understanding… that’s more or less good.

Their alarm suggests that the majority here is not going to have a reasonable understanding when that gets appealed.

[–] tinyVoltron@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

Reasonable

Who's to say what's reasonable.

when challenging the election, that is not an official act

Why not? He could make the argument that the election was stolen and ignoring it is in the best interest of the United states.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

He's the commander in chief, ordering a seal team or the CIA to assassinate someone is an official act and legal now. What you fail to mention in your haste to try to downplay this is that they also made it impossible to present evidence of crimes by the president, so any non-public action by the president is de facto legal. It would be impossible to prosecute because even if you gathered evidence he ordered the hit, you couldn't use it in court.

Yes, it's that bad. No, it's not that people are over reacting.

Read Sotomayor's dissent, she says explicitly that this gives the president legal immunity against assassinations.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 13 points 4 months ago

It's very clear this will be abused, most notably by letting Trump off the hook for his insurrection. That's why there's huge alarm.

[–] card797@champserver.net 68 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Declare a national security emergency. Have the SEALS eliminate Trump for being a traitor. Bing bang boom, America is Great Again.

[–] P1nkman@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Yeah, I mean if we're going to the store you might as well get a cart full right?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] razorwiregoatlick@lemmy.world 58 points 4 months ago (12 children)

They did not say that he was immune. They said that the president has immunity for certain acts. What acts? Whatever acts they, the SCOTUS, decide they should be immune from. So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So... Biden could target SCOTUS as being treasonous & appoint new justices under immunity with the three remaining liberal justices quickly ruling he has executive privilege to do so?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] card797@champserver.net 16 points 4 months ago

That court also wouldn't be able to have the president arrested. He would need to be impeached and removed from office before any of that could happen.

[–] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (3 children)

So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.

Ah! But with what evidence? They also ruled that presidential conduct (paraphrasing here) can't be used as evidence.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Bring his own gun? Unofficial act. Have the DOJ black bag his opponent and rendition him to a CIA camp in Saudi Arabia? Official act and immune.

[–] Veneroso@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (4 children)

You just need to pull the "it was in the best interest of the United States" card and it's an official act.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It has to be an official act within the scope of the executive branch. So he couldn't just bring a gun and shot him, however he could direct the justice department to focus on domestic terrorism and cite Trump's threats for political retribution as a terroristic threat and have him and every other Republican who publicly agreed with him disappeared.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 34 points 4 months ago (8 children)

You're not missing anything. Based on the ruling, the president may now murder anyone they want - just so long as they claim it's an official act.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 30 points 4 months ago

They can also pardon themselves if it isn't an official act, since their pardon power is an official act.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

He must say: "This debate is officially over" before pulling the trigger.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago

His own devotion to ineffectiveness.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.

Just think about how many wars they have started: They had this license all the time!

[–] Somethingcheezie@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (11 children)

Wars are against foreigners not US citizens. Not against the flag and the constitution it represents.

Domestic case law for will need to test their ruling.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] kava@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (13 children)

Acts done in an official manner are immune. So for example if the president orders assassination of political leader of another country (what Trump did with Iran's Suleinami (I'm probably butchering name)). Protects president from prosecution for murder or whatever if there is evidence it was done in the interest of the state.

Another example is something Biden / Trump and even Hilary are guilty of. The misuse or mishandling of classified materials. Since they are acting in an official manner, it isn't a crime like it would be if a normal citizen mishandled the documents.

Acts done in an "unofficial manner" are not immune. So let's say a Mr President does some insider trading while president to enrich himself personally. That presumably would still be illegal and he could be charged.

So who decides what is official and what isn't? The courts. Lower courts make a determination and presumably it would go up to the SC if necessary.

It's an interesting question. For example- Reagan's Iran-Contra episode. Where his administration was smuggling cocaine in order to get money to covertly supply weapons to Iran. Would that be official or unofficial?

I think people need to realize the president has had broad powers to do a lot of dubious things for decades. This doesn't necessarily increase or decrease his power, but creates a potential pathway to either prosecute or acquit him. Whereas before, it always stayed in the legal gray zone (in Reagan's Iran Contra)

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] cmoney@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The supreme cunts can just change their ruling whenever they feel like it, so as long as it's their boss tRump it's fine but anyone ~~they~~ tRump doesn't like they'll just make another decision saying you can't do that anymore.

[–] uienia@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

The immunity only applies to Republican presidents.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Answer: they would react differently if it were Biden versus Trump who did it. The SCOTUS would find a way to let Trump off while making Biden pay.

[–] nemith@programming.dev 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What is stopping BIDEN??? I'd say empathy and a good set of morals. Regardless of if you think he's fit to be president, I think nobody sane would argue that he's a good man. He's a good person. Even if he could do so consequence free, HE wouldn't.

The question is, what's stopping the next president with no morals? And that's a far more chilling scenario.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

He doesn’t even have to shoot anyone. Whoever interferes with an official act is clearly committing treason and can be sent to Gulag

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

He should start with the supreme court if he has an ounce of worth.

load more comments
view more: next ›