GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I'm confused where you are seeing "critical may be reached in less than ten years" in that article, could you explain? (for starters, the article doesn't use the word "critical", so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it)
The article is from 2021. We are seeing effects predicted for 2030 already NOW. Critical does not mean YOU die, but that someone somewhere is dead of starvation that we were feeding and could have kept alive without climate change. (If it is killing people I call it critical, because it is critical TO THEM.)
There are other articles, I suggest you look them up and keep reading. Pay attention to the credentials (or lack thereof) of the authors and contributors.
Agreed! Let's get back on topic. I'm hopeful that the SCOTUS will not grant Trump absolute immunity. I suspect they'll kick the can down the road and delay the decision to benefit Trump. In the end I suspect they'll deny his claim for immunity.
The authors of our Constitution realized that "members of Congress" needed to enjoy "immunity," both "on the Floor of their chambers" and when in-transit to and from.
Unfortunately, they did not think to articulate the privileges of either of their other two Branches. This has now been left to a very complicated series of Supreme Court decisions. (So far at least, there have been no Constitutional Amendments. Not even yet "attempted.")
Courts typically limit themselves only to the minimal extent of the cases that are before them. So, the SCOTUS has previously ruled that the Executive is immune from civil lawsuits. However, the question of criminal liability has never before been presented to them, and therefore they have not (yet ...) ruled.
However, I am very confident what the ruling must be. There are thousands of counties in this nation which are capable of empaneling a Grand Jury. If it was decided that "the Article-2 Executive" was subject to them, then every single one of them would immediately be employed to certify lawsuits. The Executive would face thousands of years in prison, as soon as (s)he left office. If "this threat" were genuine, the Executive could not fulfill his/her Office.
So, the SCOTUS has previously ruled that the Executive is immune from civil lawsuits.
Mr. Trump is not currently a member of the Executive. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, that immunity only applies to official duties. Unofficial conduct is excluded.
However, the "immunity claim" has to do with actions taken while in office. And my position is that "The President" must by definition have the freedom to act as (s)he sees fit, given the exigencies of whatever-the-situation-is. Because, "that is what a Chief Executive Officerdoes: '(s)he Executes.'"
The CEO/CINC is, of course, "accountable to the law" by means of the threat of impeachment. But, (s)he cannot function if always thinking: "if I dare to do this, might I be put in prison for the next five hundred years, by those who politically disagree with me?"
If this were the case, "say goodbye to 'Article 2.'" Because, no one in their right mind would ever agree to take the job.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-28-2024 at 07:44 AM.
The authors of our Constitution realized that "members of Congress" needed to enjoy "immunity," both "on the Floor of their chambers" and when in-transit to and from.
Unfortunately, they did not think to articulate the privileges of either of their other two Branches. This has now been left to a very complicated series of Supreme Court decisions. (So far at least, there have been no Constitutional Amendments. Not even yet "attempted.")
Courts typically limit themselves only to the minimal extent of the cases that are before them. So, the SCOTUS has previously ruled that the Executive is immune from civil lawsuits. However, the question of criminal liability has never before been presented to them, and therefore they have not (yet ...) ruled.
However, I am very confident what the ruling must be. There are thousands of counties in this nation which are capable of empaneling a Grand Jury. If it was decided that "the Article-2 Executive" was subject to them, then every single one of them would immediately be employed to certify lawsuits. The Executive would face thousands of years in prison, as soon as (s)he left office. If "this threat" were genuine, the Executive could not fulfill his/her Office.
And yet, no POTUS in history has faced criminal charges. Over 230 years and not once has this been a problem. Until now. (Arguably Nixon should be considered the first, but charges were never brought. Shame that.) Only TWO presidents in the history of the country have been caught actually breaking the law, and only ONE has broken the law in an attempt to destroy our government and subvert the security of the country. I would hope that members of the SCOTUS know their legal history. I question the source of your confidence.
However, the "immunity claim" has to do with actions taken while in office. And my position is that "The President" must by definition have the freedom to act as (s)he sees fit, given the exigencies of whatever-the-situation-is. Because, "that is what a Chief Executive Officerdoes: '(s)he Executes.'"
The CEO/CINC is, of course, "accountable to the law" by means of the threat of impeachment. But, (s)he cannot function if always thinking: "if I dare to do this, might I be put in prison for the next five hundred years, by those who politically disagree with me?"
If this were the case, "say goodbye to 'Article 2.'" Because, no one in their right mind would ever agree to take the job.
That last line is demonstrably not true. Just consider the number of candidates from all parties that attempted a run at the job AFTER charges were brought.
Unless you contend that no candidates for POTUS were or are in their right minds...
(Wait, let me think on that one....)
However, the "immunity claim" has to do with actions taken while in office.
Again, it's a fine point which you seem to keep missing, but the immunity granted by SCOTUS's interpretation of Article 2 only applies to official duties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpeckham
I question the source of your confidence.
At this point is it patently clear that Mr. Sundialsvcs has never studied law. He seems to lack basic comprehension of the law, and in particular, how nuances and subtle differences in circumstance can result in substantially different outcomes. I'd suggest that the Dunning-Kruger effect is the source of his confidence.
It's a bit difficult to choose which recent "Trump Thread" to put this in but I'll try here since it is a major cautionary tale that concerns both Trump and Biden. Neither is exempt and it includes past history of near abuse, though I am a bit chagrined and surprised it didn't mention Gen MacArthur murdering veterans in Washington DC with cannon fire. Nevertheless it is an important and importantly NON Partisan view.
A bipartisan group of legal experts is sounding an alarm about presidential power this election season.
They're pushing Congress to update a cluster of laws known as the Insurrection Act and limit how the White House can deploy troops on American soil, in case a future president takes advantage of that sweeping power.
"It's really up to the president to decide when to use the armed forces as a domestic police force," said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. "And that is tremendous cause for concern, because an army turned inward can very quickly become an instrument of tyranny."
It's a bit difficult to choose which recent "Trump Thread" to put this in but I'll try here since it is a major cautionary tale that concerns both Trump and Biden. Neither is exempt and it includes past history of near abuse, though I am a bit chagrined and surprised it didn't mention Gen MacArthur murdering veterans in Washington DC with cannon fire. Nevertheless it is an important and importantly NON Partisan view.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
