Anyone who thinks that Trump is a violent authoritarian clearly wasn't looking at the four years he was in charge with a critical eye.
Even with respect to the vaccines, he didn't mandate anyone use them, he just helped get some red tape out of the way so that they could get to market faster. It was others who took the fact that those vaccines existed and then mandated that millions of people be forced to take an untested experimental vaccine.
I know myself and a lot of other people kind of wish that he had been a little bit more of a violent authoritarian in certain respects. If Minneapolis was my home city, and a bunch of violent lunatics were burning it to the ground for months, I would want every level of government to be stepping in to protect the property rights of the individuals other than the protesters who live in that City and are watching their homes and businesses be burnt to the ground. Instead he just sat there wagging his finger at them.
Even with respect to the vaccines, he didn't mandate anyone use them, he just helped get some red tape out of the way so that they could get to market faster. It was others who took the fact that those vaccines existed and then mandated that millions of people be forced to take an untested experimental vaccine.
I know myself and a lot of other people kind of wish that he had been a little bit more of a violent authoritarian in certain respects. If Minneapolis was my home city, and a bunch of violent lunatics were burning it to the ground for months, I would want every level of government to be stepping in to protect the property rights of the individuals other than the protesters who live in that City and are watching their homes and businesses be burnt to the ground. Instead he just sat there wagging his finger at them.
Sovereign immunity is well established in the common law.
It says that the only time the government can be liable for crimes or torts is when it agrees to be liable for crimes or torts.
There's a limited number of things that you can sue the government for, and a limited number of things that you can charge the government for criminally. That's just the way things have been for hundreds of years. Examples of where the government allows itself to be sued would be 1983 civil rights claims, and certain laws which limit the immunity of certain actors such as police officers.
If you would make the argument to me that the President should have limitations on their liability, I would agree with that and I would say that the next step would be for the Congress to present legislation which limits immunity of the head of the executive Branch and pass it (even the veto power of the president can be overwhelmed if a super majority can vote for the legislation). It would be unjust for the courts to arbitrarily decide that the ancient and well established concept of sovereign immunity has disappeared because a certain president is now the one it applies to.
It says that the only time the government can be liable for crimes or torts is when it agrees to be liable for crimes or torts.
There's a limited number of things that you can sue the government for, and a limited number of things that you can charge the government for criminally. That's just the way things have been for hundreds of years. Examples of where the government allows itself to be sued would be 1983 civil rights claims, and certain laws which limit the immunity of certain actors such as police officers.
If you would make the argument to me that the President should have limitations on their liability, I would agree with that and I would say that the next step would be for the Congress to present legislation which limits immunity of the head of the executive Branch and pass it (even the veto power of the president can be overwhelmed if a super majority can vote for the legislation). It would be unjust for the courts to arbitrarily decide that the ancient and well established concept of sovereign immunity has disappeared because a certain president is now the one it applies to.
Also,
There’s a limited number of things that you can sue the government for
That still contradicts the claim that nothing a president does is illegal.
It depends on the interpretation of which laws presently apply to which parts of the government, and also whether those laws open the office of president or the individual acting in their capacity as office holder of president.
As an example, you could sue the government as in the office of the President under a 1983 civil rights claim or a federal civil torts act claim, but the man who was president would be personally immune. On civil grounds the supreme Court has already decided in the 1980s that the person behind the presidency is immune for actions taken in an official capacity, so this second question is about criminal immunity.
Nixon V. Fitzgerald (1982) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/731/
An example of agents of the state who don't have that kind of immunity would be police officers who tend to have qualified immunity, meaning that there is a limitation in law on the amount of immunity they are allowed to claim. I think in the case of police officers the police officers would have to be generally acting within their scope as police officers, and so they can't just do whatever they want and claim immunity whereas certain individuals acting on behalf of the government still can. I would imagine that a soldier in a war zone for example likely has all civil liability waived, and so if they bombed the wrong building the people who own that building can't come back and and go after the soldier in court for it (though there is a separate military law that would apply to the solider under such circumstances).
As an example, you could sue the government as in the office of the President under a 1983 civil rights claim or a federal civil torts act claim, but the man who was president would be personally immune. On civil grounds the supreme Court has already decided in the 1980s that the person behind the presidency is immune for actions taken in an official capacity, so this second question is about criminal immunity.
Nixon V. Fitzgerald (1982) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/731/
An example of agents of the state who don't have that kind of immunity would be police officers who tend to have qualified immunity, meaning that there is a limitation in law on the amount of immunity they are allowed to claim. I think in the case of police officers the police officers would have to be generally acting within their scope as police officers, and so they can't just do whatever they want and claim immunity whereas certain individuals acting on behalf of the government still can. I would imagine that a soldier in a war zone for example likely has all civil liability waived, and so if they bombed the wrong building the people who own that building can't come back and and go after the soldier in court for it (though there is a separate military law that would apply to the solider under such circumstances).
Yeah, it's the other side of Nixon v. Fitzgerald. There it was asking about civil immunity and here it's criminal.
I agree that Trump can't get drunk at a poker game and beat a Waiter to death and go "nope, I'm the president, it's ok"
Sovereign immunity obviously only applies to actions taken in your capacity as a sovereign. However, as I said in my other post, if you're in the scope of that immunity then it would be absolute (like civil liability in Nixon v. Fitzgerald) unless limited through legislation similar to how it works in a 1983 claim or the federal tort claims act.
I agree that Trump can't get drunk at a poker game and beat a Waiter to death and go "nope, I'm the president, it's ok"
Sovereign immunity obviously only applies to actions taken in your capacity as a sovereign. However, as I said in my other post, if you're in the scope of that immunity then it would be absolute (like civil liability in Nixon v. Fitzgerald) unless limited through legislation similar to how it works in a 1983 claim or the federal tort claims act.
The scope would be anything that would be considered "official duties". If you're acting in your capacity as an agent of the state, then you would not be liable.
Clinton v. Jones (1997) is relevant, because it says that while presidential immunity exists, it doesn't apply to actions taken before entering office or "alleged misconduct of petitioner was unrelated to any of his official duties as President of the United States". The next question in these cases would be whether the prosecuted actions are related to official duties as president, and I could imagine that question ultimately going back to the supreme court, given that the court could either be very broad or very narrow and that would be important to consistent legal outcomes.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/
Clinton v. Jones (1997) is relevant, because it says that while presidential immunity exists, it doesn't apply to actions taken before entering office or "alleged misconduct of petitioner was unrelated to any of his official duties as President of the United States". The next question in these cases would be whether the prosecuted actions are related to official duties as president, and I could imagine that question ultimately going back to the supreme court, given that the court could either be very broad or very narrow and that would be important to consistent legal outcomes.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/
It's often interesting listening to cases (I had a hobby of listening to supreme court cases for a long time) that the individual people involved don't matter as much as they think they do because the court is setting rules that affect everyone.
It should be mentioned that I'm just a retard on the Internet, and so anything I say about damn near anything is as such.
It should be mentioned that I'm just a retard on the Internet, and so anything I say about damn near anything is as such.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
I don't remember the case, but there was one of the big church and state ones I think, and the lawyer was a straight stereotypical big texas lawyer and he seemed to think he could just win the case through sheer force of personality, and that just wasn't happening.
Actually, it was often surprising that you couldn't predict based on who seemed to be doing better at oral arguments who would win the case.
Actually, it was often surprising that you couldn't predict based on who seemed to be doing better at oral arguments who would win the case.