I don't understand how self-professed libertarians can like this guy
>"ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY," Trump says, even when their actions "CROSS THE LINE" between legitimate exercises of presidential power and criminality. Otherwise, he warns, presidential "AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS" will be "STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER."
>"ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY," Trump says, even when their actions "CROSS THE LINE" between legitimate exercises of presidential power and criminality. Otherwise, he warns, presidential "AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS" will be "STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER."
Sovereign immunity goes back hundreds of years and was brought over to US law from English common law, so it isn't like he's making some new thing up that's never existed before.
The consequence of removing sovereign immunity would be a gridlock of constant lawsuits and possible criminal charges over practically every decision.
The consequence of removing sovereign immunity would be a gridlock of constant lawsuits and possible criminal charges over practically every decision.
@sj_zero I never claimed he was making up a new thing that never existed before. I'm sure there have been plenty of kings and queens who could do whatever the fuck they wanted. I care about rule of law regardless of how new or old it is.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
Well it's been the law of the land in the US through every US president, but it's only started coming up now because disagreements with how the president acted in office was typically accepted to be a political question to be solved at the ballot box and not by the courts.
If you look at us history, lots of presidents did some really grotesquely evil and illegal things. Andrew Jackson explicitly ignored the supreme Court and caused the trail of tears by annexing native lands illegally. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus unilaterally so his government could lock up anyone he wanted indefinitely. FDR locked up 100,000 Japanese-Americans and seized their properties. That's just a few examples but they're all world class atrocities, and there were no legal repercussions for any of these presidents personally. It's only 248 years in and the establishment wants to punish someone for winning an election they weren't supposed to win that suddenly the question is raised about whether we can charge presidents. In a common law system, this isn't what rule of law looks like. The idea for hundreds of years has been that you try to be consistent in application of law which is why stare decisis exists.
Now, does that all mean I necessarily agree with 100% sovereign immunity? Not necessarily. But the way to fix that is by the congress passing legislation to limit immunity, similar to how it did in civil rights legislation such as section 1983 which allows people to sue the government for violating civil rights, or the federal tort claims act, which allows the federal government to be sued for certain tort laws. It shouldn't be legislated into existence from whole cloth by the courts because that isn't their role in the process. To have the courts do otherwise would be a violation of the rule of law.
If you look at us history, lots of presidents did some really grotesquely evil and illegal things. Andrew Jackson explicitly ignored the supreme Court and caused the trail of tears by annexing native lands illegally. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus unilaterally so his government could lock up anyone he wanted indefinitely. FDR locked up 100,000 Japanese-Americans and seized their properties. That's just a few examples but they're all world class atrocities, and there were no legal repercussions for any of these presidents personally. It's only 248 years in and the establishment wants to punish someone for winning an election they weren't supposed to win that suddenly the question is raised about whether we can charge presidents. In a common law system, this isn't what rule of law looks like. The idea for hundreds of years has been that you try to be consistent in application of law which is why stare decisis exists.
Now, does that all mean I necessarily agree with 100% sovereign immunity? Not necessarily. But the way to fix that is by the congress passing legislation to limit immunity, similar to how it did in civil rights legislation such as section 1983 which allows people to sue the government for violating civil rights, or the federal tort claims act, which allows the federal government to be sued for certain tort laws. It shouldn't be legislated into existence from whole cloth by the courts because that isn't their role in the process. To have the courts do otherwise would be a violation of the rule of law.
@sj_zero Which party do you think is most likely to pass that legislation?
Honestly, it would have to be something both parties work on together as a compromise. I'm sure both parties have their own visions of what might keep them up at night regarding unchecked executive power.
The civil rights act of 1871 that established 1983 civil rights claims came from the Republicans primarily with strong opposition from southern Democrats but had some support from northern Democrats.
The federal tort claims act was passed by a Democrat led Congress but had bipartisan support because it addressed an injustice that both parties agreed needed to be solved.
The civil rights act of 1871 that established 1983 civil rights claims came from the Republicans primarily with strong opposition from southern Democrats but had some support from northern Democrats.
The federal tort claims act was passed by a Democrat led Congress but had bipartisan support because it addressed an injustice that both parties agreed needed to be solved.