Here's what we know about Joe Biden; he is old, he is and has been a statesman, he has worked across the aisle for nearly 50 years, he beat trump in 2020 (not because he was that good, trump was that bad). I have absolute and total faith Joe will do what is best for this country we love. I'm fine with it being on his timeline and terms. We owe him that.
Here's what we know about trump; he's old, he's never been a statesman, he could care less about either side of the aisle because all that matters to him is him, trump will only do what is in trump's best interest. He owes himself that, being the narcissist he is.
Let's dig deeper though as polls show Joe slipping. There's one poll i pay attention to, the others not so much. The vast majority of the voters in the country think both, BOTH, candidates are too old. If Joe leaves we get a much younger candidate. On the other hand trump will never leave. NEVER.
While so many see doom and gloom, i see the miserable debate performance as an awakening. Self reflection is difficult. For those capable of being honest with themselves, it's doable. For those who are incapable of looking at ones blemishes, it is impossible.
For trump, there is no hope...for Biden, his reality looks back at him every time he looks in the mirror. Intellectual honesty is an awesome tool to have in one's tool chest. Joe has it in spades.
Good take on Biden and team failing to adequately show that Mr President is fit for office, following a bad debate showing.
Definitely think your read on the immunity ruling is off. In basic terms, use of military force outside of US Code Title 10 would make it inherently unofficial. The actions would by definition not meet the Constitutional Authority. Also, I think that the Roberts Court sought to balance the ideas of “post-election winner lawfare” with “post-election loser accountability”. Not emotionally satisfying to those who vehemently seek Mr Trump’s head on a platter. Try taking a few steps back to re-asses, nonetheless.
I go back to the Court’s statement that core constitutional powers cannot be questioned so I don’t think it gets to the Title 10 discussion. If this what the Court had in mind, they’re going to have to clarify.
And, the caveat here is; under which president will they be rendering their next decision? Sadly, it appears that matters more than the quality of their ruling.
Agreed. All the apologists for the ruling want to dance around variations of whether illegal presidential acts would qualify as “official”, all the while continuing to and repeatedly ignoring that the immunity vested in his core presidential powers supercedes all of it. Missing the forest for the trees at best; motivated reading at worst.
"For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the
“outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities,
covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87"
man·i·fest·ly: adverb
in a way that is clear or obvious to the eye or mind:
Palpably: In a way that is so obvious that it can easily be seen or known, or (of a feeling) in a way that is so strong that it seems as if it can be physically felt:
Your logic escapes me. An honest observer would never pretend that murder and coups are palpably within the President's constitutional powers.
"Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. "
Command of the military is a core constitutional power.
If this ruling contradicts other rulings, it just adds to the confusion and increases the need for clarification.
Precisely. Congress can’t criminalize core presidential actions. Courts can’t be involved in prosecuting any such alleged illegal acts involving core presidential powers.
Seems to me that when the president exercises those core presidential powers, the other 2 branches don’t have the legal standing to say boo at this point.
So much for checks and balances.
It comes down to not voting into office someone who you have reason to believe might abuse such core presidential powers, Cuz there ain’t nothing stopping him but his morals. And the Orange…on that front…is wanting.
Just noticed the case you cited was not a SCOTUS case. It was decided by the DC circuit of the Court of Appeals. The new Trump immunity decision takes precedence.
As far as I know, Blassingame v. Trump is not coming before SCOTUS.
Nonetheless, those words were presented as guidance in the written opinion of the Supreme Court. I did not find those exact words in the 112-page DC Circuit decision, but that court did not dismiss the Blassingame case thereby indicating the court did not find Trump to be immune. The Supremes might have been indicating skepticism of that particular ruling.
Maybe but, to me, "extends to" doesn't sound like "addresses only". I would take that to mean "to the full extent of". I suppose I should try to forget engineering and return to college to get a degree in philosophy - or better yet, law.
Here's what we know about Joe Biden; he is old, he is and has been a statesman, he has worked across the aisle for nearly 50 years, he beat trump in 2020 (not because he was that good, trump was that bad). I have absolute and total faith Joe will do what is best for this country we love. I'm fine with it being on his timeline and terms. We owe him that.
Here's what we know about trump; he's old, he's never been a statesman, he could care less about either side of the aisle because all that matters to him is him, trump will only do what is in trump's best interest. He owes himself that, being the narcissist he is.
Let's dig deeper though as polls show Joe slipping. There's one poll i pay attention to, the others not so much. The vast majority of the voters in the country think both, BOTH, candidates are too old. If Joe leaves we get a much younger candidate. On the other hand trump will never leave. NEVER.
While so many see doom and gloom, i see the miserable debate performance as an awakening. Self reflection is difficult. For those capable of being honest with themselves, it's doable. For those who are incapable of looking at ones blemishes, it is impossible.
For trump, there is no hope...for Biden, his reality looks back at him every time he looks in the mirror. Intellectual honesty is an awesome tool to have in one's tool chest. Joe has it in spades.
Good take on Biden and team failing to adequately show that Mr President is fit for office, following a bad debate showing.
Definitely think your read on the immunity ruling is off. In basic terms, use of military force outside of US Code Title 10 would make it inherently unofficial. The actions would by definition not meet the Constitutional Authority. Also, I think that the Roberts Court sought to balance the ideas of “post-election winner lawfare” with “post-election loser accountability”. Not emotionally satisfying to those who vehemently seek Mr Trump’s head on a platter. Try taking a few steps back to re-asses, nonetheless.
I go back to the Court’s statement that core constitutional powers cannot be questioned so I don’t think it gets to the Title 10 discussion. If this what the Court had in mind, they’re going to have to clarify.
And, the caveat here is; under which president will they be rendering their next decision? Sadly, it appears that matters more than the quality of their ruling.
Agreed. All the apologists for the ruling want to dance around variations of whether illegal presidential acts would qualify as “official”, all the while continuing to and repeatedly ignoring that the immunity vested in his core presidential powers supercedes all of it. Missing the forest for the trees at best; motivated reading at worst.
"For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the
“outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities,
covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87"
man·i·fest·ly: adverb
in a way that is clear or obvious to the eye or mind:
Palpably: In a way that is so obvious that it can easily be seen or known, or (of a feeling) in a way that is so strong that it seems as if it can be physically felt:
Your logic escapes me. An honest observer would never pretend that murder and coups are palpably within the President's constitutional powers.
In this ruling, they are clear:
"Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. "
Command of the military is a core constitutional power.
If this ruling contradicts other rulings, it just adds to the confusion and increases the need for clarification.
Precisely. Congress can’t criminalize core presidential actions. Courts can’t be involved in prosecuting any such alleged illegal acts involving core presidential powers.
Seems to me that when the president exercises those core presidential powers, the other 2 branches don’t have the legal standing to say boo at this point.
So much for checks and balances.
It comes down to not voting into office someone who you have reason to believe might abuse such core presidential powers, Cuz there ain’t nothing stopping him but his morals. And the Orange…on that front…is wanting.
Just noticed the case you cited was not a SCOTUS case. It was decided by the DC circuit of the Court of Appeals. The new Trump immunity decision takes precedence.
As far as I know, Blassingame v. Trump is not coming before SCOTUS.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/blassingame-v-trump-d-c-circuit-court/
Nonetheless, those words were presented as guidance in the written opinion of the Supreme Court. I did not find those exact words in the 112-page DC Circuit decision, but that court did not dismiss the Blassingame case thereby indicating the court did not find Trump to be immune. The Supremes might have been indicating skepticism of that particular ruling.
That is true, but it also addresses the peripheral powers rather than core powers.
Maybe but, to me, "extends to" doesn't sound like "addresses only". I would take that to mean "to the full extent of". I suppose I should try to forget engineering and return to college to get a degree in philosophy - or better yet, law.