Happy Independence from a KING day.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Please, they ruled exactly as we predicted earlier, Jarod. Immunity from official acts, no immunity for non-official acts and kick it back to the lower courts.
The only people pretending it doesn't help say, Obama, who killed an American citizen he single-handedly decided was a threat to America and that hasn't gone past the statute of limitations... or pretty much any other President who has to make hard decisions in their job is just pretense.
Anyway, you and I both predicted this ruling. Only now that Biden wants Americans to be afraid do you pretend that the ruling doesn't make sense.
The only people pretending it doesn't help say, Obama, who killed an American citizen he single-handedly decided was a threat to America and that hasn't gone past the statute of limitations... or pretty much any other President who has to make hard decisions in their job is just pretense.
Anyway, you and I both predicted this ruling. Only now that Biden wants Americans to be afraid do you pretend that the ruling doesn't make sense.
Presidents have always had immunity for official acts. Duh.
If the ruling merely stated what the Constitution stated, there would be no reason to intervene.
You should read the ruling, they state there is "presumptive immunity" for the President.
I read the ruling. That was my point. Jarod is the one pretending it makes a "king" out of Presidents. That's absurd. It is literally what both Jarod and I said would happen, now Jarod is suddenly. "OMG! He's a KING!"
Ruling clearly makes case for the President to be a king, that is, above the law.
Nonsense. Ruling states he's the President, and things that are within the power of the Executive are protected while things that are outside of the Executive Powers listed in the constitution are not. Seriously. The exact prediction both Jarod and I made earlier, it only "magically" became a problem for Jarod when he got talking points, and not one iota before.
"Presumptive immunity" is a get out of jail free card.
It isn't. It is specific to the powers of the executive. No matter how much you repeat it, it does not make it a fact. The reality is it is limited, and only to official acts within the power of the executive, other acts are not covered and then they sent it back to the lower courts to figure out the difference. Exactly, and I mean, exactly... as both Jarod and I predicted.
I argue. I don't repeat.
Supreme Court deliberately made vague the distinction between official and private acts.
What do you think?
The Supreme Court said motivation or statements by a President cannot be considered.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Where does it say they are not immune?
We have over 200 years of history that says they are immune for official acts.
Once confronted, You are afraid to answer the question.
I just did. You're too fucking dumb to understand.Once confronted, You are afraid to answer the question.
Where in the Constitution does it say I cant own a AR 15?
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Thanks for making my point!
IT DOESN'T! The forefathers who wrote the Constitution had no idea of the dangers ahead, and THAT IS WHY THEY allowed for the CONSTITUTION TO BE AMENDED BY THE FUTURE CONGRESSIONAL BODIES.
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?