6 ms·

Essentially the White House can do anything it wants by asking the White House Counsel to make up a legal opinion supporting whatever the President or VP want t

Essentially the White House can do anything it wants by asking the White House Counsel to make up a legal opinion supporting whatever the President or VP want to do. Then the onus is on people outside that circle to learn, investigate and prosecute, which could take years, or never. Sounds bizarre, but it's a real thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Counsel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Counsel

nojito 6y ago
That wiki article doesn't support the conclusion you are making. The White House Counsel is nothing more than an advisory role.
dylan604 6y ago
Legal opinions are not law. And as the old saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they all stink
- soraminazuki 6y ago
  You're correct in the sense that it's how things are supposed to work. However in practice, things are different. Secret interpretations of the law, which should have no more weight than mere opinions, were used to justify surveillance programs that seems outright illegal at first glance, and people got away with it.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Or create a program to extrajudicially assassinate American citizens, including specifically targeting minors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
    - kyuudou 6y ago
      Just to be clear, there was no due process of law or habeas corpus with that particular murder. The blowback from such atrocities is probably going to kill this country as we know it. It'll take a few years to unravel, as many powerbroker boomers die off, but it does not look good. I do not want to be right about this.
billme 6y ago
Neither the contents of your comment, nor that of the document on Wikipedia appear to substantiate the claims you have made. Please cite any relevant documents, laws, etc - that support your claims as directly as possible; for example, document link, page number, subheading, paragraph, etc. As is, your comment to me is worth less than having said nothing at all — as it requires time to read your comment, link, and the responses critical of it.
- voxic11 6y ago
  The issue is that the white house council can declare anything they want to be legal, and unless the supreme court has ruled on that issue specifically everyone involved has immunity from prosecution until the supreme court does rule on it. See how the council's torture memos played out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
  - billme 6y ago
    Supreme Court has ruled on the executive branches limited legal authority, even during war time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co... That being, “The President did not have the inherent authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress.” My rewording, “The President [does] not have the inherent authority to [do anything] in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on [them] by Congress.”
    - voxic11 6y ago
      I don't disagree that legally the authority of the president is limited. But in practice the president can order and see executed the torture of innocent people for years without any possibilty of justice for those victimized. This is because legally the president and anyone acting under his command are immune from prosecution if they acted according to legal guidance from the white house council and the supreme court hasn't specifically ruled that exact behavior illegal. I guess my question for you if there is a difference between something being legal and something being illegal but those doing it are immune from prosecution.

nojito 6y ago

That wiki article doesn't support the conclusion you are making. The White House Counsel is nothing more than an advisory role.

dylan604 6y ago

Legal opinions are not law. And as the old saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they all stink

soraminazuki 6y ago
You're correct in the sense that it's how things are supposed to work. However in practice, things are different. Secret interpretations of the law, which should have no more weight than mere opinions, were used to justify surveillance programs that seems outright illegal at first glance, and people got away with it.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Or create a program to extrajudicially assassinate American citizens, including specifically targeting minors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
  - kyuudou 6y ago
    Just to be clear, there was no due process of law or habeas corpus with that particular murder. The blowback from such atrocities is probably going to kill this country as we know it. It'll take a few years to unravel, as many powerbroker boomers die off, but it does not look good. I do not want to be right about this.

billme 6y ago

Neither the contents of your comment, nor that of the document on Wikipedia appear to substantiate the claims you have made. Please cite any relevant documents, laws, etc - that support your claims as directly as possible; for example, document link, page number, subheading, paragraph, etc. As is, your comment to me is worth less than having said nothing at all — as it requires time to read your comment, link, and the responses critical of it.

voxic11 6y ago
The issue is that the white house council can declare anything they want to be legal, and unless the supreme court has ruled on that issue specifically everyone involved has immunity from prosecution until the supreme court does rule on it. See how the council's torture memos played out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
- billme 6y ago
  Supreme Court has ruled on the executive branches limited legal authority, even during war time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co... That being, “The President did not have the inherent authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress.” My rewording, “The President [does] not have the inherent authority to [do anything] in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on [them] by Congress.”
  - voxic11 6y ago
    I don't disagree that legally the authority of the president is limited. But in practice the president can order and see executed the torture of innocent people for years without any possibilty of justice for those victimized. This is because legally the president and anyone acting under his command are immune from prosecution if they acted according to legal guidance from the white house council and the supreme court hasn't specifically ruled that exact behavior illegal. I guess my question for you if there is a difference between something being legal and something being illegal but those doing it are immune from prosecution.