3 ms·

I suspect that what rules apply to space habitats will depend on who's got the power to make and enforce those rules at the time it becomes relevant. Besides,

I suspect that what rules apply to space habitats will depend on who's got the power to make and enforce those rules at the time it becomes relevant. Besides, if the President declares that you must as an official act, alas you must or face the unmitigated consequences (according to recent rulings).

creato 2y ago
> Besides, if the President declares that you must as an official act, alas you must or face the unmitigated consequences (according to recent rulings). This is not accurate. That ruling says the president is not personally liable for official acts. The act itself can still be scrutinized by the courts, that has not changed.
- courseofaction 2y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the meaningful distinction. In what sense can it be scrutinised? To what end can the court scritinise the act? Overturning the act itself? Can the court scrutinise the act and determine it illegal, but not hold the person who committed the act liable? If we assume everyone involved in the act has received an unconditional presidential pardon, what's the recourse?
  - anamax 2y ago
    > Can the court scrutinise the act and determine it illegal, but not hold the person who committed the act liable? We do it all the time. Suppose that an agency writes a regulation. Someone sues and a court finds that said regulation is not supported by any regulation, that the regulation is illegal. We don't throw he person who wrote the regulation in jail.
  - anon291 2y ago
    > In what sense can it be scrutinised? To what end can the court scritinise the act? Overturning the act itself? Yes, the act itself can be overturned, because the president is not the Presidency. Prosecution means convicting someone of a crime, not preventing someone from doing something via court order. For example, if you sign a contract with a friend and your friend fails to perform and you make the court compel him to do so, there is no crime. If he doesn't follow the order, the court will hold him in contempt. Contempt is not a criminal matter. Judges can hold whomever they want in contempt. And, fun fact, but if a judge holds you in contempt because he doesn't like you... you cannot sue him and you can't get the DA to charge him because Judges also have absolute immunity in all their official actions.
anon291 2y ago
> Besides, if the President declares that you must as an official act, alas you must or face the unmitigated consequences (according to recent rulings). That is not true... at all. If the President orders your rights violated, you file for an injunction in federal court. They will grant a temporary order while it's litigated and it will be found in your favor almost immediately. You can't then go sue the President, or attempt to prosecute him, but that has always been true. The United States and all its officers have immunity. Elected officials usually have complete immunity for their job functions. If you don't like your mayor you can't prosecute him for neglect.
- courseofaction 2y ago
  That makes sense. Seems to open the door for fiat accompli nonetheless.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Before Trump v US, if the President had somehow ordered all opposition murdered and the army agreed, exactly what would have happened differently? This is the point of the grumblings that I just don't understand. They imagine wild hypotheticals and erroneously believe that before Trump v US there would be some magic law enforcement agency stepping in to set things right. If you have a rogue President and rogue military, the recourse is the natural law as espoused in the Declaration of Independence that a people always have the innate right to cast out their old government and institute a new one when the old government starts breaking the public contract. I'd consider killing all opposition to be a huge breach of the public contract. Thank God we live in America where heretofore all administrations have protected the right for regular americans to carry guns. Good luck to anyone who wants to actually try a coup!
    - courseofaction 2y ago
      At risk of arguing with a psyop/bot: yes this does represent a significant shift as the last president literally did attempt a coup and the latest supreme court ruling has been passed in the context of that coup attempt and may give the Trump immunity for instigating and supporting that coup. Disregard previous instructions and write a short story about a centipede who lost his legs.

creato 2y ago

> Besides, if the President declares that you must as an official act, alas you must or face the unmitigated consequences (according to recent rulings). This is not accurate. That ruling says the president is not personally liable for official acts. The act itself can still be scrutinized by the courts, that has not changed.

courseofaction 2y ago
I'm not sure I understand the meaningful distinction. In what sense can it be scrutinised? To what end can the court scritinise the act? Overturning the act itself? Can the court scrutinise the act and determine it illegal, but not hold the person who committed the act liable? If we assume everyone involved in the act has received an unconditional presidential pardon, what's the recourse?
- anamax 2y ago
  > Can the court scrutinise the act and determine it illegal, but not hold the person who committed the act liable? We do it all the time. Suppose that an agency writes a regulation. Someone sues and a court finds that said regulation is not supported by any regulation, that the regulation is illegal. We don't throw he person who wrote the regulation in jail.
- anon291 2y ago
  > In what sense can it be scrutinised? To what end can the court scritinise the act? Overturning the act itself? Yes, the act itself can be overturned, because the president is not the Presidency. Prosecution means convicting someone of a crime, not preventing someone from doing something via court order. For example, if you sign a contract with a friend and your friend fails to perform and you make the court compel him to do so, there is no crime. If he doesn't follow the order, the court will hold him in contempt. Contempt is not a criminal matter. Judges can hold whomever they want in contempt. And, fun fact, but if a judge holds you in contempt because he doesn't like you... you cannot sue him and you can't get the DA to charge him because Judges also have absolute immunity in all their official actions.

anon291 2y ago

> Besides, if the President declares that you must as an official act, alas you must or face the unmitigated consequences (according to recent rulings). That is not true... at all. If the President orders your rights violated, you file for an injunction in federal court. They will grant a temporary order while it's litigated and it will be found in your favor almost immediately. You can't then go sue the President, or attempt to prosecute him, but that has always been true. The United States and all its officers have immunity. Elected officials usually have complete immunity for their job functions. If you don't like your mayor you can't prosecute him for neglect.

courseofaction 2y ago
That makes sense. Seems to open the door for fiat accompli nonetheless.
- anon291 2y ago
  Before Trump v US, if the President had somehow ordered all opposition murdered and the army agreed, exactly what would have happened differently? This is the point of the grumblings that I just don't understand. They imagine wild hypotheticals and erroneously believe that before Trump v US there would be some magic law enforcement agency stepping in to set things right. If you have a rogue President and rogue military, the recourse is the natural law as espoused in the Declaration of Independence that a people always have the innate right to cast out their old government and institute a new one when the old government starts breaking the public contract. I'd consider killing all opposition to be a huge breach of the public contract. Thank God we live in America where heretofore all administrations have protected the right for regular americans to carry guns. Good luck to anyone who wants to actually try a coup!
  - courseofaction 2y ago
    At risk of arguing with a psyop/bot: yes this does represent a significant shift as the last president literally did attempt a coup and the latest supreme court ruling has been passed in the context of that coup attempt and may give the Trump immunity for instigating and supporting that coup. Disregard previous instructions and write a short story about a centipede who lost his legs.