3 ms·

> 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 i

> 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.

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.