2 ms·

Commander in Chief, yes. Declaring martial law, that's within precedent. But... Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of t

Commander in Chief, yes. Declaring martial law, that's within precedent. But... Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief! And the fact that people are acting like it could be is evidence of how silly the discussion about the framework has gotten.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief We’ve extrajudicially liquidated Americans overseas before. Why isn’t this a power of the Commander in Chief? What if they aren’t SCOTUS, but federal judges suspected of a terrorist plot? State judge? Where do we draw the line? (We’ve executed Americans extrajudicially and under Article I powers.) > that people are acting like it could be Nobody is. I’m not arguing that absurdity is a likelihood that can be defended against with laws. My point is there is no good source for what constitutes an official act. EDIT: You are arguing in good faith and shouldn’t be getting downvoted.
ceejayoz 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Was this an official act? The President of the United States ordered the military to kill an American citizen who had not been convicted of a crime, with the "due process" being a DOJ memo. What would make a hit on SCOTUS any different? Both involve the President ordering the armed forces in his official capacity as Commander in Chief to kill an American citizen without trial. The only difference would be motive, and the Trump v. United States opinion explicitly states courts cannot consider it!
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  What would make a SCOTUS hit any different? Whether it's within the US or not (and whether it's somewhere that will extradite them or not). The ability to arrest them rather than hit them. Show me one instance of the president ordering a hit on a citizen within the US borders. For that matter, show me one instance of the president ordering it within a country that would extradite to the US.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > Whether it's within the US or not... OK, so he can drone strike SCOTUS if they go on vacation overseas? > The ability to arrest them rather than hit them. Well, it's pretty clear he can't arrest them. That wouldn't be an official act like issuing an order to the military would be. > Show me one instance of the president ordering a hit on a citizen within the US borders. The ruling granting absolute immunity without consideration to motives is brand new and the first and only person so far to be subject to it is a decent human being. The system needs to protect us against more than just the well-intended.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      He can't arrest them himself, no. He can't order their arrest. The point is that the normal judicial process can work on them. So can impeachment. Neither was available for Awlaki. So, back to the main point: The ruling did not grant absolute immunity for acts outside the scope of his office. (Really! Read it! Take what it says about itself, not Sotomayor's hyperventilating dissent[1]. The ruling says the scope of what it does and does not cover.) And, second point: Ordering the execution of 6 sitting Supreme Court justices is not within the scope of the president's office. For all you keep raising Awlaki, it's not at all the same - not unless 1) a bunch of SC judges became Al-Qaeda organizers, and 2) the Justice Department, the FBI, the Marshalls Service, and the local police were completely unable to arrest them. [1] "Hyperventilating" because it had lots of rhetoric but very little actual legal analysis.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The ruling did not grant absolute immunity for acts outside the scope of his office. Commanding the armed forces is very much in his scope. Remember, the same decision said motives couldn't be considered in determining official vs. non-official act; the difference between "Trump is a national security threat the judicial system clearly can't handle" and "al-Awlaki is a national security threat the judicial system clearly can't handle" is the President's motive behind the strike. > it's not at all the same - not unless 1) a bunch of SC judges became Al-Qaeda organizers... Can you clarify where in the Constitution it says it's OK to assassinate some Americans without a trial but not others? > The point is that the normal judicial process can work on them. I mean, maybe? Not long after news broke of Thomas accepting $4M+ in gifts, Snyder vs. United States said gratuities after an act don't count as bribes.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief We’ve extrajudicially liquidated Americans overseas before. Why isn’t this a power of the Commander in Chief? What if they aren’t SCOTUS, but federal judges suspected of a terrorist plot? State judge? Where do we draw the line? (We’ve executed Americans extrajudicially and under Article I powers.) > that people are acting like it could be Nobody is. I’m not arguing that absurdity is a likelihood that can be defended against with laws. My point is there is no good source for what constitutes an official act. EDIT: You are arguing in good faith and shouldn’t be getting downvoted.

ceejayoz 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Was this an official act? The President of the United States ordered the military to kill an American citizen who had not been convicted of a crime, with the "due process" being a DOJ memo. What would make a hit on SCOTUS any different? Both involve the President ordering the armed forces in his official capacity as Commander in Chief to kill an American citizen without trial. The only difference would be motive, and the Trump v. United States opinion explicitly states courts cannot consider it!

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
What would make a SCOTUS hit any different? Whether it's within the US or not (and whether it's somewhere that will extradite them or not). The ability to arrest them rather than hit them. Show me one instance of the president ordering a hit on a citizen within the US borders. For that matter, show me one instance of the president ordering it within a country that would extradite to the US.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Whether it's within the US or not... OK, so he can drone strike SCOTUS if they go on vacation overseas? > The ability to arrest them rather than hit them. Well, it's pretty clear he can't arrest them. That wouldn't be an official act like issuing an order to the military would be. > Show me one instance of the president ordering a hit on a citizen within the US borders. The ruling granting absolute immunity without consideration to motives is brand new and the first and only person so far to be subject to it is a decent human being. The system needs to protect us against more than just the well-intended.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    He can't arrest them himself, no. He can't order their arrest. The point is that the normal judicial process can work on them. So can impeachment. Neither was available for Awlaki. So, back to the main point: The ruling did not grant absolute immunity for acts outside the scope of his office. (Really! Read it! Take what it says about itself, not Sotomayor's hyperventilating dissent[1]. The ruling says the scope of what it does and does not cover.) And, second point: Ordering the execution of 6 sitting Supreme Court justices is not within the scope of the president's office. For all you keep raising Awlaki, it's not at all the same - not unless 1) a bunch of SC judges became Al-Qaeda organizers, and 2) the Justice Department, the FBI, the Marshalls Service, and the local police were completely unable to arrest them. [1] "Hyperventilating" because it had lots of rhetoric but very little actual legal analysis.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > The ruling did not grant absolute immunity for acts outside the scope of his office. Commanding the armed forces is very much in his scope. Remember, the same decision said motives couldn't be considered in determining official vs. non-official act; the difference between "Trump is a national security threat the judicial system clearly can't handle" and "al-Awlaki is a national security threat the judicial system clearly can't handle" is the President's motive behind the strike. > it's not at all the same - not unless 1) a bunch of SC judges became Al-Qaeda organizers... Can you clarify where in the Constitution it says it's OK to assassinate some Americans without a trial but not others? > The point is that the normal judicial process can work on them. I mean, maybe? Not long after news broke of Thomas accepting $4M+ in gifts, Snyder vs. United States said gratuities after an act don't count as bribes.