4 ms·

When do specific actions taken by the current US administration cross the legal line into treason or other legal lines where defense against domestic enemies is

When do specific actions taken by the current US administration cross the legal line into treason or other legal lines where defense against domestic enemies is warranted?

Kapura 1y ago
well you see, the congress and supreme court have decided that no, actually, this is what they want to happen.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    Bait post. Make a point. edit for clarity: My point is that faux-witty slights at communities to suggest nothing is wrong with a government is intellectually shallow and appeals to authority without making any point itself.
    - bloomingeek 1y ago
      Good point and needs to be said.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      These are questions of governance, not debate club. Appeals to authority are the only valid arguments.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        You misunderstand what an argument from authority is if this is your justification for it. It's not "authority" meaning they can tell you what to do but instead meaning they are an expert on the subject matter. It is valid when a consensus of experts all say the same thing but if there is not an expert consensus then it starts to become more questionable. In this context, if many independent legal experts and scholars are looking at the decisions being made by the three branches of government and saying there could be bad ramifications, the argument from authority falls flat; there is another authority saying the first authority is wrong.
  - bloomingeek 1y ago
    I would argue the three branches should rarely be aligned with each other. They should follow the Constitution AND keep checks and balances on each other. Neither of the branches should have absolute power over the others. This opinion, although not an expert one, is because of what is currently happening in the US and the lack of wisdom being employed.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        If the bill is outside what the Constitution allows, then yes, that is exactly what is supposed to happen. And it has happened, several times. If you want the bill, first amend the Constitution.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        Agreed but this is not at all what was being discussed.
      - unethical_ban 1y ago
        The point of checks and balances is not obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It is that no branch should be subservient or overly deferential to the other branches. For example, Congress should not do everything the president wants just because he's the president as is happening now. Congresspeople have said out loud that the job of Congress is to ask "how high" when the president says "jump". Congress last year backtracked on immigration reform because the Republican candidate demanded it. Congress just took vacation early because the president needs a break from the stress of being on a sex traffickers contact list. Congress has allowed the executive to destroy congressionally mandated departments without challenge. Each body of government should be protective of their own power and responsibility and fight against other branches illegally usurping it. I recommend reading Federalist 51, and perhaps 53 and 76. Also John Adams "Thoughts on Government".
freejazz 1y ago
Well if Jan 6th wasn't it...
Bud 1y ago
[dead]
CalRobert 1y ago
When an enforcement body presents itself.
- jasonm23 1y ago
  (translation: They don't)
frogperson 1y ago
We are waaayyy passed that line. We are, for just about every definition, living in an authoritarian state. Trump has immunity, from the Supreme Court, support in the house and senate, support of the media, and enough support from the military. Freaadom isnt free. I think americans forget that. They are waiting for someone else to come save them, which will NEVER happen.
- AlexandrB 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - chabes 1y ago
    Trump is a headline generator. The media undoubtedly supports him. Epstein headlines are big engagement vectors, yet haven’t seemed to bring about any sort of accountability. They can report on things that make him look bad, and he remains in power, with his supporters still supporting him despite the evidence presented.
    - AlexandrB 1y ago
      > Trump is a headline generator. The media undoubtedly supports him. Isn't this like saying "doctors are pro heart disease because it keeps them employed"? > Epstein headlines are big engagement vectors, yet haven’t seemed to bring about any sort of accountability. True, but accountability for who exactly? There are a few people who are known to have been on the island - Prince Andrew, Bill Gates. No real accountability for them so far. Then there's a lot of suspicion around political figures like Trump and Bill Clinton, but no hard evidence. The fact that the Biden administration took no action here either suggests that either there's not enough evidence to actually do anything or prominent figures from both parties are implicated. I'd love to know the truth but I suspect that Epstein is going to be our generations JFK assassination and people are going to be spinning conspiracy theories about the situation for decades while the truth remains murky.
      - philistine 1y ago
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
probably nothing that relates to information on a consumer website. even bringing up treason in this context is so wildly alarmist that it detracts from your credibility.
netsharc 1y ago
Didn't the Supreme Court declare anything the administration does, legal..? Or was that just for the president?
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  It declared the president to be immune from prosecution for actions falling within the scope of his office. It did not declare that the president cannot be impeached. It did not declare that the president cannot be criminally charged for what he does that exceeds the scope of his office (though it's a high bar to prove it). And most of all, it did not declare that whatever he does is automatically constitutional.
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    It declared that he is literally above the law for anything that the most devoted loyalist court can consider part of the job. He could order the assassination of rival politicians for national security purposes and we would get a 6-3 ruling that nothing can stop him except the GOP congress.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Didn't the Supreme Court declare anything the administration does, legal..? No. > Or was that just for the president? Also no. It established a three-branch approach to whether the President is immune to criminal prosecution for acts that, ignoring any immunity he might have due to being President at the time of the act, would be within the domain of potential criminal prosecution, in which (loosely): (1) Acts relating to a narrow set of core Constitutional powers of the Presidency are given absolute immunity, (2) Other official acts have a case-by-case analysis for immunity weighing whether allowing prosecution for the kind of act involved would impair the functioning of the office, (3) Acts that, despite being committed while President, have no official character have no immunity stemming from the fact that they were committed while President.
  - jhp123 1y ago
    this is a largely meaningless distinction, immunity covers all the most concerning Presidential misbehavior (i.e. abuse of the powers of the office) while leaving him vulnerable to prosecution for petty personal crimes like getting in a fist fight or something.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
krapp 1y ago
I don't know. I feel like this isn't it. If having armed masked bands of military police kidnapping citizens to concentration camps or dismantling the government to purge it for ideological reasons or trying to retcon Epstein isn't it, then editing a website definitely isn't it.
unethical_ban 1y ago
The line has been crossed, and we're waiting for a credible signal of collective action.
chrisco255 1y ago
This is a Congressional website, this is not a Presidential website.
- sigmar 1y ago
  The library of congress maintains congress.gov[1], the head of the library of congress was fired by trump and replaced by a loyalist[2] [1] https://www.congress.gov/about https://www.congress.gov/about [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Blanche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Blanche
JohnHaugeland 1y ago
november 5 2024
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  ah yes, Trump was committing an act of treason by winning the popular and EC votes
marcusverus 1y ago
When they cross the constitutional definition of treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

When do specific actions taken by the current US administration cross the legal line into treason or other legal lines where defense against domestic enemies is warranted?

Kapura 1y ago

well you see, the congress and supreme court have decided that no, actually, this is what they want to happen.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
[flagged]
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  Bait post. Make a point. edit for clarity: My point is that faux-witty slights at communities to suggest nothing is wrong with a government is intellectually shallow and appeals to authority without making any point itself.
  - bloomingeek 1y ago
    Good point and needs to be said.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    These are questions of governance, not debate club. Appeals to authority are the only valid arguments.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      You misunderstand what an argument from authority is if this is your justification for it. It's not "authority" meaning they can tell you what to do but instead meaning they are an expert on the subject matter. It is valid when a consensus of experts all say the same thing but if there is not an expert consensus then it starts to become more questionable. In this context, if many independent legal experts and scholars are looking at the decisions being made by the three branches of government and saying there could be bad ramifications, the argument from authority falls flat; there is another authority saying the first authority is wrong.
- bloomingeek 1y ago
  I would argue the three branches should rarely be aligned with each other. They should follow the Constitution AND keep checks and balances on each other. Neither of the branches should have absolute power over the others. This opinion, although not an expert one, is because of what is currently happening in the US and the lack of wisdom being employed.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      If the bill is outside what the Constitution allows, then yes, that is exactly what is supposed to happen. And it has happened, several times. If you want the bill, first amend the Constitution.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        Agreed but this is not at all what was being discussed.
    - unethical_ban 1y ago
      The point of checks and balances is not obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It is that no branch should be subservient or overly deferential to the other branches. For example, Congress should not do everything the president wants just because he's the president as is happening now. Congresspeople have said out loud that the job of Congress is to ask "how high" when the president says "jump". Congress last year backtracked on immigration reform because the Republican candidate demanded it. Congress just took vacation early because the president needs a break from the stress of being on a sex traffickers contact list. Congress has allowed the executive to destroy congressionally mandated departments without challenge. Each body of government should be protective of their own power and responsibility and fight against other branches illegally usurping it. I recommend reading Federalist 51, and perhaps 53 and 76. Also John Adams "Thoughts on Government".

freejazz 1y ago

Well if Jan 6th wasn't it...

Bud 1y ago

[dead]

CalRobert 1y ago

When an enforcement body presents itself.

jasonm23 1y ago
(translation: They don't)

frogperson 1y ago

We are waaayyy passed that line. We are, for just about every definition, living in an authoritarian state. Trump has immunity, from the Supreme Court, support in the house and senate, support of the media, and enough support from the military. Freaadom isnt free. I think americans forget that. They are waiting for someone else to come save them, which will NEVER happen.

AlexandrB 1y ago
[flagged]
- chabes 1y ago
  Trump is a headline generator. The media undoubtedly supports him. Epstein headlines are big engagement vectors, yet haven’t seemed to bring about any sort of accountability. They can report on things that make him look bad, and he remains in power, with his supporters still supporting him despite the evidence presented.
  - AlexandrB 1y ago
    > Trump is a headline generator. The media undoubtedly supports him. Isn't this like saying "doctors are pro heart disease because it keeps them employed"? > Epstein headlines are big engagement vectors, yet haven’t seemed to bring about any sort of accountability. True, but accountability for who exactly? There are a few people who are known to have been on the island - Prince Andrew, Bill Gates. No real accountability for them so far. Then there's a lot of suspicion around political figures like Trump and Bill Clinton, but no hard evidence. The fact that the Biden administration took no action here either suggests that either there's not enough evidence to actually do anything or prominent figures from both parties are implicated. I'd love to know the truth but I suspect that Epstein is going to be our generations JFK assassination and people are going to be spinning conspiracy theories about the situation for decades while the truth remains murky.
    - philistine 1y ago

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

probably nothing that relates to information on a consumer website. even bringing up treason in this context is so wildly alarmist that it detracts from your credibility.

netsharc 1y ago

Didn't the Supreme Court declare anything the administration does, legal..? Or was that just for the president?

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
It declared the president to be immune from prosecution for actions falling within the scope of his office. It did not declare that the president cannot be impeached. It did not declare that the president cannot be criminally charged for what he does that exceeds the scope of his office (though it's a high bar to prove it). And most of all, it did not declare that whatever he does is automatically constitutional.
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  It declared that he is literally above the law for anything that the most devoted loyalist court can consider part of the job. He could order the assassination of rival politicians for national security purposes and we would get a 6-3 ruling that nothing can stop him except the GOP congress.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Didn't the Supreme Court declare anything the administration does, legal..? No. > Or was that just for the president? Also no. It established a three-branch approach to whether the President is immune to criminal prosecution for acts that, ignoring any immunity he might have due to being President at the time of the act, would be within the domain of potential criminal prosecution, in which (loosely): (1) Acts relating to a narrow set of core Constitutional powers of the Presidency are given absolute immunity, (2) Other official acts have a case-by-case analysis for immunity weighing whether allowing prosecution for the kind of act involved would impair the functioning of the office, (3) Acts that, despite being committed while President, have no official character have no immunity stemming from the fact that they were committed while President.
- jhp123 1y ago
  this is a largely meaningless distinction, immunity covers all the most concerning Presidential misbehavior (i.e. abuse of the powers of the office) while leaving him vulnerable to prosecution for petty personal crimes like getting in a fist fight or something.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

krapp 1y ago

I don't know. I feel like this isn't it. If having armed masked bands of military police kidnapping citizens to concentration camps or dismantling the government to purge it for ideological reasons or trying to retcon Epstein isn't it, then editing a website definitely isn't it.

unethical_ban 1y ago

The line has been crossed, and we're waiting for a credible signal of collective action.

chrisco255 1y ago

This is a Congressional website, this is not a Presidential website.

sigmar 1y ago
The library of congress maintains congress.gov[1], the head of the library of congress was fired by trump and replaced by a loyalist[2] [1] https://www.congress.gov/about https://www.congress.gov/about [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Blanche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Blanche

JohnHaugeland 1y ago

november 5 2024

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
ah yes, Trump was committing an act of treason by winning the popular and EC votes

marcusverus 1y ago

When they cross the constitutional definition of treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."