4 ms·
> Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces. Incorrect. The com
by terminalshort 9mo ago
> Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.
Incorrect. The commander in chief, same as all military officers, has the authority to issue lawful orders to the chain of command below him. He does not have the authority to issue unlawful orders, and if he does, his subordinates have the legal obligation to disobey them. The president does not have constitutional power to order arbitrary violence.
> If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her
No he can't because this is against the law, and it is therefore not a presidential power. The president has no constitutional authority to order agencies to violate the law.
> He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.
This is, unfortunately, true. But it has been true as long as the US has existed.
> If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.
This is true, but the act of taking the bribe is not an exercise of presidential power so he can be charged with accepting a bribe. This is not new to the recent SC decision.
- actionfromafar 9mo agoOk he can tell his chain of command some lies then. Same difference.
- terminalshort 9mo agoHow on earth is that going to make the orders lawful?
- actionfromafar 9mo agoOn the receiving end, giving cover and benefit of a doubt. The chain of command may or may not signal (similarly to the Supreme Court) what kind of fig leaf lies are required. From there it’s a game of telephone until a barrel of a gun.
- cosmicgadget 9mo agoSedition isn't lawful and it's what the immunity decision addressed. And that wasn't anywhere near the amount of deference the president gets when it comes to emergency and war powers.
- wtfwhateven 9mo agoDo you think immunity is for lawful things? Why on earth are you arguing that unlawful acts are not covered by immunity? What exactly do you think immunity makes someone immune from?
- wtfwhateven 9mo agoHave you actually read the SC opinion or are you just assuming what it says? It is apparently the latter. >No he can't because this is against the law What exactly do you think immunity makes someone immune from?
- avidiax 9mo ago> has the authority to issue lawful orders This decision says that he can issue unlawful orders, and there's nothing the court can do about it. He's immune. You don't need immunity for lawful acts. The very best you could argue is that this prevents prosecution for "gray area" acts that may or may not be lawful. But this decision essentially says that all of those "gray areas" are effectively lawful. Decide that the protesters in Minnesota are an insurrection? Maybe they start turning up with long guns, like countless previous protestors? Order the troops to fire. It's up to them if they do or don't, but it's guaranteed if they don't, they'll be in courts martial for disobeying the order. The meeting minutes, the reports, what was known and when it was known, Trump's motive: all of them don't matter at all. The official records are inadmissible, his motive is unquestionable, and he is absolutely immune for his orders as commander-in-chief. He can pardon everyone and make them federally immune as well. Only state courts can do anything, far after the fact.