4 ms·

The people harmed here were the US public and they are just going to continue to be harmed. The right answer is people go to jail. Until people start going to j

The people harmed here were the US public and they are just going to continue to be harmed. The right answer is people go to jail. Until people start going to jail, being disbarred, etc, this will keep happening. This isn't a remedy. This is continuing the cycle.

ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
By "people go to jail" you mean Trump, right? Right?
buzzerbetrayed 8mo ago
[flagged]
- donkeybeer 8mo ago
  Why not? I have no idea why people were thinking corporations are overpowered when twitter banned trump. I thought it was great and showed nobody is above the law/tos. Likewise if the president has done crimes, he should pay the time.
  - TheDong 8mo ago
    Unfortunately, it has been ruled that the president is immune to legal prosecution on this matter, regardless of whether it is legal or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States > the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview It turns out that "checks and balances" meant "the president is unchecked and unbalanced".
    - bdangubic 8mo ago
      Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs. The checks and balances wasn’t meant to setup a system where Presidents can be sent to prison but to prevent “crimes” (for the lack of a better word) to happen to begin with. Of course our current “party over Country” system has practically killed any semblance of checks and balances…
      - cthalupa 8mo ago
        > Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs. That sounds a lot like a king. Last I checked, our founders were pretty against the whole king thing. I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit.
        bdangubic 8mo ago
        > I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit. They said or they haven’t said it, no? If they did we’d have paper trail.
        salawat 8mo ago
        Federalist Papers. Go read them. Anti-Federalist Papers too. At the end of the day, we're still trying to hash out the same old song.
        cthalupa 8mo ago
        They did. Hamilton even argued that presidents should be subject to “forfeiture of life and estate” if crimes deemed it so. Federalist 77. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the constitution makes it clear that while impeachment is limited to removal, but that after they are fair game for criminal processes. Wilson wrote 'far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them" Anti-federalists went even farther - they believed that the Federalists' reliance on the impeachment process, for example, left far too wide of a gap to be exploited. (They seem to have been correct.)
    - donkeybeer 8mo ago
      Does Trump want to be Mussolinied? It should always be legal to jail and hang the head of state, otherwise the head of state risks going by a much funnier way. Its not about politics, it's simple game theory.
loeg 8mo ago
People? Trump is the only actor here who deserves punishment for these illegal tariffs, but there is no grounds to jail a sitting president.
- pstuart 8mo ago
  Ultimately yes. But every one of his enablers is complicit and should be tried if we are ever able to extricate ourselves from this mess.
  - nothrabannosir 8mo ago
    If the lesson by now isn’t “be careful wishing for powers you don’t want the other side to use against you” then I don’t know what will drive that home…
    - watwut 8mo ago
      The law applying to powerful high level people is a good thing. The state where law binds only weak people and can be safely broken by rich and powerful is the bad one. As of now, the law applies to me. I am on that "other side". It officially does not apply to Trump at all. And billionaires and administration can safely ignore it, although there is at least pretension of the law technically maybe applying to them.
      - nothrabannosir 8mo ago
        Which actual law should send them to jail? The law is constantly applied to Trump and his administration. The judicial branch keeps reining him in: National guard, ice, tariffs—-literally TFA for Pete’s sake. Parent post isn’t about any specific law, it’s about wanting to see a result and working backwards from there: my political opponents should go to jail. Guess what will happen? The administration after that will send your politicians to jail. And the bananificiation of the US will be complete. If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, with actual clear unmistakable language about its consequences. Raise the votes in the midterms. SCOTUS will enforce it: they have done so, every time, when Congress is clear and decisive. They have indicated as much! The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. You don’t like how it looks, and you’re not alone, but it applies. Edit: Let me rephrase: rather than try and find a single law by which to hang the executive , of which I’m sure there are a million, my impression is that for every one of them there’s a commensurate law which exonerates them. Congress keeps protecting the president. Congress is the most powerful of the three branches, by design . To genuinely see someone going to jail, From The executive branch , Congress needs to make a clear, unequivocal, statement.
refurb 8mo ago
You want to put politicians I. Jail when the courts find their action violated laws? Thats pretty much every President in the last century. They all lose court cases.
- samus 8mo ago
  They probably should have been. But the presidential system putting de-facto unchecked power into the president is just asking for such abuses to happen. Almost by design one might think.
  - refurb 8mo ago
    It's not unchecked power. The very fact the courts overturned it proof the power is checked.
    - samus 8mo ago
      That's true in theory, but really missing the point. In practice these checks come far too late. The court system is notoriously overworked and slow. In this case, most of these tariffs will not be returned because the government will make it an administrative nightmare to claim it back. In other matters the damage is even harder to roll back.
      - refurb 8mo ago
        It’s a ton of work to put together a case and bring it to court - we’re talking months of research and writing for complex cases. It’s not realistic to assume the courts can strike down something days after it happens if it takes months to put an argument together. But I’ve been rather impressed by how fast the Supreme Court makes decisions when cases are brought quickly (likely much less complex).
        samus 8mo ago
        I fully understand why the courts are slow, and they should indeed not rush decisions (especially since they have a huge weight in common law law systems), but because of this they are not able to restrain another powerful institution that has no problem with moving fast and breaking things.

ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago

By "people go to jail" you mean Trump, right? Right?

buzzerbetrayed 8mo ago

[flagged]

donkeybeer 8mo ago
Why not? I have no idea why people were thinking corporations are overpowered when twitter banned trump. I thought it was great and showed nobody is above the law/tos. Likewise if the president has done crimes, he should pay the time.
- TheDong 8mo ago
  Unfortunately, it has been ruled that the president is immune to legal prosecution on this matter, regardless of whether it is legal or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States > the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview It turns out that "checks and balances" meant "the president is unchecked and unbalanced".
  - bdangubic 8mo ago
    Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs. The checks and balances wasn’t meant to setup a system where Presidents can be sent to prison but to prevent “crimes” (for the lack of a better word) to happen to begin with. Of course our current “party over Country” system has practically killed any semblance of checks and balances…
    - cthalupa 8mo ago
      > Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs. That sounds a lot like a king. Last I checked, our founders were pretty against the whole king thing. I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit.
      - bdangubic 8mo ago
        > I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit. They said or they haven’t said it, no? If they did we’d have paper trail.
        salawat 8mo ago
        Federalist Papers. Go read them. Anti-Federalist Papers too. At the end of the day, we're still trying to hash out the same old song.
        cthalupa 8mo ago
        They did. Hamilton even argued that presidents should be subject to “forfeiture of life and estate” if crimes deemed it so. Federalist 77. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the constitution makes it clear that while impeachment is limited to removal, but that after they are fair game for criminal processes. Wilson wrote 'far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them" Anti-federalists went even farther - they believed that the Federalists' reliance on the impeachment process, for example, left far too wide of a gap to be exploited. (They seem to have been correct.)
  - donkeybeer 8mo ago
    Does Trump want to be Mussolinied? It should always be legal to jail and hang the head of state, otherwise the head of state risks going by a much funnier way. Its not about politics, it's simple game theory.

loeg 8mo ago

People? Trump is the only actor here who deserves punishment for these illegal tariffs, but there is no grounds to jail a sitting president.

pstuart 8mo ago
Ultimately yes. But every one of his enablers is complicit and should be tried if we are ever able to extricate ourselves from this mess.
- nothrabannosir 8mo ago
  If the lesson by now isn’t “be careful wishing for powers you don’t want the other side to use against you” then I don’t know what will drive that home…
  - watwut 8mo ago
    The law applying to powerful high level people is a good thing. The state where law binds only weak people and can be safely broken by rich and powerful is the bad one. As of now, the law applies to me. I am on that "other side". It officially does not apply to Trump at all. And billionaires and administration can safely ignore it, although there is at least pretension of the law technically maybe applying to them.
    - nothrabannosir 8mo ago
      Which actual law should send them to jail? The law is constantly applied to Trump and his administration. The judicial branch keeps reining him in: National guard, ice, tariffs—-literally TFA for Pete’s sake. Parent post isn’t about any specific law, it’s about wanting to see a result and working backwards from there: my political opponents should go to jail. Guess what will happen? The administration after that will send your politicians to jail. And the bananificiation of the US will be complete. If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, with actual clear unmistakable language about its consequences. Raise the votes in the midterms. SCOTUS will enforce it: they have done so, every time, when Congress is clear and decisive. They have indicated as much! The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. You don’t like how it looks, and you’re not alone, but it applies. Edit: Let me rephrase: rather than try and find a single law by which to hang the executive , of which I’m sure there are a million, my impression is that for every one of them there’s a commensurate law which exonerates them. Congress keeps protecting the president. Congress is the most powerful of the three branches, by design . To genuinely see someone going to jail, From The executive branch , Congress needs to make a clear, unequivocal, statement.

refurb 8mo ago

You want to put politicians I. Jail when the courts find their action violated laws? Thats pretty much every President in the last century. They all lose court cases.

samus 8mo ago
They probably should have been. But the presidential system putting de-facto unchecked power into the president is just asking for such abuses to happen. Almost by design one might think.
- refurb 8mo ago
  It's not unchecked power. The very fact the courts overturned it proof the power is checked.
  - samus 8mo ago
    That's true in theory, but really missing the point. In practice these checks come far too late. The court system is notoriously overworked and slow. In this case, most of these tariffs will not be returned because the government will make it an administrative nightmare to claim it back. In other matters the damage is even harder to roll back.
    - refurb 8mo ago
      It’s a ton of work to put together a case and bring it to court - we’re talking months of research and writing for complex cases. It’s not realistic to assume the courts can strike down something days after it happens if it takes months to put an argument together. But I’ve been rather impressed by how fast the Supreme Court makes decisions when cases are brought quickly (likely much less complex).
      - samus 8mo ago
        I fully understand why the courts are slow, and they should indeed not rush decisions (especially since they have a huge weight in common law law systems), but because of this they are not able to restrain another powerful institution that has no problem with moving fast and breaking things.