Not Immune
- Thread starter jaF0
- Start date
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 60,750
TandT69
TandT69
- Joined
- May 1, 2020
- Posts
- 2,343
HisArpy
Loose canon extraordinair
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
- Posts
- 43,027
Have you read the opinion? I have. It's trash.
It begins with the unstated premise that Trump is guilty of a crime and therefore isn't above the law. It then proceeds to assert that presidential immunity would somehow violate the separation of powers by insulating the administrative branch from the judicial and legislative branches. As if that isn't what the separation of powers is all about.
It's utter trash. As expected.
It begins with the unstated premise that Trump is guilty of a crime and therefore isn't above the law. It then proceeds to assert that presidential immunity would somehow violate the separation of powers by insulating the administrative branch from the judicial and legislative branches. As if that isn't what the separation of powers is all about.
It's utter trash. As expected.
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 60,750
Watch close what happens!! Lmao lmao lmao. good luck to you and yours!
^^^
Deplorable meltdown.
Pad_Foot
Wife knows I’m here
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2021
- Posts
- 15,695
Two tier system of justice!??
Yup!!!
Just keep appealing and appealing and appealing!!!
Above the law?
Nation of laws??
14th Amendment was not a law!
Never been used??
Well.. it was, but, who expected Trump to try a coup ??! First President ever to not transfer power PEACEFULLY!!
Then there are those emoluments he or, sorry, his company took
Constitution, People!
Then Arizona and others want to ignore the vote of the People!!’
What America do they think are returning to??
Yup!!!
Just keep appealing and appealing and appealing!!!
Above the law?
Nation of laws??
14th Amendment was not a law!
Never been used??
Well.. it was, but, who expected Trump to try a coup ??! First President ever to not transfer power PEACEFULLY!!
Then there are those emoluments he or, sorry, his company took
Constitution, People!
Then Arizona and others want to ignore the vote of the People!!’
What America do they think are returning to??
jaF0
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Posts
- 39,168
Excerpts from the official document: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/dc-circuit-trump-immunity-question.pdf
"We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count."
"(hereinafter, “OLC Double Jeopardy Memo”) (noting that impeachment in Britain could have resulted “in a wide array of criminal penalties, including fines, imprisonment, and even execution”). The Framers chose to withhold such broad power from the Senate, specifying instead that the Senate could impose “only political, not ordinary criminal, punishments.”
"Because we conclude that former President Trump is not entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for assertedly “official” acts, it is unnecessary to explore whether executive immunity, if it applied here, would encompass his expansive definition of “official acts.” Nevertheless, we observe that his position appears to conflict with our recent decision in Blassingame, 87 F.4th at 1. According to the former President, any actions he took in his role as President should be considered “official,” including all the conduct alleged in the Indictment. Appellant’s Br. 41–42. But in Blassingame, taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, we held that a President’s “actions constituting re-election campaign activity” are not “official” and can form the basis for civil liability. 87 F.4th at 17. In other words, if a President who is running for re-election acts “as office-seeker, not office-holder,” he is not immune even from civil suits. Id. at 4 (emphasis in original). Because the President has no official role in the certification of the Electoral College vote, much of the misconduct alleged in the Indictment reasonably can be viewed as that of an office-seeker — including allegedly organizing alternative slates of electors and attempting to pressure the Vice President and Members of the Congress to accept those electors in the certification proceeding. It is thus doubtful that “all five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts.” Appellant’s Br. 42."
"To the extent former President Trump relies on “double jeopardy principles” beyond the text of the Impeachment Judgment Clause, those principles cut against him. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides: “No person shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. CONST. amend. V. It has been interpreted to prohibit “imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense.” Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997) (citation omitted). Under precedent interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause, former President Trump’s impeachment acquittal does not bar his subsequent criminal prosecution for two reasons: (1) An impeachment does not result in criminal punishments; and (2) the Indictment does not charge the same offense as the single count in the Impeachment Resolution."
"Impeachment is a political process that is instigated and overseen by the Congress. See 2 Story, Commentaries § 784 (“There is wisdom, and sound policy, and intrinsic justice in this separation of the offence, at least so far, as the jurisdiction and trial are concerned, into its proper elements, bringing the political part under the power of the political department of the government . . . .”"
"We also have considered his contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly “official” action that he took as President — a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution. Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by “double jeopardy principles.” Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.16
So ordered."
"We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count."
"(hereinafter, “OLC Double Jeopardy Memo”) (noting that impeachment in Britain could have resulted “in a wide array of criminal penalties, including fines, imprisonment, and even execution”). The Framers chose to withhold such broad power from the Senate, specifying instead that the Senate could impose “only political, not ordinary criminal, punishments.”
"Because we conclude that former President Trump is not entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for assertedly “official” acts, it is unnecessary to explore whether executive immunity, if it applied here, would encompass his expansive definition of “official acts.” Nevertheless, we observe that his position appears to conflict with our recent decision in Blassingame, 87 F.4th at 1. According to the former President, any actions he took in his role as President should be considered “official,” including all the conduct alleged in the Indictment. Appellant’s Br. 41–42. But in Blassingame, taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, we held that a President’s “actions constituting re-election campaign activity” are not “official” and can form the basis for civil liability. 87 F.4th at 17. In other words, if a President who is running for re-election acts “as office-seeker, not office-holder,” he is not immune even from civil suits. Id. at 4 (emphasis in original). Because the President has no official role in the certification of the Electoral College vote, much of the misconduct alleged in the Indictment reasonably can be viewed as that of an office-seeker — including allegedly organizing alternative slates of electors and attempting to pressure the Vice President and Members of the Congress to accept those electors in the certification proceeding. It is thus doubtful that “all five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts.” Appellant’s Br. 42."
"To the extent former President Trump relies on “double jeopardy principles” beyond the text of the Impeachment Judgment Clause, those principles cut against him. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides: “No person shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. CONST. amend. V. It has been interpreted to prohibit “imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense.” Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997) (citation omitted). Under precedent interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause, former President Trump’s impeachment acquittal does not bar his subsequent criminal prosecution for two reasons: (1) An impeachment does not result in criminal punishments; and (2) the Indictment does not charge the same offense as the single count in the Impeachment Resolution."
"Impeachment is a political process that is instigated and overseen by the Congress. See 2 Story, Commentaries § 784 (“There is wisdom, and sound policy, and intrinsic justice in this separation of the offence, at least so far, as the jurisdiction and trial are concerned, into its proper elements, bringing the political part under the power of the political department of the government . . . .”"
"We also have considered his contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly “official” action that he took as President — a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution. Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by “double jeopardy principles.” Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.16
So ordered."
bijedi
Deviant
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Posts
- 363
I disagree
Wrong. It starts with the FACT that Trump has been accused of committing a crime (i.e. he's been indicted). It makes no assumptions of his guilt or innocence, merely that he is being tried for that crime. That is pretty much the entire reason for the appeal, and the court is determining if he is able to be prosecuted for the charge being leveled against him. This is a pretty fundamental error for an officer of the court such as yourself to make.
The separation of powers isn't about insulating the different branches of government from each other. The separation of powers is to prevent a single branch of the government from exercising total control of the federal government and is the foundation of the system of checks and balances. Basically the exact opposite of your claim here. You must have had a terrible ConLaw professor.
If you are referencing your post here, I agree. Total trash, and I would expect no less from you.
jaF0
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Posts
- 39,168
That situation is addressed in the ruling linked above.
HisArpy
Loose canon extraordinair
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
- Posts
- 43,027
It's really very sad that you don't know shit about how our government was created.
The separation of powers doctrine was established to ENSURE that no branch of the government could be controlled by the other branch(es).
The rest of your nonsense is the same kind of failure mode.
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 62,638
Good luck on your expectations. You haven't been right once.Pay attention to the Supreme Court ruling Thursday!
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 62,638
We all knew it was coming to this.
jaF0
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Posts
- 39,168
Similar threads
