AZBeauty
Stop lyin' nicca.
Knew Pompeo was a POS
RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
Knew Pompeo was a POS
Tony D'Amato
It's all about the inches
Lawrence O'Donnell is savage, Kush gone have to pull up for the sake of his fam.
I agree...but that's the situation.
If Congress won't impeach him (and they probably won't) then we're stuck with him. He can basically commit any criminal act he wants and he's in little danger unless Republicans decide impeaching him would be to their advantage.
AZBeauty
Stop lyin' nicca.
Fake ass Christian patriot.
Constitutionally, from my understanding, the president is immune from a lot of shyt that the average person would face legal challenge over. It's not explicitly stated but implicit by "The executive power shall be vested in the President" statement in the constitution but its not specific as to how far that power can extend.
The thinking, from my understanding, for not putting too many restrictions on the president's power within the scope of the executive branch is because given the amount of power a president holds, he may sometimes be require to act in a way that would be under normal circumstances considered "illegal". For example, assassination is usually done with some sort of "explanation" by the state, but really that discretion is all in the states hands and if the state decided to do it for the most flimsy of reasons they could and one could argue it constitutes murder if the justification is not even made or laughably flimsy. I think the framers of the constitution were thinking more in lines of the president being able to act with wide authority in times of war or public crisis. Like seizing land for use by the state to maybe construct ammunition or something. The fear is that if the president is under constant legal scrutiny, he will never get anything done and constantly challenged legally.
But, its not absolute and there are checks such as some of the judicial rulings again the muslim ban and some of the power residing in the congress as it relates to the purse strings, formal declarations of war, and lawmaking.
But a lot of the repercussions a president can face laid out in the constitution are all through political systems and means, the congress. The congress has to impeach the president. The congress has to remove him from office after that. There is no judicial or legal actions that can be taken to remove the president. You have politicians who have the power to do that and Republicans are purely political in relation to this issue unfortunately
Last edited:
ON THURSDAY MADDOW IS ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE MCCLATCHY REPORT ABOUT HOW THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TARGETED PROPAGANDA ACCORDING TO A IMMEDIATELY RECENT PENTAGON OFFICIAL!!!!
Trump-Russia investigators probe Jared Kushner-run digital operation
Trump-Russia investigators probe Jared Kushner-run digital operation
I listened to one possible outcome:
Jared gets thrown under the bus by Trump and Ivanka. Ivanka was a business marriage.
What y'all think?
Jared gets thrown under the bus by Trump and Ivanka. Ivanka was a business marriage.
What y'all think?
MalikX
Superstar
Constitutionally, from my understanding, the president is immune from a lot of shyt that the average person would face legal challenge over. It's not explicitly stated but implicit by "The executive power shall be vested in the President" statement in the constitution but its not specific as to how far that power can extend.
The thinking, from my understanding, for not putting too many restrictions on the president's power within the scope of the executive branch is because given the amount of power a president holds, he may sometimes be require to act in a way that would be under normal circumstances considered "illegal". For example, assassination is usually done with some sort of "explanation" by the state, but really that discretion is all in the states hands and if the state decided to do it for the most flimsy of reasons they could and one could argue it constitutes murder if the justification is not even made or laughably flimsy. I think the framers of the constitution were thinking more in lines of the president being able to act with wide authority in times of war or public crisis. Like seizing land for use by the state to maybe construct ammunition or something. The fear is that if the president is under constant legal scrutiny, he will never get anything done and constantly challenged legally.
But, its not absolute and there are checks such as some of the judicial rulings again the muslim ban and some of the power residing in the congress as it relates to the purse strings, formal declarations of war, and lawmaking.
But a lot of the repercussions a president can face laid out in the constitution are all through political systems and means, the congress. The congress has to impeach the president. The congress has to remove him from office after that. There is no judicial or legal actions that can be taken to remove the president. You have politicians who have the power to do that and Republicans are purely political in relation to this issue unfortunately
I hear what you saying and I appreciate you laying it all out for me because I wasn't informed on it but, it still sounds like a major blindspot to me. I doubt the founding fathers thought that 300 years later there would be a corrupt President being protected from being impeached because his party controlled congress and didn't want to give up power. That couldn't have been their objective. They were assuming members of other governmental bodies would behave rationally but, if the entire party is corrupt, then what
Meet, but don't discuss anything brehs
Damn I made that other post in another thread. I guess they merged them lolI hear what you saying and I appreciate you laying it all out for me because I wasn't informed on it but, it still sounds like a major blindspot to me. I doubt the founding fathers thought that 300 years later there would be a corrupt President being protected from being impeached because his party controlled congress and didn't want to give up power. That couldn't have been their objective. They were assuming members of other governmental bodies would behave rationally but, if the entire party is corrupt, then what
But yeah shyt is disgusting, and yeah the "founding fathers" (I hate this term personally because these "fathers" were or allowing the whipping my ancestors. No fathers of mine
) were thinking that the government would be ran by somewhat rational human beings. Like you said, when the whole party is corrupt, this shyt is broken.Yeah this shyt is a blind spot.
Airtrack360
All Star
American Crime Story: Trump/Pence 2016 