• 8 Posts
  • 855 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 25th, 2023

help-circle






  • Maybe you’re partially remembering the opinion (and it was just an opinion, not legal precedent) that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted for crimes? But the whole basis for that idea was that the proper remedy is impeachment to remove them from office, and upon being removed from office they can be charged with crimes by the DOJ (which they would no longer be the head of). This is what shielded Trump while he was in office, as his DOJ declined to prosecute him citing this logic as the reason.


  • If you’re aware of the text then why’d you claim the courts’ interpretation gave the President the power of pardon? If you’re aware of the text, why do you consider any interpretation except the obvious one as correct? If you’re aware of the text, why’d you say

    There has always been an understanding that the office of the president is above those laws

    Instead of citing any specific thing? I’ll tell you why on that last one: it’s because it’s never been tested, so it hasn’t been interpreted this way before, and this SCOTUS is the only court in the history of the country that would declare an intepretation exactly opposite of what the Constitution says (disagree? Find another instance of it, under another SCOTUS, to prove me wrong).

    You are right that

    They also have the authority to alter the rules temporarily via executive orders.

    But this is yet another reason the President should never have reason to outright break the law. There is no reason the President should ever have to break the law, and I will hold that position until such time as I get a satisfactory retort otherwise.


  • Sorry, you’re wrong. The Constitution gives the president the power of pardon:

    Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

    “The President shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

    And again, the Constitution holds that all officers (of which the President is one) are subject to the law:

    Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

    “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    It’s right there in black and white. Go check any true and faithful copy you like.


  • Oh yeah? What’s one situation in which the President would have to break the law to perform their duties? The President is the Chief Executive, literally part of the job is to preserve and uphold the law of the land, not to break it.

    You’re absolutely wrong about the check/balance being the ballot box. The checks and balances are set up throughout the Constitution explicitly:

    1. Article I (Legislative Branch):

      • Congress can pass laws, but the President can veto them (Section 7).
      • Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote (Section 7).
      • The Senate approves presidential appointments and treaties (Section 2).
    2. Article II (Executive Branch):

      • The President executes laws but needs Senate approval for treaties and appointments (Section 2).
      • The President can be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate (Section 4).
    3. Article III (Judicial Branch):

      • The courts can declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional (judicial review, established by Marbury v. Madison).

    Finally, the constitution makes it perfectly clear that officers of the USA are still subject to criminal laws outside of impeachment:

    Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    Nobody is above the law. Until now, it seems, but not because that’s the way it’s meant to be.









  • All massively ambitious games attempting to capture the scale and freedom of a Bethesda title, but released with so much jank it makes Bethesda look like Nintendo. I played Gothic 2 and 3 some, and some of Risen, and they were fine for the time - not a lot of competition back then. But nowadays, there are so many god-tier A-plusplusplus titles released and releasing that I couldn’t 100% all of them if I dedicated my remaining years to it. Jank-ass RPGs, no matter how expansive and lovingly crafted, don’t stand a shit-fume’s chance in hell of catching attention in the current climate. So this is sad, but they hadn’t put out any real bangers and I don’t think the next PB project was gonna change the landscape.