So, there's a whole series of problems that the government created for themselves with this.
The Posse Commentates Act prevents the US military from being deployed for law enforcement actions. But that is only as part of normal law enforcement activity.
The National Guard may be deployed to preform Law Enforcement Activities, but only at the Governor's discretion.
As a quirk in the law, the United State Marine Corps is NOT covered by Posse Commentates, and as such has been deployed in cases of extreme levels of violence, typically when LE are being killed.
However, if a truly extreme situation breaks out, the President can invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military directly to end "illegal activity".
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, SCOTUS allowed the government to declare individuals "enemy combatants" and could be killed or captured without any protection of US citizenship. This is one of the reasons that Obama could legally kill an American citizen who served on his own muslim council for a time.
So, technically, there are two ways that a president could assassinate a political opponent legally:
Declaring his opponent to be an enemy combatant and having him directly assassinated.
Declaring an insurrection, and the the opponent could be killed during the subjection of the insurrection.
Unfortunately for SCOTUS, the Hamdi decision always meant that that POTUS could always do that to them. They just assumed that the bureaucratic process to do it wouldn't include them. They, uh, should probably re-visit that decision.
Now, within this, we have to actually talk about what "immunity" means here.
"Immunity" just means he can't be charged with a crime until impeached. Impeachment STILL can revoke that immunity as it was always meant to. Impeachment can be done regardless of evidence, and without appeal because it is a political procedure and not a legal one. The president can lose his immunity faster than any cop, and with less evidence. Congress just has to give it. The problem is that the legislature is filled with cowards. This is actually one reason I'm glad Trump was impeached twice. It shows some activity within the legislature to reign in the executive.
Additionally, that immunity doesn't apply to anyone else. Including the Secretary of Defense or SEAL team 6. They are still accountable both the the UCMJ as well as the the constitution. They have a legal obligation not to follow unlawful orders. While POTUS couldn't be charged without impeachment should he order someone to assassinate his political opponent, his subordinates could still be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder. Even if the DOJ didn't want to prosecute them, any federal prosecutor still could. If no federal prosecutor wanted to, the AG's of the states could still bring criminal charges against them as those are also state crimes.
The ridiculous part of all of this, is that that is what has been happening to Trump, despite him not breaking the law at all. All you actually have to do to stop POTUS from doing something illegal is exactly what is being done to Trump assuming you couldn't get any aspect of the federal courts or congress to take action.
As a quirk in the law, the United State Marine Corps is NOT covered by Posse Commentates, and as such has been deployed in cases of extreme levels of violence, typically when LE are being killed.
Unfortunately for SCOTUS, the Hamdi decision always meant that that POTUS could always do that to them. They just assumed that the bureaucratic process to do it wouldn't include them. They, uh, should probably re-visit that decision.
Can you explain this more? Ok the first sentence I get. I assume by "them" you mean the supreme court. But I don't understand what bureaucratic process you're talking about or why in particular it does not involve SCOTUS.
All you actually have to do to stop POTUS from doing something illegal is exactly what is being done to Trump assuming you couldn't get any aspect of the federal courts or congress to take action.
I still think that is impeachment. So, they started it? The after-the-fact convictions will not prevent shit -- I don't even think they will stop the next guy from doing whatever he wants, since that guy won't be prosecuted. So far just Trump. To get the actual chilling effect the SC envisions, you'd have to have this happen regularly. So pretty much every President at the pace things are going. Norms are not going to last too long. They're being made up as they go along. Precedent will take years and years.
But I don't understand what bureaucratic process you're talking about or why in particular it does not involve SCOTUS.
Sorry, the Hamdi decision basically allows the President to declare people "enemy combatants". The concept of an "enemy combatant" refers to an 'unlawful combatant'; or: someone who is actively engaging in hostile activities against the US, but not is a declared combatant under the laws of war (like a soldier) and does not have protections as such. SCOTUS in Hamdi said that the status of people with this "enemy combatant" label still have Due Process rights and can appeal the application of the label.
SCOTUS didn't determine what the correct procedure was AND LEFT IT UP TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. The process that I used to be aware of involved a series of approvals and actionable intelligence. The Obama administration chose to stop applying the term altogether, but SCOTUS never nullified it's use, so it could be picked up again. It's never been clear what the whole process was because of the secrecy around the intelligence information.
I don't even think they will stop the next guy from doing whatever he wants, since that guy won't be prosecuted.
Well, that's the thing, we are assuming that the next guy won't be prosecuted, but that's only based off of deference. Presidents are not purely immune, their prosecutions are basically just deferred until impeachment, and anyone who carried out the act is NOT immune.
And that's without actually getting to this most recent decision. The lower courts actually now can rule that some acts weren't part of the presidential powers if they can find evidence that it isn't.
So, there's a whole series of problems that the government created for themselves with this.
The Posse Commentates Act prevents the US military from being deployed for law enforcement actions. But that is only as part of normal law enforcement activity.
The National Guard may be deployed to preform Law Enforcement Activities, but only at the Governor's discretion.
As a quirk in the law, the United State Marine Corps is NOT covered by Posse Commentates, and as such has been deployed in cases of extreme levels of violence, typically when LE are being killed.
However, if a truly extreme situation breaks out, the President can invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military directly to end "illegal activity".
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, SCOTUS allowed the government to declare individuals "enemy combatants" and could be killed or captured without any protection of US citizenship. This is one of the reasons that Obama could legally kill an American citizen who served on his own muslim council for a time.
So, technically, there are two ways that a president could assassinate a political opponent legally:
Unfortunately for SCOTUS, the Hamdi decision always meant that that POTUS could always do that to them. They just assumed that the bureaucratic process to do it wouldn't include them. They, uh, should probably re-visit that decision.
Now, within this, we have to actually talk about what "immunity" means here.
"Immunity" just means he can't be charged with a crime until impeached. Impeachment STILL can revoke that immunity as it was always meant to. Impeachment can be done regardless of evidence, and without appeal because it is a political procedure and not a legal one. The president can lose his immunity faster than any cop, and with less evidence. Congress just has to give it. The problem is that the legislature is filled with cowards. This is actually one reason I'm glad Trump was impeached twice. It shows some activity within the legislature to reign in the executive.
Additionally, that immunity doesn't apply to anyone else. Including the Secretary of Defense or SEAL team 6. They are still accountable both the the UCMJ as well as the the constitution. They have a legal obligation not to follow unlawful orders. While POTUS couldn't be charged without impeachment should he order someone to assassinate his political opponent, his subordinates could still be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder. Even if the DOJ didn't want to prosecute them, any federal prosecutor still could. If no federal prosecutor wanted to, the AG's of the states could still bring criminal charges against them as those are also state crimes.
The ridiculous part of all of this, is that that is what has been happening to Trump, despite him not breaking the law at all. All you actually have to do to stop POTUS from doing something illegal is exactly what is being done to Trump assuming you couldn't get any aspect of the federal courts or congress to take action.
It was amended in 2021 to include the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Space Force.
Ah. Noted.
Can you explain this more? Ok the first sentence I get. I assume by "them" you mean the supreme court. But I don't understand what bureaucratic process you're talking about or why in particular it does not involve SCOTUS.
I still think that is impeachment. So, they started it? The after-the-fact convictions will not prevent shit -- I don't even think they will stop the next guy from doing whatever he wants, since that guy won't be prosecuted. So far just Trump. To get the actual chilling effect the SC envisions, you'd have to have this happen regularly. So pretty much every President at the pace things are going. Norms are not going to last too long. They're being made up as they go along. Precedent will take years and years.
Sorry, the Hamdi decision basically allows the President to declare people "enemy combatants". The concept of an "enemy combatant" refers to an 'unlawful combatant'; or: someone who is actively engaging in hostile activities against the US, but not is a declared combatant under the laws of war (like a soldier) and does not have protections as such. SCOTUS in Hamdi said that the status of people with this "enemy combatant" label still have Due Process rights and can appeal the application of the label.
SCOTUS didn't determine what the correct procedure was AND LEFT IT UP TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. The process that I used to be aware of involved a series of approvals and actionable intelligence. The Obama administration chose to stop applying the term altogether, but SCOTUS never nullified it's use, so it could be picked up again. It's never been clear what the whole process was because of the secrecy around the intelligence information.
Well, that's the thing, we are assuming that the next guy won't be prosecuted, but that's only based off of deference. Presidents are not purely immune, their prosecutions are basically just deferred until impeachment, and anyone who carried out the act is NOT immune.
And that's without actually getting to this most recent decision. The lower courts actually now can rule that some acts weren't part of the presidential powers if they can find evidence that it isn't.