This seems incorrect. Ordering Seal Team 6 to kill his opponent is not within the President's power under the Constitution, no?
The President would probably be immune from prosecution for that order under Trump, but per the Constitution, Art I, Sec III, the President could be impeached and then tried criminally:
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.
The President is already barred from using the military in civil criminal contexts under the Posse Comitatus Act. The President is also barred from murdering someone under 18 U.S. Code § 1111. The key here is that under Trump, the President would need to be impeached first in order to strip them of Presidential Immunity.
Note that a big thing that leftists are missing here is that Presidential Immunity does not extend to employees and agents of the executive branch. Any members of the military or law enforcement who carry out illegal acts can be prosecuted under existing law. So the Seal Team Six (its no longer called that, BTW) members who murder the Supreme Court would be guilty of murder and can be tried for murder under existing law.
The President can and has ordered the military to assassinate Americans overseas, and nobody tried to prosecute him for it.
Correct. Obama is probably criminally immune from prosecution unless he is impeached. But the drone operators could be charged. The family members of Anwar al-Awlaki tried to civilly sue Obama Administration officials but were unsuccessful. There is a federal law that allows people to sue state officials for their violations of civil rights called 42 U.S. Code § 1983. But conveniently, the feds have not made a similar law for when federal officials violate someone's civil rights. There is a common law version of § 1983 called the Bivens doctrine. But Bivens is narrowly interpereted and the court reviewing the al-Awlaki lawsuit did not want to extend it to cases of military and national security.
Yeah TFW when your intentionally-generic nickname gets too high profile. I blame Rainbow 6.
That Bivens thing was an interesting read. I don't know that I came away from it with anything other than "you usually can't sue the Federal government, unless they pass a law saying you can, unless it's one of a narrowly defined (and apparently arbitrary) set of the circumstances that the Supreme Court says are cool. So um we need never wonder why people neither understand nor respect the law.
I don't know that I came away from it with anything other than "you usually can't sue the Federal government, unless they pass a law saying you can, unless it's one of a narrowly defined (and apparently arbitrary) set of the circumstances that the Supreme Court says are cool.
Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of the Bivens doctrine. The Anwar al-Awlaki court decision is frustrating because the court says U.S. citizens have a Fifth Amendment interest in not being blown up in drone strikes, buuuuuuuuut because this is in the area of national security and the military, the plaintiffs lose. It's a super arbitrary decision. Sure, his rights were violated by the feds but no you can't do anything about it.
I am pretty good at understanding normie understanding of / interaction with the law because I have very little tolerance lawyering -- that is to say arguing over what the rules mean. After a few minutes of that, I just do what I do and see what the consequences are.
Obvious, moral stuff like "don't hit people" is fine, but don't ask me how to pay taxes. I definitely make arbitrary decisions on filing my taxes, which I still do myself mainly because it's almost entirely automated and because I move states too much, so nobody wants to work for me.
The President would probably be immune from prosecution for that order under Trump, but per the Constitution, Art I, Sec III, the President could be impeached and then tried criminally:
The President is already barred from using the military in civil criminal contexts under the Posse Comitatus Act. The President is also barred from murdering someone under 18 U.S. Code § 1111. The key here is that under Trump, the President would need to be impeached first in order to strip them of Presidential Immunity.
Note that a big thing that leftists are missing here is that Presidential Immunity does not extend to employees and agents of the executive branch. Any members of the military or law enforcement who carry out illegal acts can be prosecuted under existing law. So the Seal Team Six (its no longer called that, BTW) members who murder the Supreme Court would be guilty of murder and can be tried for murder under existing law.
Correct. Obama is probably criminally immune from prosecution unless he is impeached. But the drone operators could be charged. The family members of Anwar al-Awlaki tried to civilly sue Obama Administration officials but were unsuccessful. There is a federal law that allows people to sue state officials for their violations of civil rights called 42 U.S. Code § 1983. But conveniently, the feds have not made a similar law for when federal officials violate someone's civil rights. There is a common law version of § 1983 called the Bivens doctrine. But Bivens is narrowly interpereted and the court reviewing the al-Awlaki lawsuit did not want to extend it to cases of military and national security.
Yeah TFW when your intentionally-generic nickname gets too high profile. I blame Rainbow 6.
That Bivens thing was an interesting read. I don't know that I came away from it with anything other than "you usually can't sue the Federal government, unless they pass a law saying you can, unless it's one of a narrowly defined (and apparently arbitrary) set of the circumstances that the Supreme Court says are cool. So um we need never wonder why people neither understand nor respect the law.
Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of the Bivens doctrine. The Anwar al-Awlaki court decision is frustrating because the court says U.S. citizens have a Fifth Amendment interest in not being blown up in drone strikes, buuuuuuuuut because this is in the area of national security and the military, the plaintiffs lose. It's a super arbitrary decision. Sure, his rights were violated by the feds but no you can't do anything about it.
I am pretty good at understanding normie understanding of / interaction with the law because I have very little tolerance lawyering -- that is to say arguing over what the rules mean. After a few minutes of that, I just do what I do and see what the consequences are.
Obvious, moral stuff like "don't hit people" is fine, but don't ask me how to pay taxes. I definitely make arbitrary decisions on filing my taxes, which I still do myself mainly because it's almost entirely automated and because I move states too much, so nobody wants to work for me.