It's because fucking diabetes Dora wrote it in her dissent, like the typical leftist hysterical bullshit. They've all lost it, and are screeching constantly.
God forbid she write a legal opinion, and not leftist deranged fanfiction (which is really them projecting what they want to do).
This seems incorrect. Ordering Seal Team 6 to kill his opponent is not within the President's power under the Constitution, no? He is dubiously permitted to deploy the military overseas without Congress' permission. I've never heard that that is true domestically. That is to say: the existing Constitutional order that prevents the military from being used by any commander as a domestic hit squad is not changed.
The President can and has ordered the military to assassinate Americans overseas, and nobody tried to prosecute him for it.
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.
It's because fucking diabetes Dora wrote it in her dissent, like the typical leftist hysterical bullshit. They've all lost it, and are screeching constantly.
God forbid she write a legal opinion, and not leftist deranged fanfiction (which is really them projecting what they want to do).
This seems incorrect. Ordering Seal Team 6 to kill his opponent is not within the President's power under the Constitution, no? He is dubiously permitted to deploy the military overseas without Congress' permission. I've never heard that that is true domestically. That is to say: the existing Constitutional order that prevents the military from being used by any commander as a domestic hit squad is not changed.
The President can and has ordered the military to assassinate Americans overseas, and nobody tried to prosecute him for it.
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.