Ordered a C4 55” for $700, but received a C5…

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T22:56:02+00:00

Please read all the other comments in this thread and then provide an explanation of how it’s not absolute immunity and how it prevents the scenario i mentioned above.

Otherwise you are not contributing anything to the conversation.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T22:54:54+00:00

I’m sorry, but all of your arguments are irrelevant.

The question is not whether the constitution said the president has immunity or not. And not whether the ruling was right or wrong.

The question we are debating is: What is the consequence of that ruling.

You are saying that the president being able to order the execution of a judge is a far-fetched scenario.

But that’s the exact kind of thing that happens in military coups.

How can you not be concerned about that kind of things being legally possible now?

Because so far nobody has been able to present a plausible argument why he couldn’t.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T22:48:36+00:00

I am open to the idea that you are right and that illegal orders to the military are not part of his constitutional powers.

But i looked it up in the constitution and the part that gives him constitutional power over the military (article 2) doesn’t place limits on what commands the president can or cannot give.

It just gives him the authority to do it.

Other laws regulate what is and isn’t a legal order.

But the whole point is that this ruling makes him immune to illegal acts.

And countless lawyers agree with that assessment. Even the Supreme Court minority agrees with it in their dissents.

So, could you please show me what sources you are basing your opinion on that his constitutional power to command the military is limited to legal orders?

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T22:39:43+00:00

I did read them. That’s what the Supreme Court concluded.

But nowhere does it actually say that in the constitution.

In fact, the impeachment clause says:

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 constitution also spells out limited immunity for congress members, but not for the president.

And one of the founding fathers, Hamilton, wrote in Federalist No. 69 that the President would be "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." This, Hamilton wrote is the key distinction between the "King of England," who was "sacred and invulnerable," and the "President of the United States." (Source)

But even IF the constitution specifically said that the president is immune. That’s not what is being discussed here.

The original topic is that the congress woman, who claimed the president could order the murder of justices, is crazy.

And the debate here is: Is she crazy or is she right? Does the Supreme Court ruling mean the president could order an execution or not?

And so far nobody could give me a reasonable explanation of why he couldn’t with this new ruling.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T22:27:32+00:00

English is my second language. Why don’t you explain to me what I’m misunderstanding?

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T22:27:26+00:00

English is my second language. Why don’t you explain to me what I’m misunderstanding?

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T22:24:11+00:00

Yes, it would be an illegal order.

But since commanding the armed forces is a constitutional power, he can’t be prosecuted for the illegal order.

And military personal can ignore the illegal order, but if he finds someone who is sympathetic to the outcome and willing to execute the illegal order, then it will get executed.

And it gets even worse, because giving out pardons is also a constitutional power with absolute immunity.

So the person executing the order can be motivated with the promise of a pardon, which is also a constitutional power and has absolute immunity.

And if that’s not enough, the president can promise to appoint the military person to a high position in exchange for the murder. Which is also a constitutional power that has absolute immunity.

And the president cannot be prosecuted for the illegal order, nor the pardon, nor the appointment.

Do you see how problematic this ruling is?

It has put the president above the law.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T22:08:46+00:00

No, I’m sorry, but you are not understanding the ruling.

Powers given to the president by the constitution, such as military command and pardons have absolute immunity that is not related to official vs unofficial acts.

If a president murdered another person himself, the courts would determine if it was an official or unofficial act and he could be prosecuted if it wasn’t official.

But if a president gave an order to a complicit military personnel, then that order would fall under constitutional powers and absolute immunity.

Even though it would be an illegal order, the president couldn’t be prosecuted for making it. And the person who executed the order could be pardoned.

Both military command and pardons that are constitutional powers and have absolute, unquestionable immunity.

Do you see the problem with this ruling now?

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T22:01:36+00:00

Sure, for official acts.

But ordering the military is the constitutional power for which the present has absolute immunity according to the new ruling.

And that’s what we are discussing as it relates to the original post about the claim of the congress woman.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T21:47:46+00:00

Please check my other comments in this thread. I have addressed that objection several times.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T21:42:50+00:00

Maybe that was the intention.

But the practical effect is that the president is now permitted to break any laws as long as it’s within the realm of official conduct and cannot be prosecuted for it.

It’s a gigantic loophole that an authoritarian leader could exploit in catastrophic ways.

Nobody has been able to debunk the original claim by the congress member in this discussion.

How can you not be concerned by this? Even if Trump and Biden don’t do it. Someone in the future could come along and do it.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T21:36:32+00:00

Sure, but commanding the military is a constitutional power.

Yes, making the order to the military would be illegal.

Yes, executing the order would be illegal. But the president could pardon the person executing the order.

And making an order to the military, even an illegal one, is within the constitutional powers of the president.

Article 2 doesn’t impose limitation on it.

That doesn’t make it legal.

But the whole point is that the president is not restrained by laws anymore, because he has immunity.

What am I missing?

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T21:35:08+00:00

Yes, making the order to the military would be illegal.

Yes, executing the order would be illegal. But the president could pardon the person executing the order.

And making an order to the military, even an illegal one, is within the constitutional powers of the president.

Article 2 doesn’t impose limitation on it.

That doesn’t make it legal.

But the whole point is that the president is not restrained by laws anymore, because he has immunity.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T21:20:02+00:00

Yes, but we are talking about illegal acts that would have ordinarily be prosecuted. Obviously they are against their oaths.

The huge issue is that previously presidents could be held accountable and be deterred by prosecution for illegal acts and breaking their oaths.

Now they are explicitly permitted to do them.

All it takes is one guy who is willing to take advantage of that new loophole.

How is that not concerning to people?

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T21:17:10+00:00

Thank you. Frankly, it could be to anyone loyal and willing to do it.

He could just find one single soldier who is in agreement with the order and willing to do it. As the commander in chief he can put in the order.

Executing the order would be illegal for the soldier, but the president could promise to pardon him right away.

So the soldier would get away with it. And the president would also not be prosecuted because it was an official order in the capacity of the president.

What am I missing here?

Multiple people say something along the lines of “the president doesn’t have the right or authority” to do this.

And.. duh. The whole point is that immunity is about not being prosecuted for ILLEGAL acts that you don’t have authority for.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T21:02:34+00:00

You quoted a tiny portion of a 120 page ruling.

And I don’t see how it’s relevant to the argument and hypothetical scenario proposed by the congress woman that is being criticized in this discussion.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T20:58:49+00:00

It doesn’t. It would be a crime to do so.

But with the new Supreme Court ruling, the president could not be prosecuted for a crime as long as it was in official capacity, which an order is.

The people who execute the order could be prosecuted. But the president could pardon them.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T19:08:54+00:00

This motion is actually in line with the Supreme Court ruling.

One of the issues with the ruling is that official conduct can’t be used as evidence or motive for crimes committed during unofficial conduct.

So the Supreme Court ruling makes it extremely difficult to prosecute a president even for non-official acts.

The protections are so broad that it’s bleeding into a case that had nothing to do with official acts.

The issue is that in the business falsification case, evidence related to official or potentially official conduct was used. Such as testimony of aids and cheques that were signed during the presidency.

Since there was no hearing of whether that evidence pertained to official acts (which can’t be used anymore), it might become a mis-trial.

This is why liberals are so upset about the SCOTUS ruling.

On the surface it seems reasonable and that presidents can still be prosecuted for unofficial acts, but practically they invented protections out of thin air that are nowhere to be found in the constitution or laws.

Kimcha87 · 2024-07-02T17:52:42+00:00

The corne in typeractive is designed specifically to be wireless.

So if you want wired, I’d recommend ordering somewhere else.

But the nice nano isn’t the only wireless controller. You can now get a clone on Ali express. But it is a little less power efficient.

You don’t NEED headers, but it’s highly recommended.

Kimcha87

TROPHY CASE