Nation changed from the founding fathers ideas today, Biden addressed

[Raccoon1010]

I am a conservative Christian, below my Allegiance to God. Biden is the active president, and although he covered some alarming information about the Jan. 6th riots. Don't allow that to distract you from the message of the SCOTUS changes to the constitution in the message. I have yet to review the changes. But the message had that spiritual feeling like a huge impacting moment in US history. He appears concerned for the increase in power for the president that was made by SCOTUS.

It is a two week old video and Biden is stating something other than what I thought the Trump immunity case was. Did the SCOTUS change the constitution, or simply rule on the presidents immunity in a specific legal case? If you have any information please inform me so I can look up pertinent facts. A lot going on with the assassination attempt recently on the news I was following. Thanks much.

Any caring person, whether democrat, republican or any alignment will definitely want to watch that statement from the President.

 

[Rockerduck]

There are 3 branches of Federal government. Separated by the Constitution of the US. The executive branch can do nothing about the other two branches. The Congressional branch controls the money, and the Judicial branch clarifies the law. These are 3 separate branches that cannot touch each other. Biden is blowing smoke.

 

[bluedragon]

Remember, Biden marched in the Civil Rights movement .......He was on the side of the Democrat Party carrying Senator Byrd's Hood .....

 

[Bob]

Thank you for your post.

Regarding the Law of the Land, our Constitution:
Article II lists the authorities and duties of the President. For example, the Executive Power rests solely with the President (hence all the Cabinets, to carry out laws passed by Congress), and the President is the Commander of our Armed Forces.

So, what might it mean that the President cannot be prosecuted for Official Acts?

Here is my favorite example: the current administration is responsible for the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, including the many unnecessary deaths, abandonment of much military equipment, etc. Our current Commander in Chief can be held accountable for incompetence, but not prosecuted in a court of law, since his actions were official duties.

The insane, political suggestion that a call for a citizen assassination could be an official act has been totally debunked by sensible people.

Blessings.

 

[Raccoon1010]

Thank you for your post.

Regarding the Law of the Land, our Constitution:
Article II lists the authorities and duties of the President. For example, the Executive Power rests solely with the President (hence all the Cabinets, to carry out laws passed by Congress), and the President is the Commander of our Armed Forces.

So, what might it mean that the President cannot be prosecuted for Official Acts?

Here is my favorite example: the current administration is responsible for the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, including the many unnecessary deaths, abandonment of much military equipment, etc. Our current Commander in Chief can be held accountable for incompetence, but not prosecuted in a court of law, since his actions were official duties.

The insane, political suggestion that a call for a citizen assassination could be an official act has been totally debunked by sensible people.

Blessings.

Thanks that sounds about right. I saw something about the word "core" official acts. But the study I saw came up with broadening the official acts covered by presidential immunity. Not sure, but the SCOTUS document was "TOO" large for me to want to spend time reading.

It is nice to get some summarized explanations of interpretations. It would be nice if they broke down what new official acts would be covered under that immunity,

I'm happy the citizen assassination idea was debunked.

 

[BarneyFife]

Did the SCOTUS change the constitution, or simply rule on the presidents immunity in a specific legal case?

Bingo! Dev, you get the Barney-Parney-Poo Award for critical thinking - lol.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Thanks that sounds about right. I saw something about the word "core" official acts. But the study I saw came up with broadening the official acts covered by presidential immunity. Not sure, but the SCOTUS document was "TOO" large for me to want to spend time reading.

It is nice to get some summarized explanations of interpretations. It would be nice if they broke down what new official acts would be covered under that immunity,

I'm happy the citizen assassination idea was debunked.

Both summarizing and expanding on the Constitution's original language ventures onto interpretative ground—which good jurists tend to avoid whenever possible. It's considered by conscientious students of American law as practically sacred text.

.

 

[bluedragon]

Keep in mind ......the Democrat Party has a different vision of what the English language has to say about specific subjects. Example ...Hillary Rodham Clinton got fired over her insistence that Richard Nixon had no rights in this involvement during his impeachment. She was caught trying to dispose of evidence collected in the Nixon paperwork preparing for impeachment. The constitution is specific. While evidence is assembled to prove guilt or innocence. One item remains constant ........ That person still has rights he never ever loses ........Hillary the Democrat, disagreed and it got her fired .....

 

[bluedragon]

I've had some of the greatest friends in life ever possible. Two high ranking Democrats and I worked tirelessly trying to get Scientology out of Clearwater, FL. I had access to information no one else could obtain .....Along the way came the Clinton Impeachment. At times the debate got so heated, we disturbed people in the restaurant with our debate. Democrats claimed "Nothing but sex" I countered with "Under Oath and he lied" before the Grand Jury.
Months later my friend (Boss) and the Mayor of Clearwater came into my office ......."We came to apologize. You were right and we were wrong .......Bill Clinton was disbarred this morning for lying to a Grand Jury while under oath." I laughed and commented ......He's never intended to practice law again ......No harm, no foul .....No Loss ......

 

[Bob]

Thanks that sounds about right. I saw something about the word "core" official acts. But the study I saw came up with broadening the official acts covered by presidential immunity. Not sure, but the SCOTUS document was "TOO" large for me to want to spend time reading.

It is nice to get some summarized explanations of interpretations. It would be nice if they broke down what new official acts would be covered under that immunity,

I'm happy the citizen assassination idea was debunked.

Thanks for the response.

From what I have read, legal discussions are still ongoing about what does and does not constitute an official act. As a result, some of President Trump’s legal battles have been paused, but not necessarily put to rest.

For example, how do we classify phone calls to state officials, which questioned election results? Were they, “There might well be fraud in your state, so how about an investigation?” Or maybe they were much more forceful.

Thankfully, I am not involved! My faith tells me that, always, God will fulfill His purposes.

Peace.

 

[Raccoon1010]

Both summarizing and expanding on the Constitution's original language ventures onto interpretative ground—which good jurists tend to avoid whenever possible. It's considered by conscientious students of American law as practically sacred text.

.

Yes that is something I was aware of.