- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump’s Boldest Argument Yet: Immunity From Prosecution for Assassinations
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:35 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
If that’s what they wanted to require, they should have worded the clause better.
The Constitution as originally written, is barely over 4000 words long. There are innumerable items they could have explained better, expanded on, or reworded, but they could not know every question and issue that would pop up 200 years later.
1
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I couldn’t disagree with the conclusion more as it relates to the impeachment issue, but I see that it is out there.
Not only is it “out there,” it is the policy of the DOJ since 1973.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:39 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It’s not the underlying legality that is at question. It’s whether the action was taken within the scope of the duties of the office. Obama’s drone strikes rather indisputably were ordered as part of his performance of his duty as commander in chief.
It was a targeted assassination of a U.S. citizen. It wasn’t “collateral” in nature.
Are you suggesting that one US citizen (a political opponent), has more rights than another (a terrorist)?
If that’s the case, if Biden states that “MAGA Republicans” are terrorists, can he kill them as part of his “duties” as CIC?
Posted on 1/13/24 at 6:59 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Again, President Obama may have had a moral justification, but it’s the legality of the circumstance that is at question.
quote:
t’s not the underlying legality that is at question. It’s whether the action was taken within the scope of the duties of the office. Obama’s drone strikes rather indisputably were ordered as part of his performance of his duty as commander in chief. Assassinating political opponents can’t even arguably fit into that category.
It was a targeted assassination of a U.S. citizen. It wasn’t “collateral” in nature.
Are you suggesting that one US citizen (a political opponent), has more rights than another (a terrorist)?
If that’s the case, if Biden states that “MAGA Republicans” are terrorists, can he kill them as part of his “duties” as CIC?
Posted on 1/13/24 at 7:02 am to Indefatigable
A second chance to answer (since you didn’t respond the first time):
Again, if Biden says that “MAGA voters” (aka US citizens that won’t support his stupidity) are terrorists, can he have the military (arbitrarily and without penalty) kill them?
Again, if Biden says that “MAGA voters” (aka US citizens that won’t support his stupidity) are terrorists, can he have the military (arbitrarily and without penalty) kill them?
This post was edited on 1/13/24 at 7:17 am
Posted on 1/13/24 at 7:15 am to SlowFlowPro
Same question (above).
Posted on 1/13/24 at 7:33 am to BengalOnTheBay
What is being implied is that the President, as the top of the executive branch, can be taken down by any small town attorney general, for any crime
That renders the office of the President as subservient to the whims of any opposite minded person, making this a full democracy with no balancing mechanism.
That renders the office of the President as subservient to the whims of any opposite minded person, making this a full democracy with no balancing mechanism.
Posted on 1/14/24 at 7:29 am to Indefatigable
No answer to this question:
quote:
If Biden says that militias (aka US citizens that won’t support his stupidity) are terrorists, can he have the military (arbitrarily and without penalty) kill them?
quote:
If Biden says that militias (aka US citizens that won’t support his stupidity) are terrorists, can he have the military (arbitrarily and without penalty) kill them?
Posted on 1/14/24 at 5:53 pm to Indefatigable
No answer to this question:
quote:
If Biden says that militias (aka US citizens that won’t support his stupidity) are terrorists, can he have the military (arbitrarily and without penalty) kill them?
quote:
If Biden says that militias (aka US citizens that won’t support his stupidity) are terrorists, can he have the military (arbitrarily and without penalty) kill them?
Posted on 1/16/24 at 11:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If Biden says that militias (aka US citizens that won’t support his stupidity) are terrorists, can he have the military (arbitrarily and without penalty) kill them?
Posted on 1/16/24 at 11:18 am to Indefatigable
No answer to this question:
quote:
If Biden says that militias (aka US citizens that won’t support his stupidity) are terrorists, can he have the military (arbitrarily and without penalty) kill them?
quote:
If Biden says that militias (aka US citizens that won’t support his stupidity) are terrorists, can he have the military (arbitrarily and without penalty) kill them?
Posted on 1/16/24 at 1:56 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No answer to this question: quote: If Biden says that militias (aka US citizens that won’t support his stupidity) are terrorists, can he have the military (arbitrarily and without penalty) kill them?
Posted on 1/20/24 at 8:41 am to Eurocat
Bump
Posted on 1/20/24 at 8:46 am to Indefatigable
Yet another chance to answer the question amigo.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 8:52 am to OceanMan
quote:quote:
Mr. Sauer said his answer was a “qualified yes,” by which he meant no.
I’m not sure that is what it means.
Given that the source article is the NY Times, they are doing their usual "mUH dRuMpf Iz Bad oRanJE MaN FaScIst!!!" garbage. Of course "qualified yes" does not mean "no". It means "it depends" which Im sure a reporter with a degree from somewhere better than Punksatawny community college might understand.
Page 6 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News