Liberal Forum

the founding fathers....................................

------------------------------------------------------------------------


The phrase "no kings in America" captures a core tenet of the American founding, reflecting the Framers' deep commitment to preventing the establishment of an unchecked executive power akin to the British monarchy. The Founding Fathers, having recently fought a revolution to escape monarchical rule, were keenly aware of the dangers of concentrated power and designed the Constitution to prevent it. They emphasized the principle that everyone, including the President, must be subject to the law. This is encapsulated in quotes like Thomas Paine's in Common Sense: “in America THE LAW IS KING, . . . as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King”. 
In the context of the debate surrounding former President Trump's claim of presidential immunity:

• Founding Fathers' Views: Historical evidence suggests the Founding Fathers would likely not have supported the notion of a former president being immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office. They believed in presidential accountability through impeachment and criminal prosecution after leaving office. The Constitution itself includes mechanisms like impeachment and subsequent criminal prosecution to ensure the President is not above the law.
• Trump's Argument: Trump has argued that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during his presidency. He suggests that the Constitution granted American presidents similar powers and immunities to the British king, a claim disputed by historical and legal experts.
• Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court recently ruled on Trump's immunity claim in Trump v. United States. The court concluded that a former president has absolute immunity for actions within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" and presumptive immunity for other "official actions". The court's decision was seen by some, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, as potentially creating a "law-free zone around the President," effectively placing them above the law and contrasting with the Founders' intention to avoid creating an "elected king".
• "No Kings Act": In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Senators introduced the "No Kings Act" to reaffirm that presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions violating U.S. law. This proposed legislation seeks to restore the principle that no one, not even the President, is above the law. 

In essence, the debate around Trump's immunity claim highlights a fundamental tension between the Founding Fathers' vision of a limited executive power, checked by the rule of law, and the modern interpretation of presidential immunity. While the Supreme Court's ruling acknowledges the need for presidential immunity for official acts, critics argue it departs from the Founders' intent to prevent the President from becoming a king-like figure above the law. 
 
 

so if you think trump should be king and immune from the law maybe you should stay home on july 4th and not celebrate the country that was based on no kings.

jerrab » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

so if you think trump should be king and immune from the law maybe you should stay home on july 4th and not celebrate the country that was based on no kings.

Who did you vote for?
 

stay home and protest on 7-4 and say trump is my king or have a trump is king rally
 

jerrab » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

stay home and protest on 7-4 and say trump is my king or have a trump is king rally

Are you off your meds there jerrab?
 

MR-7 » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Are you off your meds there jerrab?

nope. you believe trump should be immune like a king, which is against what the founding fathers wanted SO DON'T EVER CELEBRATE JULY FOURTH EVER AGAIN.

jerra » wrote:

01 Feb 1970, 5:24 pm

the founding fathers....................................

------------------------------------------------------------------------


The phrase "no kings in America" captures a core tenet of the American founding, reflecting the Framers' deep commitment to preventing the establishment of an unchecked executive power akin to the British monarchy. The Founding Fathers, having recently fought a revolution to escape monarchical rule, were keenly aware of the dangers of concentrated power and designed the Constitution to prevent it. They emphasized the principle that everyone, including the President, must be subject to the law. This is encapsulated in quotes like Thomas Paine's in Common Sense: “in America THE LAW IS KING, . . . as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King”. 
In the context of the debate surrounding former President Trump's claim of presidential immunity:

• Founding Fathers' Views: Historical evidence suggests the Founding Fathers would likely not have supported the notion of a former president being immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office. They believed in presidential accountability through impeachment and criminal prosecution after leaving office. The Constitution itself includes mechanisms like impeachment and subsequent criminal prosecution to ensure the President is not above the law.
• Trump's Argument: Trump has argued that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during his presidency. He suggests that the Constitution granted American presidents similar powers and immunities to the British king, a claim disputed by historical and legal experts.
• Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court recently ruled on Trump's immunity claim in Trump v. United States. The court concluded that a former president has absolute immunity for actions within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" and presumptive immunity for other "official actions". The court's decision was seen by some, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, as potentially creating a "law-free zone around the President," effectively placing them above the law and contrasting with the Founders' intention to avoid creating an "elected king".
• "No Kings Act": In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Senators introduced the "No Kings Act" to reaffirm that presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions violating U.S. law. This proposed legislation seeks to restore the principle that no one, not even the President, is above the law. 

In essence, the debate around Trump's immunity claim highlights a fundamental tension between the Founding Fathers' vision of a limited executive power, checked by the rule of law, and the modern interpretation of presidential immunity. While the Supreme Court's ruling acknowledges the need for presidential immunity for official acts, critics argue it departs from the Founders' intent to prevent the President from becoming a king-like figure above the law. 
 
 

 

Tell me....what did you think the founding fathers thought of protesters attacking law enforcement unprovoked for simply doing their job?

Take your time.  

jerrab » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

nope. you believe trump should be immune like a king, which is against what the founding fathers wanted SO DON'T EVER CELEBRATE JULY FOURTH EVER AGAIN.

I served 26 years for you to have the right to express your opinions, no matter how **** stupid they are. I earned my RIGHT, BITCH! 
 

MR-7 » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

I served 26 years for you to have the right to express your opinions, no matter how **** stupid they are. I earned my RIGHT, BITCH!

I didn’t service that long but it was a while.  I agree.

MR-7 » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

I served 26 years for you to have the right to express your opinions, no matter how **** stupid they are. I earned my RIGHT, BITCH!

you served 26 years to destroy the constitution and appoint trump king,

*Huey » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

Tell me....what did you think the founding fathers thought of protesters attacking law enforcement unprovoked for simply doing their job?

Take your time.

they were not unprovoked.

 

jerrab » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

you served 26 years to destroy the constitution and appoint trump king,

You should try getting laid. all that pent-up anger is not good for you.
 

jerrab » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

they were not unprovoked.

Who did you vote for?...for the 3rd time.
 

*Huey » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

25 minutes ago

Tell me....what did you think the founding fathers thought of protesters attacking law enforcement unprovoked for simply doing their job?

Take your time.

------------------------------------------

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/15/us/ice-r ... a-protests

The events that unfolded that Wednesday, and the days that followed, illustrate the human toll of more aggressive methods the Trump administration have taken to detain migrants in the United States — taking into custody those who arrive for routine check-ins, while also conducting workplace raids that have unleashed waves of fear across Southern California and beyond.
 
 

*Huey » 30 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

30 minutes ago

Tell me....what did you think the founding fathers thought of protesters attacking law enforcement unprovoked for simply doing their job?

Take your time.

they would be mortified to hear this called this unprovoked.

https://youtu.be/y07_RqcNfaM?si=YhOBx3IhLzBnZ6fQ

jerra » wrote:

01 Feb 1970, 5:25 pm

*Huey » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

55 minutes ago

Tell me....what did you think the founding fathers thought of protesters attacking law enforcement unprovoked for simply doing their job?

Take your time.

they were not unprovoked.

 

 

Yes Bitch, it was unprovoked.  You and yours are defending criminals who rape, **** children and human traffic.  Bitch, if you feel this strongly about it carry your *** to one of the ore violent riots and put your **** money where your mouth is, bitch.

I put my money where my mouth is for years, as did MR-7.  All bitches like you have done is run your **** cocksucking mouths.

Yes, Bitch, ijerra » wrote:

01 Feb 1970, 5:25 pm

*Huey » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

55 minutes ago

Tell me....what did you think the founding fathers thought of protesters attacking law enforcement unprovoked for simply doing their job?

Take your time.

------------------------------------------

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/15/us/ice-r ... a-protests

The events that unfolded that Wednesday, and the days that followed, illustrate the human toll of more aggressive methods the Trump administration have taken to detain migrants in the United States — taking into custody those who arrive for routine check-ins, while also conducting workplace raids that have unleashed waves of fear across Southern California and beyond.
 
 

 

Detain sex criminals, human traffickers, murderers, pedophiles, and human traffickers.  Bitches lie you are **** idiots.

jerra » wrote:

01 Feb 1970, 5:25 pm

*Huey » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

55 minutes ago

Tell me....what did you think the founding fathers thought of protesters attacking law enforcement unprovoked for simply doing their job?

Take your time.

they would be mortified to hear this called this unprovoked.

https://youtu.be/y07_RqcNfaM?si=YhOBx3IhLzBnZ6fQ

 

Carry your fat liberal do nothing *** to one of these protests, bitch, and get back to me.

jerrab » Yesterday, 3:12 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:12 pm

so if you think trump should be king and immune from the law maybe you should stay home on july 4th and not celebrate the country that was based on no kings.

No one is above the law unless your name is Hunter 

*Huey » Yesterday, 4:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 4:39 pm

Yes Bitch, it was unprovoked.  You and yours are defending criminals who rape, **** children and human traffic.  Bitch, if you feel this strongly about it carry your *** to one of the ore violent riots and put your **** money where your mouth is, bitch.

I put my money where my mouth is for years, as did MR-7.  All bitches like you have done is run your **** cocksucking mouths.

Detain sex criminals, human traffickers, murderers, pedophiles, and human traffickers.  Bitches lie you are **** idiots.

Carry your fat liberal do nothing *** to one of these protests, bitch, and get back to me.

Any questions jerrab?   
 

jerrab » Yesterday, 3:51 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:51 pm

you served 26 years to destroy the constitution and appoint trump king,

jerrab is a pathological liar.
One of this idiot's most ridiculouis lies is her claim that Trump stated he was going to turn Gaza into his own personal property......  
So nothing jerrab has to say about anything should be taken seriously.

BuckNaked » Today, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:48 am

No one is above the law unless your name is Hunter

the supreme court deemed trump is above the law.