Liberal Forum

MR-7 » 16 Jun 2025, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2025, 2:27 pm

No need to. It was an HONOR.   Thank you for being a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN.

yes sir 28 years in the army reserves.   

jerrab » 16 Jun 2025, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2025, 11:43 am

trump himself said after ordering raids on farms that may be that was a mistake.

show one person who was arrested last weekend who was a rapist etc.

name and history.

You  claim that you are equally critical of Democrat Presidents.
Can you honestly say that you ever criticized Biden for all of the pardons he issued before  leaving office...?

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/17/biden- ... ncy-record

"Jan 17, 2025

President Biden on Monday added to his record for the most pardons and sentence commutations in a single presidential term when he issued preemptive pardons to protect his family and others before leaving office."
 

BuckNaked » 16 Jun 2025, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2025, 2:35 pm

yes sir 28 years in the army reserves.

Excellent...
 

jerra » wrote:

01 Feb 1970, 5:31 pm

*Huey » 16 Jun 2025, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2025, 12:34 pm

Since you obviously fail to understand that means ANY President when operating within the constitution in an official manner is immune for those decisions.

It doesn't mean he can order a hit on a citizen's, shoot someone on 5th Ave, falsify personal financial statements or tax returns, etc.

https://millercenter.org/supreme-courts ... n-immunity
Supreme Court’s Trump ruling would have given Nixon immunity

Gerald Ford knew Richard Nixon could be prosecuted for crimes he committed as president. That was simply a fact, when President Ford gave his predecessor “a full, free, and absolute pardon” 50 years ago this week.Former presidents did not enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution until July 1, 2024, when six members of the Supreme Court created that privilege in Trump v. United States.
 
 

 

Shrug.

*Huey » 16 Jun 2025, 1:09 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2025, 1:09 pm

I am thinking more of trailer park meth head.

  either way....  
 

jerrab » 16 Jun 2025, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2025, 1:07 pm

do you think trump should be immune and be  able to commit crimes without prosecution like a king?

yes or no.

he isn't...your tangents are unfounded....
 

jerra b » 16 Jun 2025, 2:21 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2025, 2:21 pm

nixon did not get absolute privelege----------------------

. And when a subpoena issued to President Richard Nixon, the Court rejected his claim of “absolute privilege.”

What is the separation between executive privilege and absolute privilege besides your adopted social interpretation to create false flag issues within every lifetime living equally eternally separated as their living biological position inhabiting space daily here your intellectual mind screwed up life since dawn of civilization.

What is the side of the rotating planet between prime meridian and international dateline on a map that marks event horizons noon and midnight opposite sides of the planet each rotation dawn to dusk all 360 degrees of rotation 365.2422 days a year, every revolution facts define relative time 3 years of 52 weeks has 365 and every 4th year has 366.

then there is that only 2 days a year have equal daylight hours between every longitude measuring geography in this atmosphere rotating longitudes passing by the 4 corners of the day creating 8 seasonal shifts a year with only 4 seasons not happening in the same rotation above and below the equator.

then there are the other facts that 88% of global population lives north of the equator as the am side of the planet is located longitudes 181-360 by the Greenwich Prime meridian index. has 82% of the human population with the other 18% in the western hemisphere.

jerrab » 15 Jun 2025, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2025, 2:45 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.

my other thread started in june