Trump Is Immune
yt.artemislena.eu
This is one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever. 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: https://legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets. 🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! https://legaleagle.link/watchnebula 👔 Suits by Indochino! https://legaleagle.link/indochino GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME! ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show MY COURSES ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! https://legaleagle.link/lawguide Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! https://legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Twitter: https://legaleagle.link/twitter Facebook: https://legaleagle.link/facebook Tik Tok: https://legaleagle.link/tiktok Instagram: https://legaleagle.link/instagram Reddit: https://legaleagle.link/reddit Podcast: https://legaleagle.link/podcast OnlyFans https://legaleagle.link/onlyfans Patreon https://legaleagle.link/patreon BUSINESS INQUIRIES ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015). Special thanks: Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives Music provided by Epidemic Sound Short links by pixelme.me (https://pxle.me/eagle) Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
    • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
      321·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, we now have the groundwork for anyone, regardless of party, to act with complete impunity at the very highest level. There is no way that doesn’t backfire spectacularly at some point.

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        318·
        4 months ago

        There has been precedent for this for a long time. It was just never tested at the supreme court level. If you time travel back 10 years and ask a constitutional law expert whether or not the president has immunity, they would have answered “Probably, but it’s never been tested. But we all assume the president has immunity while performing the duties of the office”.

        All that’s happened here is that something people assumed would hold up in court has now held up in court.

        The checks and balances here are supposed to be that if you don’t like the crimes a president commits while in office, you don’t vote for them again.

        • voracitude@lemmy.world
          20·
          4 months ago

          Oh yeah? What’s one situation in which the President would have to break the law to perform their duties? The President is the Chief Executive, literally part of the job is to preserve and uphold the law of the land, not to break it.

          You’re absolutely wrong about the check/balance being the ballot box. The checks and balances are set up throughout the Constitution explicitly:

          1. Article I (Legislative Branch):

            • Congress can pass laws, but the President can veto them (Section 7).
            • Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote (Section 7).
            • The Senate approves presidential appointments and treaties (Section 2).

          2. Article II (Executive Branch):

            • The President executes laws but needs Senate approval for treaties and appointments (Section 2).
            • The President can be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate (Section 4).

          3. Article III (Judicial Branch):

            • The courts can declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional (judicial review, established by Marbury v. Madison).

          Finally, the constitution makes it perfectly clear that officers of the USA are still subject to criminal laws outside of impeachment:

          Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: “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.”

          Nobody is above the law. Until now, it seems, but not because that’s the way it’s meant to be.

          • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
            115·
            4 months ago

            You’re right that another of the checks on presidential immunity is impeachment. But you’re wrong that the president is expected to abide by the laws of the land. There has always been an understanding that the office of the president is above those laws (and the checks and balances are there if anyone has a problem with the way the president exercises that privilege). This is where presidential pardons come from. The president can select anyone who is so much as suspected with any crime and grant them blanket immunity, whether or not they actually are guilty of anything. They also have the authority to alter the rules temporarily via executive orders.

            • voracitude@lemmy.world
              13·
              4 months ago

              Sorry, you’re wrong. The Constitution gives the president the power of pardon:

              Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

              “The President shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

              And again, the Constitution holds that all officers (of which the President is one) are subject to the law:

              Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

              “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.”

              It’s right there in black and white. Go check any true and faithful copy you like.

              • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
                15·
                4 months ago

                I’m aware of the text. I’m also aware of how it’s been interpreted by courts. Those are two very different things.

                • voracitude@lemmy.world
                  6·
                  4 months ago

                  If you’re aware of the text then why’d you claim the courts’ interpretation gave the President the power of pardon? If you’re aware of the text, why do you consider any interpretation except the obvious one as correct? If you’re aware of the text, why’d you say

                  There has always been an understanding that the office of the president is above those laws

                  Instead of citing any specific thing? I’ll tell you why on that last one: it’s because it’s never been tested, so it hasn’t been interpreted this way before, and this SCOTUS is the only court in the history of the country that would declare an intepretation exactly opposite of what the Constitution says (disagree? Find another instance of it, under another SCOTUS, to prove me wrong).

                  You are right that

                  They also have the authority to alter the rules temporarily via executive orders.

                  But this is yet another reason the President should never have reason to outright break the law. There is no reason the President should ever have to break the law, and I will hold that position until such time as I get a satisfactory retort otherwise.

                  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
                    15·
                    4 months ago

                    Yeah sorry I don’t have a citation handy but I remember hearing interviews with constitutional law experts and scholars in the early days of the Trump presidency that are basically verbatim what I said in my first comment here: “It’s never been tested, but everyone assumes that if a case comes before Scotus, they will rule that the president is immune while carrying out the duties of the office”. All that’s happened recently is Scotus confirmed this assumption. I’m not saying it’s a good thing. Just that it is what most constitutional scholars thought would be the ruling.

                    It’s why most of the court cases he was battling during his presidency were for things unrelated to his presidency, like his Trump university scam or the Mar A Lago stuff.

        • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
          61·
          4 months ago

          The checks and balances here are supposed to be that if you don’t like the crimes a president commits while in office, you don’t vote for them again.

          If you’re still allowed to vote after that president does what he does.

          • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
            2·
            4 months ago

            I’m not sure what you’re suggesting, but any change to who’s allowed to vote would require a constitutional amendment, which invalidates the point I am making.