Thomas Neuberger. Originally published on God’s Spies
“When the president does that, it means it’s not illegal.”
“Richard Nixon.”
I recently wrote an unpublished work so far. The state was transformed into American kingship by both corrupt political parties. I have written an ongoing series (The Fourth American Constitution) that argues exactly that.
The changes are complete. This is the last piece. Yes, you need to sort the cases in the corners. For example, if it rarely occurs in practice – for example, could a president commit rape in the defense of the country? However, the territory has already been marked, defined and investigated. Next is the unstoppable reconstruction.
Trump v. We
To defend that point, I’m Trump v. I want to go back to our verdict. This is a solidifying what the previous administration dealt with, and the president has a near-obvious power.
This is not a new idea. It’s just an expanded one. The growth of the Imperial President, which took off in the second and third place in the 20th century, resumed its final form on the 21st. Legalizing torture in a self-declared “time of war” as Bush Cheney expanded the president’s Congressional control, and with the help of Obama. The table was set for Trump and the court’s Trump V. US decision, as Obama effectively adopted the president’s right to kill American citizens and failed to roll back a powerback that envisaged his Power Bush Cheney.
According to the Brookings Institute, one of the implications of this new decision is that the president’s immunity is “absolute in respect of the president’s specialization under Article II and II of the President.” As I wrote in “Our Lawless Elite,” this means that the president has the right to break the law every time he acts as president.
“When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
Am I too extreme? Slate says no:
For example, consider how Trump analyzed interference with the Justice Department after the 2020 election. The president and his allies have allowed agencies to launch criminal investigations into the voting procedures for the major swings carried by Joe Biden. Under this plan, the DOJ tends to reveal election fraud in these states, urging their Congress to create an “alternative slate” of electors who will cast a custodial vote for the loser candidate Trump. When Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen refused to go with the plan, Trump threatened to fire him. Smith’s indictment focused on the plan and supported Enrange in an astonishing plot to block the president from acquiring Congress’ election.
The crime is therefore an “illegal conspiracy” to overturn the parliamentary certification of the president’s own election. illegal? Roberts says no.
Roberts determined that Trump’s demands for false investigations are constitutionally protected. why? He wrote for the court, and therefore the president “has exclusive authority over the investigation and prosecutorial functions of the Department of Justice and its officials.”
Roberts also says this (Trump v Us, p. 5): “Administrative agencies have exclusive autonomy and absolute discreetness.
The president cannot be restricted by Congress or courts.
Roberts Real means that when the President meets his Article II duties, when he means what he does, he will never be able to take classes about it. So far. Never once.
In other words, a combination of the court’s agreement with the “unified administration” view that the president, not Congress, owns the executive branch, and the court’s agreement to make him prefer the law, along with the president’s immunity when he plays the role of King Alter II.
Roberts:
For lactators [i.e., when the presidential act stems from the Constitution]the president’s authority is a substate that it is “decisive and unstable.” If the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act and the Court cannot examine the President’s actions. Therefore, Congressional actions — certain or commonly applied actions targeting the President — may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. The courts cannot also award criminal prosecutions to bring such presidential cases. The court therefore concludes that the president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within the exclusive territory of the constitutional authority.
Not only this ruling, but also the prosecution of all executive agencies is completely possible, while the prosecution of all enforcement agencies is also possible. Also slate:
Georgetown Law’s Marty Raderman immediately flagged the retention as a “deep” shift in the law. This is something that is “weaponized” by “bold administrative lawyers and officials.” He also said the new rules are not limited to the Department of Justice, but appear to apply to all federal agencies. Roberts essentially tells Congress may no longer ban the president from corrupting these institutions by opening fraudulent research and instructing the public to lie. In other words, Lederman is an “extraordinary and radical proposition” that is a “loaded gun that can be easily swinged by a cruel president to easily shoot down the rule of law.
“Uncruel President”
The important phrase in that last passage is “Uncrusted President.” As president, Bush II legalized torture by administrative agencies, and President Obama confirmed his power by promoting Bush. As president, Obama killed Americans, and Neisher Trump and Biden rolled that example. And of course, both parties are seeking “incredible security.”
All of these actions, as well as the AE, can be used to uncruelly presidents. The problem is that most presidents are uncruel. Certainly all concepts are. What did our elite think would happen – do you think only angels would gain power? Or have they built what the elite wanted all along? The fall of the New Deal nation. Under that, did many HA voices grow relatively strong and have built rules for reestablishing money foils?
The latter must be estimated. When a person tries to achieve a goal, we must assume that he wants it.
So, what do we do?
Next Steps
The focus on “what to do next” is the first in our thinking. This means testing, improving and reviewing ideas. The first offers some ideas:
It’s important to accept that we don’t accept where we are. The wealth and power of the middle class in the 1950s and 1960s – at least compared to past years in our country – is forever gone. He was attacked by all the regimes ever since from Reagan, and it won’t come back. The Democratic Party of the People provides little protection, by its total. At best they slow down the decline and at work where they agree. The solution comes from an external regular channel, if you have one como.
(3) will be expanded later. Many paths come to mind, from national plots for the stress of climate change (which could be good) to something that looks like a slow-moving civil rebellion or general strike.
I say for free that at least one of them will happen – I don’t know which will come first, or who is ready when the time comes, or who will mobilize towards the next stage.
The “ready” part is important. A little more.
