There Is No President Who Is Righteous, No, Not One

Michie said:

A government built on the assumption of its leader’s good character is a government badly built.

The Supreme Court’s Monday ruling on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution did not offer boundless endorsement of the executive officeholder’s prerogative to do whatever he wants without fear of consequence.

But it came far too close, holding that the Constitution “entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” He is further “entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” the court’s majority continued, though there’s “no immunity for unofficial acts.”

Exactly where our justice system will draw the line between official and unofficial remains to be seen. It’s still possible that the acts alleged here—former president Donald Trump’s attempted interference with the 2020 election—may be deemed unofficial, permitting his prosecution to move forward. This may be less a victory for Trump than he has claimed.

But set aside Trump and the official-unofficial distinction to think about this ruling’s larger implications. The president’s constitutional duties, as Chief Justice John Roberts’s decision observed, “are of ‘unrivaled gravity and breadth.’” Bracketing off unofficial acts is a good start, but it is only that.

And while stable governance may require us to protect a sitting president from prosecution so that, as the court said, he can do “his constitutional duties without undue caution,” extending that protection for the rest of his life is not only excessive but wildly risky. It says we must ultimately depend on nothing but presidential character for good governance in many important matters. It says we should cross our fingers and hope the most powerful man on earth decides to behave himself.

I am not a constitutional scholar, and I can’t confidently assess the alarming claims in Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. But I don’t think such expertise is necessary to see the basic problem here. You simply need to know what people are like. You simply need to know about the Fall. You simply need to know, as the King James Version of my childhood put it, that there “is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10), that our hearts are prone to be “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9).

Continued below.

There Is No President Who Is Righteous, No, Not One - Christianity Today

A government built on the assumption of its leader’s good character is a government badly built.

www.christianitytoday.com

Click to expand...

If presidents now have immunity, could that mean that Joe Biden could command his secret service to take out Donald Trump, hypothetically speaking? Also, that means presidents in general could take out their rivals with little to no consequences.


Could Biden take Trump out:

AlexB23 said:

If presidents now have immunity, could that mean that Joe Biden could command his secret service to take out Donald Trump, hypothetically speaking? Also, that means presidents in general could take out their rivals with little to no consequences.


Could Biden take Trump out:

What is presidential immunity? The get out of jail free card Biden could use to assassinate Trump

The Supreme Court rules Donald Trump has partial immunity from criminal charges under his role as former president

www.telegraph.co.uk

Click to expand...

The SCOTUS did not say, or imply, in the majority decision about Presidential immunity that a president would be allowed to order the assassination of his political opponents. The stuff that Justice Sotomayor wrote in her minority opinion is, in my opinion, very ridiculous.

Vambram said:

The SCOTUS did not say, or imply, in the majority decision about Presidential immunity that a president would be allowed to order the assassination of his political opponents. The stuff that Justice Sotomayor wrote in her minority opinion is, in my opinion, very ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I kinda agree with you, as the SCOTUS did not mention anything about taking anyone out either. We will have to wait and see what happens over the next few months, as I dislike speculating things cos of the two verses below. I will keep my eye out for things between now and November, and will be checking both centrist, left and right news outlets, as well as overseas outlets for the scoop on what is happening. Man, I wish we could wind the clock back 50 years when politics was a little bit simpler, and both parties seemed to be a bit more level headed.

Direct from SCOTUS: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

James 4:13-15 (NKJV): "Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit”; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that."

Proverbs 27:1 (NKJV): "Do not boast about tomorrow, For you do not know what a day may bring forth."

These passages relate to speculation and making predictions or bets on the outcome of a scenario in that they remind us of the importance of trusting in God's will and recognizing the limitations of human knowledge and ability to predict what is to come. As Christians, we are called to live in obedience to God's commands and to trust in His providence, rather than relying on our own plans or assumptions about the future.

Vambram said:

The SCOTUS did not say, or imply, in the majority decision about Presidential immunity that a president would be allowed to order the assassination of his political opponents. The stuff that Justice Sotomayor wrote in her minority opinion is, in my opinion, very ridiculous.

Click to expand...

It boils down to what an "official duty" is. For instance, since the President is Commander in Chief, giving orders to the military is clearly an official duty, and it's easy to argue that it doesn't matter what the order actually is.

Arcangl86 said:

It boils down to what an "official duty" is. For instance, since the President is Commander in Chief, giving orders to the military is clearly an official duty, and it's easy to argue that it doesn't matter what the order actually is.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. In the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, soldiers and members of the military are clearly taught that it is illegal to obey unlawful orders.

Vambram said:

That is incorrect. In the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, soldiers and members of the military are clearly taught that it is illegal to obey unlawful orders.

Click to expand...

Ooh, I found the document. It mentions a few times about how it is illegal to obey unlawful orders.

Uniformed Code of Military Justice document (2019 revision)

AlexB23 said:

Ooh, I found the document. It mentions a few times about how it is illegal to obey unlawful orders.

Uniformed Code of Military Justice document (2019 revision)

https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/UCMJ%20-%2020December2019.pdf

Click to expand...

thank you

Vambram said:

thank you

Click to expand...

You are welcome, brother. These documents are important for all of us. I am not a fan of these two candidates, but we must treat both of them fairly when it comes to pointing out fallacies, strengths and weaknesses in both, so that is why documents direct from the source are important.

Vambram said:

That is incorrect. In the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, soldiers and members of the military are clearly taught that it is illegal to obey unlawful orders.

Click to expand...

Yes, and anybody following those orders will be court-martialed. However under the new legal standard SCOTUS just revealed, the President will be protected from criminal accountability for giving that order. And since the President has the power to pardon for any federal crime, including the UCMJ, well, you see the issue here.

Arcangl86 said:

Yes, and anybody following those orders will be court-martialed. However under the new legal standard SCOTUS just revealed, the President will be protected from criminal accountability for giving that order. And since the President has the power to pardon for any federal crime, including the UCMJ, well, you see the issue here.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, it looks like to me that you are believing in a conspiracy theory.

Vambram said:

In my opinion, it looks like to me that you are believing in a conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

Note, I never said I believed this has ever happened, or would. But now there is a distinct legal possibility that it could and that's on SCOTUS.

Arcangl86 said:

Yes, and anybody following those orders will be court-martialed. However under the new legal standard SCOTUS just revealed, the President will be protected from criminal accountability for giving that order. And since the President has the power to pardon for any federal crime, including the UCMJ, well, you see the issue here.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. According to the Court ruling, the order must still be within Constitutional boundaries. That has always been the case. The Constitution has always been the bottom line: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic...."

In the last few days of the Nixon Administration, I was on the headquarters staff of the Strategic Air Command. We got a sotto voce sub rosa warning from Air Staff in the Pentagon to ignore any "unusual" orders that might come directly from the White House and wait for clarification from Air Staff before taking any action.

RDKirk said:

Not necessarily. According to the Court ruling, the order must still be within Constitutional boundaries. That has always been the case. The Constitution has always been the bottom line: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic...."

In the last few days of the Nixon Administration, I was on the headquarters staff of the Strategic Air Command. We got a sotto voce sub rosa warning from Air Staff in the Pentagon to ignore any "unusual" orders that might come directly from the White House and wait for clarification from Air Staff before taking any action.

Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not saying that the orders themselves wouldn't be illegal and thus worthy of a court martial. However the President has the right to pardon any crime, so the President can issue an order he knows is illegal and pardon those who follow it, and then he or herself is not then able to be held accountable.

Michie said:

And while stable governance may require us to protect a sitting president from prosecution so that, as the court said, he can do “his constitutional duties without undue caution,” extending that protection for the rest of his life is not only excessive but wildly risky. It says we must ultimately depend on nothing but presidential character for good governance in many important matters. It says we should cross our fingers and hope the most powerful man on earth decides to behave himself.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this viewpoint.

Wild scenarios of presidents assassinating political rivals notwithstanding, let's look at three real cases:

Truman's ordering the use of nuclear weapons in Japan during WWII, Bill Clinton's order to use Tomahawk missiles on a location believed to be a meeting by Osama bin Laden, and George W. Bush's order to execute the Iraq War.

None of those acts face any substantive argument of being "official" and Constitutionally legal acts by those presidents. Yet, do we want presidents to curtail their decisions based on how they will be judged by changing morality or information unknown to them at the time or re-interpreted long after their presidencies?

I think if the act can be determined "official" and Constitutionally legal while the president was in office, then, yes, he should remain immune from prosecution for the rest of his life.

Edit: That is something that was supposedly long understood in American jurisprudence: No ex post facto judgments.

Arcangl86 said:

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not saying that the orders themselves wouldn't be illegal and thus worthy of a court martial. However the President has the right to pardon any crime, so the President can issue an order he knows is illegal and pardon those who follow it, and then he or herself is not then able to be held accountable.

Click to expand...

The Court ruling still requires those acts to be both official and Constitutionally legal. The Executive Branch cannot disregard Congressional legislation (that's been through the Supreme Court).

Of those three scenarios I mentioned, the presidents were operating within Congressional sanction. There is Congressional legislation that would prevent political assassinations.

RileyG said:

No. They cannot break the law in that regard, as far as I understand.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Anyways, I am exiting this thread, cos I have to fight some woke nonsense in my Olympics thread. God bless, brother.

Not sure any would like to read this but it's a humor piece I did numbers of years ago when Trump was running against Hillary. But this is a story that took place in a different Galaxy then our own where there was a Donald and a Hillary both running for President of their great country. The problem with these two is they were just too nice to each other all the time in words they'd say about each other in the press and in debates. You might find it interesting.

In A Galaxy Far Away but somewhat similar to our own there were two politicians running against each other for the presidency of a great land...their names? Hillary and Donald. Hillary was the leader of the Republicans.....Donald was that of the Democrats. Yes I know....a reversal of what we know. A nation on this world was split with an extremely difficult choice for the reason their favor-ability numbers were both so high. The land had an incredibly high regard for both . Dear Lady Hillary had the background of being the top CEO of a internet security company which produced software ensuring the web sites of governments or businesses could never be compromised or hacked and she provided special training herself for their clients on proper protocols in maintaining a secure system.

She was highly commended as well for choosing to run her political campaign spending the least amount possible but sending much of her excess money to charities that help the poor. She chose as well to use free media feeling she was setting an example of prudence in how she'd likewise use the tax dollars if elected as sparingly as possible. Her political opponent who was commonly referred to as "The Donald" had built a financial empire as a motivational speaker, having penned such writings as "The Fair Deal" and " I've Got Lots of Friends and You Can Too!"

He served as well as top CEO of "The Better Business Bureau" ensuring consumers would at all times be treated in a right and fair manner. Such was the the tough choice that the electorate had to face.....which one of these super great prospects would win the Presidency? Media outlets were extremely troubled. When the national television debates transpired how possibly could they have a sense of drama? Both of them were categorized as being just too nice! Without a certain measure of excitement or controversy the fear was that viewers would consider it a bore... thus turning it off. Surely the ratings would tank!

"The Donald" had already described Hillary as one of the most HONEST people he had ever known and Hillary as well had nothing but the best to say about him. How therefore could Honest Hillary and True Blue Donald ever be interesting to watch? Well the LIVE, National Wide debates began and yes their policies were different but as expected they treated each other with exceptional respect never interrupting each other and even acknowledging the others arguments were valid.

Days later they came out with a joint statement that they were blending their policies into one much to the abhorrence of both of their respective parties. This did not go unanswered by the establishment of both the Dems and Repubs....the Repubs immediately ousted Hillary and the Dems the Donald by the putting in of new rules. That spurred both of them to jointly go ahead with an independent bid for the White House with both running together. Gentleman Donald insisted that Honest Hillary serve as the top of the ticket for the first term and he'd take the second.

Ladies before Gentlemen was Donald's stalwart position.Their political opponents sought to marginalize them being too whitey two shoes; weak because of their non-aggressive style. Much to their surprise however the party of get along, Hillary and Donald WON! They took a second term as well winning well over 70% of the vote! It goes without saying they became the most beloved political figures of the land and even their world. There became no bounds as to the honors bestowed upon each but I'll mention here at least two. A year of so after their presidencies a sculptor by the name of Leonardo working with the State of North Dakota (not South mind you) came up with a fitting way to honor them both.

The idea was (which indeed was carried out) was to sculpt both of their facial images in the side of a hill. They'd also add the bust of two other beloved Presidents as well....Jim Carter and Rich Nixon. It was thought all four of them deserved a larger than life persona to live on for perpetual generations. And so it was done.


The name of the Hill....Mount Rushless which many in the land came to refer it as "The Hill" giving further praise to Hillary. An even more distinguished honor was to have the National Space Agency make an announcement they were going to have both Hillary's and Donald's pictures and list of their achievements, including other things from the world as well contained in a time capsule on board an unmanned space probe to be sent out into the far reaches of space. It was decided the probes course would be in the direction of a star cluster known as "The Way Which Looks Milky". Telescopes had discovered in that sector a small blue/green planet encircling a small star....a place where it looks like intelligent life might someday develop or perhaps at least a measure of such.

By sending out the best things the world had produced the feeling was it might serve to be an inspiration for similar Donalds and Hillarys to arise across the Universe! Surely these two embodied the very definition of the terms exceptional and great! This led to a line spoken by many that Donald and Hillary were going to BOLDLY GO where no politicians have gone before! This was the dream of this world to take this message across the galaxy!

It goes without saying however the world which had the appearance of the blue and green (which those who live there refer to as Earth) when they found the probe and read it's contents the conclusion was made a Donald/Hillary coming together might not universally be a good thing. They sent back the probe in the direction from whence it came with the inscription placed upon it....TO EACH HIS OWN! One thing that can be agreed regardless of what universe or galaxy they find themselves in...the Donald's and the Hillary's BOLDLY GO where none have gone before!