₦airaland Forum

Makunahatata:
sing ur own let's see...oh u can't afford a studio session sef

He does not have to sing to like or dislike something.

Is ogechi his side chick?

ijebosb:
Lol.

Budatuum - Has never lived in the US, has never studied US Government nor opened up a constitutional law book.
Basilico - Has never lived in the US, has never studied US Government nor opened up a constitutional law book.
Bemeruca - Has never lived in the US, has never studied US Government nor opened up a constitutional law book.

Yes, very wise informed people about the US Constitution. Budatuum up until yesterday evening didn't really understand impeachment and still doesn't understand the immunity this ruling grants. Somehow thinks that even if something is an official act, Congress can still have the Justice dept. indict and convict the President after impeachment despite this ruling.

Yet the person you are responding to still does not agree with you. So living in the US is not a factor even as thats the case for me.

Budaatum already told you some people who live in the US, born and raised there has little knowledge about their country. You can go to YouTube and see for yourself. I can bet you AOC cannot name 15 states in the United States.

ijebosb:
Your understanding of act is limited in terms of the legal sense. You are given immunity for all consequences surrounding your official act. It's a broad immunity or else it wouldn't be immunity. Similar to the immunity Congresspeople have in Congress. A Congressperson can literally read a classified document on the House floor that has nothing to do with any bill being proposed and there would be nothing the government could do as the Speech and Debate clause is that broad.

You are arguing the concept of immunity. Do a study on the concept and you'll understand where you are going astray and the purpose.

It is not an official act to kill your wife even if you send the DOJ to do it or you do it in the white house.

Why are you still arguing?

The immunity that is granted by the Speech or Debate Clause is intended to protect legislative process, not to protec members from accountability for criminal acts. If a member of Congress engage in illegal activities; let's say they sell the classified document to Russia, they could be prosecuted and face serious legal consequences.

ono:
Very very interesting read.


https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/02/clarence-thomas-questions-whether-jack-smiths-appointment-is-even-constitutional/

yeah, I saw this.

ijebosb:
You still don't understand it.
The constitution gives the POTUS the Power to control the military.
What he does with it is his motivation.
Per Roberts you can't question motivation with a Constitutional Power.
Repeat that slowly. And think about each section of it slowly.

You can lead a horse to the water, but can't make him drink.
Get off of Fox News and the like. Their aim is to purposefully confuse. If you keep listening to them, you'll never understand it.

Driver's License gives you the power to drive your car on public roads but it does not give you the power to drive in opposite directions or break the rules of the road.

ijebosb:
Jokes amongst you Basilico and Bemeruca? Lol.
Fam, you are the sum of your environment.
Get a better environment and you'd focus more on sharpening your mind instead of silly insults.

And you don't want to be arguing who is objectively more knowledgeable about this stuff.

where is the insult?
are you taking drugs?

raumdeuter:
Constitutional powers are defined in the constitution. Does the constitution allows the POTUS to order military to kill everyone?

The Constitution provides checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. For instance, the President cannot unilaterally declare war; that power is vested in Congress. The President is subject to U.S. laws, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military to enforce domestic laws without explicit congressional authorization.

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law that was signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. It limits the powers of the federal government in using military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. Essentially, the Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorized by law. This tradition reflects the belief that military interference in civilian affairs poses a threat to democracy and personal liberty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained

ijebosb:
The President via 'Article II, Section 2, Clause 1' has the Core Constitutional Power to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. Now Roberts in this Ruling says that when using that Constitutional Authority, POTUS has absolute immunity (section of quote you thought was so important). So any time POTUS uses that power to command the Army of Navy, POTUS has absolute immunity.
Now imagine POTUS knows that a political opponent is in a particular building overseas. POTUS intends to kill that opponent. POTUS tells Seal team Six that there is a terrorist in that building and to drone fire that building. They do. Opponent killed.
By this ruling, POTUS was using one of their Core Constitutional authorities. So POTUS is immune. Even more so, per this ruling, no one can even question the motivation of why POTUS wanted to drone that building in the first place. Bold action indeed. lol.

constitutional power does not mean go and kill everyone or order the military to kill everyone. the constitution dors not allow that

ijebosb:
You tell me.
Has anything I've posted on this topic been wrong? Point to it.
In relation to you, because ur an idiot.
Otherwise, ask God why he gave me that ability to quickly break down and understand concepts others like u seem to struggle with.

Ur focus should be why you have a hard time understanding not so complex things and feel the need to lie often.

Many, like saying the president can order his boys to kill his political opponent and be immune even if the Constitution does not allow that.

ijebosb:
Can I be honest. I don't think you understand any of this enough to even begin to discuss it. You spent the first half of the day arguing that somehow a Potus's motivitation was relevant in deciding whether an act was official. It isnt and you didnt stop making the argument until I showed you Robert's exact words from the ruling saying the opposite. Now you want to act like an expert again?

I'm still not sure what point you think u are making. I'm sure you're not sure either. But for some reason you want to interject.

I've already schooled you once today. It was Budatuums turn. I generally have patience for one schooling per person per day. You can come back tomm. if you want to get schooled again.

why is it that it is only you that understand?
budaatum oya enrol on this tuition-free institution. come and learn

These same people will be like, trumps own supreme Court ruled against him or won't take election case. Then when a ruling like this happens they remind us it is trumps supreme Court again.

raumdeuter:
Let me add some what if scenarios too

What if President Biden snatch someones wife
What if he eats Banga and fufu in oval office
What if he declares Nigeria the winner of the next world cup

These are the what ifs that SCOTUS told you to go sort out at the lower courts, when you cannot, bring specific cases to them

All the things they say the president can get away with, there is a constitution that says otherwise

raumdeuter:
Since the rule was made today

I expect Trump to declare himself president tomorrow and Biden to announce he has won the November election since that's what they claim the scotus said

Not what they are saying since he is not holding the office at the moment.

ijebosb:
It was an example.
I think you are having a hard time grasping the concept of immunity, or official acts or presidential core powers.
If they are immune, they can be impeached but not prosecuted by ANYONE, no matter who asks.
Trump tried to steal an election and almost directed a coup. He is close to winning the Presidency.
You cultural understanding of what is going on in the US is lacking.

I told you it was a bad example.

budaatum:
Stop right there! Lol!

Where does his "perfuming a Constitutional defined power, driving" include "kill someone"?

Dude please, you live in America, and you should know that even if a president is not charged in court for killing someone because of the shirt they wear, Congress may decide to impeach that president and ask for their prosecution. And even if Congress don't, you still have the jury of We The People who may decide to find that president guilty and punish all those Congress members for not performing their duty of protecting the Constitution of the Unite State of America.

Or do you think a party not winning an election for a generation would not be a deterrent or punishment enough?

Or is it that you think the voters in America wouldn't mind electing presidents who kill people for the shirts they wear?

The sky is falling.

They make up shit as they go

budaatum:
Sorry, but this is not true.

The president does not decide what official acts are. The Constitution of the United States of America does, and it clearly states when a president shall leave office.

I already told them that but tds coupled with falling sky will not allow them accept fact.

basilico:
Judges have immunity for their decisions. The president should have some too, no?

Funniest part is one partisan ewu will come and tell the president what is official and what is not in a office he has never held.

It's like going into a company and telling them manager that his use or official vehicles to attend meetings is not official use of company's assets

ijebosb:
That's a bad understanding of the Constitutional Powers and Presidential Duties.
Ex. The Constitution gives the President control over the military. By this ruling the motivations of he uses it can't be questioned.
If he wants to use his war powers to drone someone. Ey. That's his right. Lol
Read the ruling.

The constitution and the system does not allow trump to misuse the military.

ijebosb:
The founders of the US, debated this. They wrote Congressional immunity into the Constitution but did not right in Presidential immunity. Purposefully. The country was founded on the ideal that no man is above the law. We have no Kings. The Supreme Court just changed that.

You should find a constitutional lawyer you respect and read some of their opinions on this.

So if Biden kills his wife he won't be charged for that?
The 5th amendment does not allow that.

budaatum:
No, I don't think the dissenters would dissent if they were not suffering from TDS. And I in fact find it shameful that Sotomayor would say what was said below. Its what I'd expect from a biased left wing non-maga Supreme Court Judge Mrs Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, since the ruling does not place any president above the law.

Stuff like this is what is making people say this.

Since the president is bound by the A5th and A14th does not allow the president to point and kill whoever he does not like.

budaatum:
The dumpers are gaslighting as usual, and severe TDS is making some fall for their gas.

The Supreme Court has simply ruled that the District Court separate the president's official acts, duties which are defined by the Constitution and are immune, from the unofficial unconstitutional acts which are not.

But some are reading this as if dump can presidentially go shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Lol. Yet, they likely wouldn't claim it gives Biden that same right.

The sky is falling.

basilico:
Childish reasoning. Is there a clause in the constitution of your country that says except Trump

This is the sky is falling mentality

They claim he can do this and that. Show them the system does not allow that, they will say you don't understand and make up another scenario.

It only negates their claim of Trump being a dictator. While will he be asking someone to find votes which is not illegal instead of him to just use the military and stay in power.

all he has to say is 10% for the big guy

ijebosb:
This is a good comment. The Dems who are in power are not cheering this ruling. But the Trumpers are. This says everything about the two parties and where conservatism under Republicans has moved to.

If you put a republican or MAGA in jail for breathing the dems will. Cheer.

ijebosb:
You missed the point.
If they say they won't leave due to an official act. Who forces them out?
In fact if thy use their Core Constitutional power of the military to start a coup. Who forces them out?
And if somehow enough people do decide to force them out, they just get to go home and chill out because they can't be prosecuted because they are immune.
Lol

Thank God the American military does not operate that way. The military can reject orders to kill their own people.

ijebosb:
You missed the point.
If they say they won't leave due to an official act. Who forces them out?
In fact if thy use their Core Constitutional power of the military to start a coup. Who forces them out?

The constitution forces them out... The government forces them out.

This immunity is about prosecution based on actions not holding power. They can force you out but do you go to jail after they do?

That's what immunity is about. All this he can kill someone with DOJ and call it official. It depends on the why and who he kills. The court will decide that. That's what raumdeuter is trying to say I think.

happney65:
And which is?

A20S1
The terms of VP and presido ends at noon 20th January

happney65:
My brother,you still haven't answered this question.

If as president, you decide not to leave power and cite it as official isn't it not official and you are within your rights not to leave power because IMMUNITY covers you

The constitution already answered.

ijebosb:
Let me try this again,
Say a POTUS's official act is driving a car.
He says in a meeting with a DOJ official he intends to drive his car and kill Biden.
He then drives his Car and kills Biden.
He is immune. In fact they can't even question the discussion he had with the DOJ.
Doesn't matter the reason he chose to kill Biden, as long as he was performing his official act he is immune.
That is my reading of it.

raumdeuter:
I dont know if Trump will be president or not but screaming about this very straight forward and common sense ruling is ridiculous

all these people were nowhere to be found when Obama was doing his things.

raumdeuter:
All these are just to induce panic. She can add all the millions of scenarios to it, It doesnt change anything

Sotomayor should tell us what her ruling should be
Current ruling states its on a case by case, If she wants a blanket rule let her say which of the 2 options is she with
Is it

1. President does not have immunity from ALL acts
or
2. President does have immunity from ALL acts

See scenario.

basilico:
How did the case get there to SCOTUS
Judge Chutkan was appointed by Obama.
3 DC Appeallate judges ruled that Trump has no immunity. One appointed by GW Bush, the other two by Biden
SCOTUS 3 dissenters are all liberals appointed by democrat presidents
Nothing to see here folks

Who comes off worse. Chutkan should have thrown out the case against Trump or at least determine what was personal or official.

In the other ruling by SCOTUS on Friday the charge of obstruction against official proceedings was remanded to lower courts to properly define the congressional law that was enacted after the Enron case where auditors destroyed evidence. Judge Chutkan should have known that, but she proceeded with the trial preparation.

Let them cry. Trump will be the president. All their plot against him seem to be failing because of the few systems that still cares about the constitution