₦airaland Forum

raumdeuter:
Words cant educate you, writings cant, Lets try pictures.

As I said.

ijebosb:
What point are you trying to make. Write it in a coherent sentence. I guarantee you, if you can write it, it won't be any relevant point.

Looks like you couldn't.
Well done. slow clap..

budaatum:
I have given you the Biden I want to give you. If that's not good enough for you buda lives.

Yeah, as I said,

Budatuum says he agress with Biden's perspective.
Biden's perspective aligns with IjeBos's perspective that we are in a Seminal moment in the US and agrees with Sotomayor's "With fear for our democracy,"

So Budatuum should agree with IjeBos's perspective that we are in a Seminal moment in the US and agrees with Sotomayor's "With fear for our democracy,"
But you don't. You believe Sotomayor was being apocalyptic. So you don't agree with Biden and you don't agree with me.

You get it now.
I honestly aren't sure you know what you believe outside of wanting to win your argument that this election isn't as a big deal as I've been trying to make it sound.

raumdeuter:
morron, the joke is on you

It's as if you think by including a screenshot and highlighting it, you've made a point.
I don't speak 'Stupid'.
What point are you trying to make. Write it in a coherent sentence. I guarantee you, if you can write it, it won't be any relevant point.

raumdeuter:
You have never been a judge all your life, not studied law nor been a SCOTUS yet faulting the judgment of the Justice Roberts and 5 others

You seem to be faulting the judgment of Roberts as well, because you were arguing the opposite of what they ruled as shown below. If it was so important to you that motivation was necessary to discern official acts, surely you disagree with the ruling now that you knew you were wrong.. lol. Yeah right. You're an idealoque, told what to believe by the likes of Fox News.

And FYI, 3 other SCOTUS justices faulted Justice Roberts as well. Those who understand the ruling, the historical context of why the founders didn't include Executive immunity into the constitution, would probably judge it as well.

You on the other hand, sit in your corner, eat your crayons and keep arguing facts that aren't in the ruling.

budaatum:
Yes, Ijebo, that same one where he is telling We The People what should be done to save America from dump.

Ok, still waiting for that link with someone who agrees with you on you interpretation of this Immunity ruling or your view of what is going on in America right now.

budaatum:
Go and listen to Biden's last speech. He is calling on We The People to dissent and pass judgement on dump.

You mean this one?
The one where Biden agreed with Sotomayer's dissent? The dissent you called apocalyptic?
The one where Biden sounds almost like me, warning about the path the Supreme Court had been on?
I told you to link me a commentary from someone you agree with that agrees with your perspective.
This isn't it.

With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all — for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.

This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States. The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.

This decision today has continued the Court’s attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights to taking away a woman’s right to choose to today’s decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation.

...

I concur with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent today. She — here’s what she said. She said, “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law. With fear for our democracy, I dissent, ” end of quote.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/01/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-supreme-courts-immunity-ruling/

budaatum:
And you are limiting yourself from recognising whom this supposed immune potus will presumably be immune from, and do not realise he may not be immune from the wrath of We The People.

In a sense, it's like what's happening with Roe v Wade. The Scotus said the people should decide and many people in many states are deciding to abort. Same as We the People will decide if they want an immune president come November or not.

Why don't you do this. Find me one political commentator you respect that shares your opinion.
Link their piece here.

budaatum:
You really are funny. Potus is obviously not going to be immune from the judgement of the supporters of the opponent he killed now, would he? And if those opponents manage to get some of his supporters to see as they see and become the majority, will we not not elect that person?

I have faith that We the People of the USA will continue to "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and that it is unacceptable for any potus to disendow anyone of their unalienable Rights of Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness just because you don't like the shirt they wear or even for no motive whatsoever. But if the USA has become so maga that they forgot this, then you all deserve the misery you get to be frank, and in heaps of spades too.

I hear you. Unfortonetely your perspective from across the Pond is not the perspective of concerned Americans here like Biden who said he agreed with Sotomayor's dissent. You seem to have a desire to believe it's not as bad as it is. Go on.

raumdeuter:
From Buda to bemu to basil have educated you on what the SCOTUS said which is plain for all to see. but you seem so clueless that you cant just understand simple explanations

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.

raumdeuter:
What a stupid conclusion

The constitution gives the POTUS right over the military
Does it give the POTUS right to order the military to go kill his wife?

The constitution gives the POTUS right to make budget and financial decisions for the country like grant and forgive loans
Does it gve the POTUS right to order the federal reserve to put the country money in his bank account.
Can Biden using POTUS orders forgive his own debt or grant himself loans from Federal purse?

I don't even know if you are pretending to be stuppidd or just plain stuppid

All this so beyond you.
Of course it is, I started this in high school in AP Government. Have you ever picked up a book on any of it?
Brovada doesn't make you smart, it just makes you sound even stupider when you are eventually proven wrong like below.

What is your goal here? To pretend you know something you have no clue about? To remain ignorant and by repeating ignorant shit cause other people to be ignorant as well? Or to learn and have insightful conversations.

You literally spent a morning lying that Roberts said the opposite of something that was clear based on the ruling. You kept arguing it until I proved you the idiot you to be. And instead of falling back, acknowledging you have 0 idea you what you were talking about, you puffed out your chest and kept on going to talk about more things you have no clue about.

Get lost you uneducated clown.

budaatum:
What he does with it is not his motivation!

If a president kills someone with the official military or a car he is officially driving because he does not like the shirt the person is wearing, as you presented, his motivation is the dislike for the shirt, which you are saying can't be questioned, while his unofficial act is the killing of the person, which is a crime that will be questioned and which he can be charged for.

Not being able to present the motivation of disliking a shirt before a court does create some difficulty, of course, especially if he claims it was official duty, but this ruling has simple made it such that a district judge must first rule if the killing is official or not, and if the judge rules unofficial, the charge goes ahead.

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.

HilcomTech:
The cloth is not fake and you know it
Ever since Wike destroyed the pathological liar called Obi de IP0B rep, many IP0B/0BIDIENTS have been attacking at the slightest excuse.

It may be real, I tailor my jacket sleeves as well.
But, why are you saying this with pride? Better for him that it is fake and he didn't spend much money on it, but then you'd wonder why he felt the need to buy it in the first place because of the label.

Imagine any other serious elected leader of a successful government wearing versace labels when their country is facing crippling inflation and crushing economic hardship.

It's nonsense.

raumdeuter:
School anyone? Can you school anyone here? You are the butt of jokes around here if you havent noticed

And of course I come bearing receipts of the last/recent time I schooled you on this very topic.
Be a man and admit you were wrong since you spent the better part of the day arguing it.

It's clear you don't understand the ruling (even arguing the opposite) and you are talking out your a$$.

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

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.

raumdeuter:
School anyone? Can you school anyone here? You are the butt of jokes around here if you havent noticed

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.

raumdeuter:
Why will someone highlight the first part of this quote and not the 2nd part which states the conditions and the most important part. Which of killing political opponents fall conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

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.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

raumdeuter:
Selective and mischievous

Why will someone highlight the first part of this quote and not the 2nd part which states the conditions and the most important part. Which of killing political opponents fall conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

Your argument is, I quoted a post, bolded only a section of that quote, that I thought was relevant, didn't bold the rest so that means I selectively edited it? Curious, did the part I bolded prevent you from reading the rest of the quote I posted? Lol.
Jesus.
Real talk, where did you go to College?

Stop it.
Budatuum incorrectly beleives/ed that a POTUS being impeached for official acts or core Constitutional Powers could still be indicted after impeachment.
That post was simply to show him/her that for core Constitutional Powers the immunity was so sacrosanct that it was absolute. So POTUS couldn't be indicted/charged even if Congress requested it after impeachment. Hence the highlighted section with the word "absolute" in it.
Maybe I have to give him a definition of absolute since he's still arguing.

I know you're determined to find something to prove me wrong after the many times I've schooled you. But this ain't it. In fact it makes you look unknowledgeable about this as what you are quoting is a top line summary or understanding of the ruling which everyone should have by now. I've moved on to deeper things.

budaatum:
The below is the conclusion of the post you selectively quoted:



And here is a further post by the same person where Secret Service is (use of) "official duty".

I selectively edited a post that I told you about and put "..." in to let you know I quoted particular sections relative to what we were talking about for brevity. Lol. Yeah, try again. Not my first rodeo with quotes and more than anyone here I make sure I put the link to whatever full article I quote from so people can see the quote in perspective if they choose.

And explain how what you quoted is relevant or enhances your argument in any way. More eyes will not be on it. The Supreme Court has final say, so they gave themselves the ability to determine what is official vs. unofficial re: what the lower courts say. I hope you understand what an appeal is. Lastly, the bar to get rid of the presumptive immunity is high and given that the courts can't look at motivations, makes it even harder. Again, you are at the beginning of your road to understanding. So spend your time understanding and less time reflexively arguing.

Re: the Secret Service. Why would I care what he posted about that. Secret Service may not be use of official duty as POTUS doesn't have the right to order them around and their use is of course not core constitutional powers. Who was even referring to that? THe Secret Service is not part of the military. You probably didn't understand that. The military though is part of the President's Core Constitutional Powers.

You're doing your ego and Nigerian thing again. Arguing shit you don't understand just because you don't want to be wrong that this is a seminal moment in the US. You have a bias/narrative and are trying to find facts that will fit it.

Even Biden who you said hit the right note, said he agreed with Sotomayor's apocalyptic dissent. Read it.

bemeruca:
why is it that it is only you that understand?

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.

raumdeuter:
The part in bold is the most important part of the statement which you mischievously left out

The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

Tell Justice Roberts you understand better than him

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.

raumdeuter:
The full sentence of PDPguy post is important not just half of it

What in your mind do you think the full sections adds vis a vis the point I was making?

You've been consistently wrong about this since the ruling came out. Why don't you go and spend some time reading it instead of playing gotcha with someone who actually does understand it.

budaatum:
Just heard this on CNN too, but its not an understanding I share and its based on the sky falling, a feeling I know you share.

If that's not ur understanding, your understanding is wrong. At this point, you are arguing the definition of immunity or simply don't understood the ruling. It's the top line summation of the decision.

PDGguy posted a summation of the ruling.

PDPGuy:
Here's a detailed summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States:

...
2. Court's Ruling:
- The Court held that under the constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his Presidency.

3. New Immunity Framework:
a. Core Constitutional Powers:
- The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

b. Other Official Acts:
- The President is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
- This presumptive immunity can potentially be overcome if applying a criminal prohibition would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

c. Unofficial Acts:
- There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
...
6. Evidentiary Ruling:
- The Court held that evidence of official acts for which a President is immune cannot be admitted at trial, even to prove intent or knowledge for non-immune acts.

Here is a good thread if you want to understand why your "We the People" argument falls flat.
https://x.com/Mike_Podhorzer/status/1807816938589991189

budaatum:
I read.



Explain how a president is immune from the bold please.

Immunity supersedes everything. Once something is immune, nothing can change that. It's similar to the lawyer client privilege and doctor patient privilege. But in those cases there are exceptions. The Supreme Court decided that this immunity is almost sacosant. It has to do with the separation of powers as well. So, the Supreme Court decided that the president's ability to make bold decisions as long as it's via some official act is more important than any laws that may be broken.

As to impeachment, is is largely a political process. The congress mostly decides what constitutes high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Now a president can be inpeached for an official act because Congress just doesnt agree with. In fact it doesn't have to be even illegal per se. Once a president is impeached and removed they can be charged and convicted. Buy now the Supreme Court just bestowed immunity for official acts. So even if they are impeached and removed. As long as it's an official act they won't be prosecuted.

budaatum:
Your example was a bad example.

If a president is impeached, it is because their act is considered to be "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4", which is illegal and not an official act, so they can be prosecuted, is what you miss.

Can I be honest, you sound as if you don't have enough understanding of this topic to even post remotely intelligently on it. This post is silly. It's clear u don't understand immunity or impeachment. Impeachment is a political process. Immunity means no one can prosecute him. I can repeat this a nother 5 times and you'll continue repeating the same lie.

Do some reading on this topic because u are spreading misinformation.

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?

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.

budaatum:
I do not agree that a dump in office can claim he was performing his official duty if he shoots someone on fifth avenue and is therefore immune.

I do not believe America is so dumb and stupid that they would claim this ruling claims and accepts nonsense like that.

Even his acts in the current hearings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan still need to determine what is official or not, and I am willing to wait on her ruling instead of letting the sky fall on my head.

It does allow for it if he does it by using an official act.
But, this is that Ego speaking.

America is not dumb and stupid. But, there has been a well funded effort to get certain conservatives on the Courts to use the courts to make structural changes to the US. As Republicans fear they can't do so by making laws via Congress as they can't win elections as they are in the minority. Those people have won. The Court does not represent a majority of the US population.

budaatum:
The court has not "just said the powers defined by the President in the Constitution are Immune from prosecution"!

To start with, the president does not define his powers. The constitution does. And there's nowhere it says he can order the military to kill his rival!

Besides, simple reasoning would dictate that if what you claim is true, all acts of dump while in office are immune because he used presidential powers, but I'm certain he still has a case since:

"Instead, the high court's ruling sets the stage for hearings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on what allegations in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment should be considered official acts and, therefore, potentially immune from prosecution".

Those that are considered unofficial, if any, will be prosecuted, if time allows of course.

That should have been "Powers defined for the President"
Simple ex.
Say if the Constitution says a Presidential act is driving.
Now, while the President is driving, he decides to kill someone because he doesn't like the shirt they are wearing.
He is immune from Prosecution. Why?
Because he is perfuming a Constitutional defined power, driving. And the courts can't ask the motivation of why he did something if he is doing a constitutionally defined act.
Ya get?

But did this with you yesterday. And already today with Raum.
So, I'm going to bow out.
I guarantee you it's not as simple as you are making it seem.
Find a US constitutional lawyer (maybe a prof who teaches constitutional law) and read some of their views on this case.

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.

The way you are thinking about this is very limited.

budaatum:
So, you think this ruling gives dump the right to go shoot someone on fifth avenue and be immune because he is Republican?

I so wish dump agrees with you and goes to shoot someone on fifth avenue so we can see if it is hyperbole or not.

Trump is not currently President so no.
And if Trump went and himself shot someone on Fifth ave he wouldn't have immunity.
But if he used an "official act" or a "Core Constitutional Power" to shoot someone of fifth ave, he would be immune.

budaatum:
I have read the ruling in its entirety, but perhaps I missed the bit where the president is immune if he ordered the military to go shoot dump, so please show me that bit I missed pleased. I want dump shot!

Dems don't want Trump shot.
THe ruling requires an understanding of Constituionally defined Presidential powers or Core power.
Then it moves on to official acts.

The court has just said the powers defined by the President in the Constitution are Immune from prosecution. Period. So, it doesn't matter why he uses them they way he does because they are immune. In fact you can't even ask the motivations. So, it follows if one of his powers is controlling the military, he could tell them to do anything and no one could question him. Anything like kill a rival. You get.

budaatum:
This is your own understanding, and in my opinion, is hyperbole.

If Biden were to agree with you, he will just arrange another official debate and shoot dump on national tv and be immune from persecution because "it was an official act".

But I'm very certain Republicans will not agree this ruling gives Biden that right, and neither does Biden, I hope.

No he wouldn't as the parties are not the same.
At some point you are going to have to understand that.
Dems believe the shit they sell. Peace, Love, Democracy, rule of Law.
It's the reason Biden will let his son go to jail while Trump pardons everyone.

You're understanding of this ruling is off.
This is not hyperbole!!

budaatum:
Since you already have the Constitution that determines the official duties of a president, you don't need motive to determine if a president shooting someone on Fifth Avenue is official act or not.

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.