Listening today to the arguments at the supreme court about whether the president has total immunity for acts committed while in office, I found the whole thing ludicrous. The president is bound by duty and law to follow the constitution and the laws that congress passes, which must also be constrained by the same constitution. The idea that a sitting president has the constitutional authority to have a political opponent killed is simply absurd. No where does it say that that is within the scope of presidential duties. A person campaigning for the job or an incumbent running for reelection is not carrying out the duties of the office. That person is acting as an individual applying for a job. Incumbents that fly around the country on government planes to make campaign speeches should have to reimburse us for the cost of that travel, because it is not related to the duties of the presidency. One of the questions pondered was whether it would be a presidential act if a president was bribed to appoint someone as an ambassador, they are given out as political favors all the time. The act of appointing someone would be one of the duties of the president, but the bribe is a crime, so you charge the president with the crime of bribery, and the person remains ambassador. Simple. A second term president does not go around campaigning as part of his/her official duties which clearly demonstrates that the practice is not job related. I really can't believe that this court believes there is anything to argue about. They continue to talk about precedents or the writings of people long dead as justification for their decisions but then completely ignore the same principals for another decision. It is all just so much absurdity. Just look at the WORDS. If it does not say the president is above the law, then he isn't.
Thursday, April 25, 2024
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)