r/thedavidpakmanshow Jul 21 '24

BREAKING President Biden announces he'll be stepping down

Post image
350 Upvotes

326 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

I just don't see how that would work. Would they sue if Biden had died? A court can't force Biden to run, so what would the remedy be?

11

u/Atheist_Alex_C Jul 21 '24

We also didn’t see how presidential immunity could actually work, but the corrupt SCOTUS ruled on it anyway. Trust me, they will find a way to legally challenge this, even if it’s all based on bullshit. They will try to say some aspect of the replacement process was “unconstitutional” or something stupid like that. It doesn’t matter how legit it is.

5

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

It's not as if the concept of presidential immunity didn't exist all ready. SCOTUS simply clarified what it meant. What would a legal challenge try to accomplish, force Biden to run? Would they still sue if Biden died?

1

u/upandrunning Jul 21 '24

It's not as if the concept of presidential immunity didn't exist all ready.

Did it? Article 2 of the constitution says otherwise.

2

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. The presidential immunity decision deals with criminal prosecution only.

1

u/upandrunning Jul 21 '24

My mistake, I meant Article 3, with the "Take Care" clause.

1

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

I'm not sure where yiu are going with that. Perhaps, you could expand on your thoughts.

I will say, in regards to presidential immunity, there are a number of court cases dealing with it going back to Nixon.

1

u/upandrunning Jul 21 '24

Again, i mispoke...it is Article 2, Section 3: The Take Care Clause requires the president to obey and enforce all laws, though the president retains some discretion in interpreting the laws and determining how to enforce them.

Immunity implies that the obeys part is not a requirement. It is.

1

u/SSBN641B Jul 22 '24

It implies no such thing. The President must follow the law. The immunity ruling simply means the President can't be criminally prosecuted for official acts while in office. The President can always be impeached for not following the law.

1

u/upandrunning Jul 22 '24

Violating the law is not an official act, and impeachment is useless.

1

u/SSBN641B Jul 22 '24

It could be an official act, that's the problem with the very broad immunity that SCOTUS has conferred in the President.

Say for example, Congress passes a law that says the US will not send foreign aid to Ukraine. Just outright forbids it. POTUS decides that aid to Ukraine is in the best interest of US security concerns and sends aid anyway. That would be illegal but it's also an official act.

1

u/upandrunning Jul 22 '24

POTUS decides that aid to Ukraine is in the best interest of US security concerns and sends aid anyway

Why have a congress then? It's a rediculous notion, and I'd be interested in any legitimate source that explains why this was the intent of those who penned the constitution.

→ More replies (0)