Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic...
by jhp123 on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:29PM
(#40851516)
The President's authority to command the armed forces comes directly from the Constitution, Congress can't pass a law to take that away.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic...
by salawat on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @12:14AM
(#40853510)
Firther, Obama's AG argued successfully that due process was done; where the definition of due process became what the Executive Branch did.
I wouldn't have bought that; but alas, no one asked me.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic...
by kristjansson on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @01:17AM
(#40853761)
I don’t think this is a helpful comparison. A citizen in the service of an enemy engaged in war against his country does not enjoy the protections of an arbitrary citizen. We can rightly argue whether that theory wholly fits the facts of al-Awlaki, but it’s a very, very long bridge from that case to Sotomayor’s hypo
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic...
by demosthanos on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @10:24AM
(#40866203)
Not really—once you've crossed that bridge it's a short hop to the government arguing that the political rival was a terrorist who needed to be killed.
Due process is about validating the government's claims before allowing it to kill someone.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40849378