Those aren’t things that would otherwise be crimes. He doesn’t have immunity from procedure, he has immunity for crimes. He kill the justices, or kidnap them and lock them up in some undisclosed location. He has immunity in those cases. But expanding the court would require passing a law. Passing a law is not an action that the President takes, regardless of any presidential immunity. As for felons not being able to become presidents, any law congress passed to say that would be unconstitutional, because the constitution lays out the only requirements to become a US president. The constitution also limits the ways in which the constitution could be changed, and none of that is within the powers of a president. He could kill Trump, but he can’t change the rules about who’s allowed to be president.
He still believes that the system works. He thinks the checks and balances work. He believes that, regardless of the recent Supreme Court ruling, that he’s not immune, so he won’t commit crimes like that. The result might be that the final president of the Republic thought it was more important to follow tradition and live the values that he thought the president should hold, than to do what was necessary to prevent the Republic from becoming a dictatorship.
Exactly. So you’re saying presidents can’t do X… Meaning there’s a penalty for X? So if president did X, that would be a crime. But if crime was committed as an official act.
No. They’re saying there’s a procedure for enacting new laws, and creating them outside those procedures accomplishes nothing. It’s not a crime. It’s also not how laws are created.
I’m the president of America, I actually accomplish whatever I want. I’ve unilaterally created this law as an official act. If anyone doesn’t cooperate with this law, As another official act, I command the military to shoot them in the face. To protect America.
Those aren’t things that would otherwise be crimes. He doesn’t have immunity from procedure, he has immunity for crimes. He kill the justices, or kidnap them and lock them up in some undisclosed location. He has immunity in those cases. But expanding the court would require passing a law. Passing a law is not an action that the President takes, regardless of any presidential immunity. As for felons not being able to become presidents, any law congress passed to say that would be unconstitutional, because the constitution lays out the only requirements to become a US president. The constitution also limits the ways in which the constitution could be changed, and none of that is within the powers of a president. He could kill Trump, but he can’t change the rules about who’s allowed to be president.
He still believes that the system works. He thinks the checks and balances work. He believes that, regardless of the recent Supreme Court ruling, that he’s not immune, so he won’t commit crimes like that. The result might be that the final president of the Republic thought it was more important to follow tradition and live the values that he thought the president should hold, than to do what was necessary to prevent the Republic from becoming a dictatorship.
If he doesn’t follow procedure would that be a crime?
Probably not.
Exactly. So you’re saying presidents can’t do X… Meaning there’s a penalty for X? So if president did X, that would be a crime. But if crime was committed as an official act.
No. They’re saying there’s a procedure for enacting new laws, and creating them outside those procedures accomplishes nothing. It’s not a crime. It’s also not how laws are created.
No.
I’m the president of America, I actually accomplish whatever I want. I’ve unilaterally created this law as an official act. If anyone doesn’t cooperate with this law, As another official act, I command the military to shoot them in the face. To protect America.
Yeah, that tends to happen with empires.