Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Syt]

I mean, when Putin was first president, he was offically limited to two consecutive terms, which is why he did the switcheroo with Medvedev for one legislative period (and IIRC he's now removed the term limits).

And wasn't Erdogan limited to two periods, too?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I mean, when Putin was first president, he was offically limited to two consecutive terms, which is why he did the switcheroo with Medvedev for one legislative period (and IIRC he's now removed the term limits).

And wasn't Erdogan limited to two periods, too?

Yep, and he also did a switch iirc

[Josquius]

Though I guess to be fair quite the difference in the length those democracies have endured.
Not that I think trump isn't capable of trying it.

[grumbler]

Thanks Raz. 

Then the problem to me Joan is that clause only applies to office holders who have been impeached.  I.e. not Trump.

The clause applies the law to ex-presidents who have been removed from office, as the law applies to ex-presidents in general.  Nothing in the clause establishes that the president is immune to law, even after leaving office (voluntarily or otherwise).

[Sheilbh]

I mean, when Putin was first president, he was offically limited to two consecutive terms, which is why he did the switcheroo with Medvedev for one legislative period (and IIRC he's now removed the term limits).

And wasn't Erdogan limited to two periods, too?

Yep, and he also did a switch iirc

His was a bit more nuanced. He was PM (no term limits - as I think is the norm everywhere). He then became President in 2014 while campaigning for reform to the constitution to move Turkey from a parliamentary to a presidential republic or in large part from a constitution modeled in principle on the third Republic to one modeled on the fifth (and like other recent French reforms such as shortening the term from 7 years to 5).

That takes effect three years into his first term as President. Basically all sides, including the opposition, basically agree that the term limits applies to the Presidency in its new role. The role changed so much in 2017 that the clock resets (a bit like LBJ could have run for two terms even though he became President in 1963), especially because the constitutional amendments also cut his term. So he was President 2014-21 on the old constitution, because of the reforms there was an election in 2018. So his first full term is 2018-23 and second will last to 2028 (he has said that it will be his last term) - but that's actually basically just the same as if he'd won the two 7 year terms under the old constitution.

[Admiral Yi]

The question is whether it is consistent with proposition that the founders believed Presidents enjoyed absolute immunity.

It was always understood that non impeached Presidents could be tried criminally, that's why McConnell and a bunch of other GOP senators argued that impeachment wasn't necessary

The impeachment judgment clause was written to clarify that even though impeachment resembles a criminal trial in some ways, an impeachment conviction doesn't bar a subsequent prosecution as double jeopardy

Again it would make no sense to add that clarification if Presidents had absolute immunity from prosecution.

It was always understood doesn't sound like a very strong legal argument to me.  Historical examples of prosecutions of unimpeached ex presidents would be stronger.  Case law that said fuck yeah you can prosecute this guy would be better.  A clause in the Constitution would be best.

[Solmyr]

You are gonna be ruled by autistic tech bros, anyway. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-trump-harris-high-status-males-4chan-b2606617.html

Elon Musk has used his large platform on X to promote a theory that a free-thinking "Republic" could only exist under the decision-making of "high status males" – and women or "low T men" would not be welcome in it.

On Sunday, Musk re-posted a screenshot of the theory – which appears to have been conceived on 4chan in 2021– on the social media site.

The theory, written by an anonymous user, suggests that the only people able to think freely are "high [testostrone] alpha males" and "aneurotypical people", and that these "high status males" should run a "Republic" that is "only for those who are free to think."

[Syt]

 

[The Minsky Moment]

It was always understood doesn't sound like a very strong legal argument to me.  Historical examples of prosecutions of unimpeached ex presidents would be stronger.  Case law that said fuck yeah you can prosecute this guy would be better.  A clause in the Constitution would be best.

You've flipped the burden of proof around.  Immunities are an exception, not a rule. All laws are of general application unless there is an express immunity in the law.  The burden isn't to show that immunities haven't been recognized in the past; it's to show that they have been.  The fact that no president was prosecuted doesn't mean anything absent evidence that any other President committed a prosecutable crime and that people at the time acknowledged immunity.

The one exception proves the case against immunity.  Nixon arguably committed a crime and was not impeached because he resigned first.  Ford pardoned him and took an enormous political hit for doing so.  Why pardon someone who is immune?  Because no one at time ever conceived the notion that a President would be immune from criminal acts. Ford and the entire rest of the country believed that Nixon could be prosecuted absent the pardon.

And they believed that for good reason because not only was there no recognized immunity in the law but because - if they were interested in "history and tradition" - they would know that the American republic declared its independence precisely because of the abuses of a chief executive that held himself above the law.  The notion that those same founders - including the anti-federalists persuaded to support the Constitution - would have created a constitutional order where the chief of the Executive could commit crimes with impunity within the scope of official functions - is beyond preposterous.  it is an outright fraud on the American people.

[Admiral Yi]

But the executive does not have immunity.  He or she is subject to impeachment.

[Valmy]

But the executive does not have immunity.  He or she is subject to impeachment.

But that is a political and legislative procedure, not a judicial one. I guess we could specify judicial immunity.

[The Minsky Moment]

But the executive does not have immunity.  He or she is subject to impeachment.

But that is a political and legislative procedure, not a judicial one. I guess we could specify judicial immunity.

And that is exactly what the impeachment judgement clause makes clear.  Impeachment is a political process not a criminal one.  Even if a President is impeached, he can still be prosecuted for a be prosecuted for a criminal act.

Except now he can't unless the prosecutor jumps through the nearly impossible hoops.

[Syt]

Isn't it that technically (per the SC ruling) he can be prosecuted, except that pretty much all documents and quotes and any other form of evidence is considered secret and inadmissable?

[Solmyr]

 

This kinda reminds me that my first Stellaris civilization was fanatic materialist and authoritarian (and molluscoid), basically space tech bros.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

This kinda reminds me that my first Stellaris civilization was fanatic materialist and authoritarian (and molluscoid), basically space tech bros.

Ooh, that's a good idea for a new custom civilization.  I already created an authoritarian xenophobic bandit kingdom inspired by Cheeto Benito.