Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


3) Legal authority to use any force necessary to defend his life. He shouldn't have to run and hide behind a shrub (as is the case with the self-defense laws in many states.) Rather, he and his security escort should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop an attacker, without regard to being forced to moderate and measure the force used.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Good question.

I think the President should be subject to the law just as any other citizen, with four exceptions:

1) Diplomatic Immunity while in other countries. Because the president serves diplomatic functions, he should be entitled to the same immunities.

2) Immunity from Misdemeanors and Petty offenses. Otherwise his political enemies could arrange for him to be constantly tied up with Jaywalking, Littering, and Speeding charges.

3) Legal authority to use any force necessary to defend his life. He shouldn't have to run and hide behind a shrub (as is the case with the self-defense laws in many states.) Rather, he and his security escort should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop an attacker, without regard to being forced to moderate and measure the force used. If you try to harm the president, you should expect to be severely maimed or killed during attempts to stop you.

4) Legal immunity for 'crimes' committed against foreign nations/people while in office. This will keep him from facing thousands of murder charges if he decides to mobilize troops somewhere in the world to accomplish X goal. It's assumed a President will inevitably mobilize troops and attack somebody sometime, and while this could constitute murder in a strict legal sense, we expect our President to have that power and exercise it from time to time. If we don't like how he uses his executive powers, he should be impeached and tossed out of office. I do not think that he should have the same immunity for crimes committed on US soil, though. I can think of few good reasons for him to mobilize troops to take out Topeka Kansas. If it's a policing operation, the troops should follow police procedure, and not just gun down or bomb the general population.

Anyhow, that's my opinion on how much the President should be legally liable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It would be nice if all new laws that Congress passed had to be vetted by the Supreme Court before they could be enacted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
...The Judiciary at the highest level (Supreme Court) could declare this legislation Unconstitutional, and that would end the matter, unless a Constitutional Amendment was passed.

Checks and balances. Gotta love it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not sure what an Oligarchy is...

But I do know that I want my laws checked for Constitutionality BEFORE they circulate for years.

---

Quote:

---

Quote from msnbc.com
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a conservative Republican, called that argument "very dangerous in terms of its application to the future. When I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
An Oligarchy is a government by a small council of aristocrats, unelected aristocrats, even.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
It's rule by the few. Yes an aristocracy is a -FORM- of Oligarchy, but it's not the whole story. An Oligarchy can be 'run' by any small group. Say you had a democratically elected government, but in the end corporations CEO's called the shots, but 'behind' the scenes that would be an Oligarchy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Good question.
4) Legal immunity for 'crimes' committed against foreign nations/people while in office. This will keep him from facing thousands of murder charges if he decides to mobilize troops somewhere in the world to accomplish X goal. It's assumed a President will inevitably mobilize troops and attack somebody sometime, and while this could constitute murder in a strict legal sense, we expect our President to have that power and exercise it from time to time. If we don't like how he uses his executive powers, he should be impeached and tossed out of office. I do not think that he should have the same immunity for crimes committed on US soil, though. I can think of few good reasons for him to mobilize troops to take out Topeka Kansas. If it's a policing operation, the troops should follow police procedure, and not just gun down or bomb the general population.

Anyhow, that's my opinion on how much the President should be legally liable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Not sure I see it actually. By having some say in whether laws are passed or not doesn't mean they get to decide exactly how they are enforced at all levels, nor do they make up they're own laws (well I don't think they do, do they?).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
In fact the way I understand the US Government the exectutive branch is a higer candidate. It's my understanding that they aren't elected, they're appointed by the President, and they make the decisions (yeah I know the elected president has the final say).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes the president does have veto power. That’s what makes the Executive Office equal to the Legislature. The Constitution does not give the power of veto to the Supreme Court, and the ability to veto a law after it is enacted is even more powerful then the Executive Branch.

Maybe Hero will chime in here. I’m sure he can explain this stuff much better then I can.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
That's not what I meant by Veto. I meant a limited power to push a bill through, like the parliment act over here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know about that. I’d have to look into it. I don’t think so, but I could be wrong. The only thing I can think of is that if there is a 50-50 split in the Senate then the VP becomes tie breaker. But I can’t think of any situation in which the Executive office could impose legislation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Who here thinks the President- any President- is above the law?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

If the President is driving his car through my City and is speeding or drunk, then he will be prosecuted like anyone else

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
What if he is hunting drunk, and discharges his weapon in an unsafe manner injuring a fellow hunter? How to prosecute him when he has himself wisked away by men in black to a protected location to sober up?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Your talking about the VP's situation. There is no evidence he was drunk and no evidence that anyone covered anything up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Good question.
4) Legal immunity for 'crimes' committed against foreign nations/people while in office. This will keep him from facing thousands of murder charges if he decides to mobilize troops somewhere in the world to accomplish X goal. It's assumed a President will inevitably mobilize troops and attack somebody sometime, and while this could constitute murder in a strict legal sense, we expect our President to have that power and exercise it from time to time. If we don't like how he uses his executive powers, he should be impeached and tossed out of office. I do not think that he should have the same immunity for crimes committed on US soil, though. I can think of few good reasons for him to mobilize troops to take out Topeka Kansas. If it's a policing operation, the troops should follow police procedure, and not just gun down or bomb the general population.

Anyhow, that's my opinion on how much the President should be legally liable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

---

If the President declares War, then he is not liable. If the President invades a country without the agreement of the UN? Well then isn't he violating the law? Isn't he the responsible for any attrocities?

Why should a President be above the law of the land he governs for the people BY the people?

Whatever happened to that quaint little notion - THE BUCK STOPS HERE?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Leaders that are "above the law" are dictators.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
After all, he is THE DECIDER.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dc4bs:

Actualy, a supreme court judge can be removed by congress through a process similar to an impeachment of a president.

From:
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/SupremeCourtC
onfirmationFAQ.shtml#q3

What is the term length for Supreme Court Justices?

Once a Justice has been confirmed, he or she can serve on the Supreme Court for life “during good behavior.” Supreme Court Justices can only be removed through resignation or impeachment. The only Supreme Court Justice ever to have been impeached by the House of Representatives was Samuel P. Chase, in 1804. The Senate vote failed, and he remained on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Leaders that are "above the law" are dictators.

---

ARE YOU CALLING PRESIDENT BUSH A DICTATOR?????

---

Quote:

---

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
—President-Elect Governor George W. Bush Jr, convicted drunk driver, convicted drug addict (expunged by diversion, parole and restitution), arrested for theft, arrested for vandalism, demoted from pilot to mail clerk in Texas Air National Guard for disobeying direct order for drug test AWOL, sentenced six months extra duty for desertion of Vietnam Wars, sued for rape, sued under RICO Act for perping the terrorists attacks on 9/11/2001, CNN News Transcript, December 18, 2000
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html
http://thoughtcrimenews.com/bushrape.htm
http://geocities.com/green_party_dwi_jokes
http://911forthetruth.com
http://awolbush.com

"A 'con man', a 'confidence man', is the best-dressed, the best-spoken. He has to be since his intention is to separate you from your money, from your freedom. This is his 'M.O.' - his modus operandi. Our representatives in Washington DC remind me of the best conmen. This is a lesson we all have to learn."
—Detective Frank Serpico, NYPD, ThePowerHour.com, GCN Radio Network, GCNlive.com, WBCR 1470am Alcoa, Tennessee, 2002

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas so it's probably in Tennessee. Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. You fooled me, you can't get fooled again."
—President George Bush Jr, sued for rape, sued under RICO Act for perping the terrorist massacres on 9/11/2001

"There's a report out tonight that 24-years ago I was apprehended in Kennebunkport, Maine, for a DUI. That's an accurate story. I'm not proud of that. I oftentimes said that years ago I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much and I did on that night. I was pulled over. I admitted to the policeman that I had been drinking. I paid a fine. And I regret that it happened. But it did. I've learned my lesson."
—Governor George Bush Jr, CNN Larry King Live, November 2, 2000
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0011/02/lkl.00.html
http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/cheney_doc.html

"The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
—Constitution for the united States of America, Article II, Section 4

citizen's arrest.
an arrest made not by a law officer but by any citizen who derives the authority to arrest from the fact of being a citizen. Note: Under common law, a citizen may make an arrest for any felony actually committed, or for a breach of the peace committed in his or her presence.
—Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996

"A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612."
—Tennessee Code 39-11-621. Use of deadly force by private citizen.

"A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force."
—Tennessee Code 39-11-611(a)

---

Quote:

---

Kennedy Blames Accident on Sleep Medicine
By ANDREW MIGA Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. Patrick Kennedy crashed his car near the Capitol early Thursday, and a police official said he appeared intoxicated. Kennedy said he had taken sleep medication and a prescription anti-nausea drug that can cause drowsiness...

Kennedy appeared to be intoxicated when he crashed his Ford Mustang into a barrier on Capitol Hill early Thursday morning, said Louis P. Cannon, president of the Washington chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Cannon, who was not there, said the officers involved in the accident were instructed by an official "above the rank of patrolman" to take Kennedy home.

No sobriety tests were conducted at the scene.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

No sobriety tests were conducted at the scene.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:

General Janis Karpinski admitted to me that the Bush Gang has infiltrated all police depts and prosecutor offices, in order to illegally subvert all attempts to arrest Jr Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
In a related event, Cheney had a terrible accident and asked the SS to keep sobriety testing at bay.

---

Quote:

---

Well, at least it's bi-partisan.

---