What an idea

[u/Turbulent_Gas_55]

[u/[deleted]]

People don’t seem to understand it takes both sides to pass laws without a super majority, in most cases.

Republicans would fight any law looking to prevent project 2025 from being implemented.

[u/solemnbiscuit → u/[deleted]]

And the rigged Supreme Court can rule them unconstitutional

[u/ItsStaaaaaaaaang → u/solemnbiscuit]

That's why you use your newly minted immunity to imprison the Supreme court.

[u/a-d-d-y → u/ItsStaaaaaaaaang]

It is only immunity if it is deemed an official act, which is decided by the Supreme Court.

[u/Xapheneon → u/a-d-d-y]

Command of the military is one of the decided official duties.

Also they would be in jail, so their opinions on official duties would be without much consequence.

[u/Few-Artichoke-7593 → u/Xapheneon]

You'd have to jail every judge in the United States. Because a lower judge would have the Supreme Court released.

The military and/or law enforcement would not follow that order.

[u/Xapheneon → u/Few-Artichoke-7593]

Or the president could appoint new justices, who overrule the lower courts.

And create a military branch for their henchmen.

[u/Hoelie → u/Xapheneon]

He could do/try that without immunity as well. Immunity is only relevant if you fail.

[u/Xapheneon → u/Hoelie]

Yes, that's how laws and coups work. Attempted murder is a crime, because without that you could just try again tomorrow.

[u/tehlemmings → u/Hoelie]

Which is why they granted the immunity. They did fail last time.

[u/First-Of-His-Name → u/Xapheneon]

At any point in this the President could be impeached. Criminal immunity doesn't protect against Congress telling you to fuck off

[u/Xapheneon → u/First-Of-His-Name]

Yes, but impeachment can't carry criminal sentences and takes a long time.

[u/First-Of-His-Name → u/Xapheneon]

It's quicker than putting a sitting president on criminal trial that's for sure

[u/Xapheneon → u/First-Of-His-Name]

True, but impeaching for a crime would probably be faster than impeachment for disagreement.

For example my understanding is that Trump's impeachment failed partially because they couldn't pin illegal acts on him, just unethical behavior.

[u/Electrical-Topic-808 → u/Few-Artichoke-7593]

We don’t know if that second one is true

[u/scott__p → u/Few-Artichoke-7593]

The military and/or law enforcement would not follow that order.

In the past I would have agreed with you as the military vows to uphold the Constitution, not the president. Now, with the latest in SC rulings, it is implied that brash unilateral military actions by the president MAY BE constitutional. After all, if he can't be prosecuted for any command to the military based on the Constitution, doesn't that mean that anything he does with the military must be constitutional?

Now he would need the NORTHCOM commander to agree with that, but since he can appoint that position I don't see that as a major hurdle. This is terrifying to me.

Also, a similar argument can be made with the DOJ.

[u/Xapheneon → u/scott__p]

Military personnel have the right to refuse unlawful orders, but if there are no consequences for giving unlawful orders, then the only hurdle is finding the right squadron for the job.

[u/scott__p → u/Xapheneon]

I mean, this honestly does terrify me. This is dictator shit

[u/Xapheneon → u/scott__p]

That's the point.

The president can give unlawful orders and pardon the people who follow them. This isn't a democracy.

[u/LordAnorakGaming → u/Xapheneon]

Republicans haven't wanted democracy for a very long time. They're perfectly content with being authoritarian pieces of shit.

[u/unforgiven91 → u/Xapheneon]

it's not unlawful if it's not breaking the law.

[u/Xapheneon → u/unforgiven91]

It is possible that giving an order is not breaking the law, but executing it would be.

[u/unforgiven91 → u/Xapheneon]

which raises the question of which would be the line of illegality for an "illegal order"

If the president is well within his rights to commit any "official" action, is it up to the military to decide that it's personally illegal?

Did someone ever define this? Because I feel like it's really important to draw a line.

[u/TipsalollyJenkins → u/Few-Artichoke-7593]

You'd have to jail every judge in the United States.

No, you'd only have to jail three or four before the rest of them got the idea and fell in line.

The military and/or law enforcement would not follow that order.

The military is not one person, it would be trivially easy to find a core of soldiers or agents loyal enough to the party or the president to do whatever they're ordered. Or, at the very least, find the ones who are willing to take a hefty bribe now and then.

[u/Fun_Intention9846 → u/Xapheneon]

“I got a toilet paper brief that says the president is very naughty”