If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don’t see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.

I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don’t want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it’s actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.

What am I missing?

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    43·
    4 months ago

    Why not? He could make the argument that the election was stolen and ignoring it is in the best interest of the United states.

    because that act is not POTUS’s job. He’s making the argument as a candidate. he’s not supposed to be part of that process because he’s biased.

    as for whose to say what’s reasonable… that is the problem. right now a dangerous number of SCOTUS are bought and paid for, or are absolutely partisan hacks.

    • tinyVoltron@lemmy.world
      112·
      4 months ago

      His job is to support and defend the Constitution of the United states. You certainly can argue that protecting the integrity of the voting system is part of that job.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        52·
        4 months ago

        But that doesn’t sanction military members to break the law or the UCMJ. And that’s the point. They do not have immunity, qualified or otherwise. The order would be unlawful simply because of the issuing parties bias and personal gain from the act.

        I’m not saying there are not people in the military who would follow this type of order. I’m saying that they don’t have the protections or immunity, qualified or otherwise, and honestly, a presidential pardon doesn’t do anything for them if the state decides to prosecute them. Plus military members are basically the only people in the US subject to legal double jeopardy because they can be tried by the military separately from state and federal law.

        • tinyVoltron@lemmy.world
          72·
          4 months ago

          The supreme Court is specifically saying the order is legal. He could say it’s part of his official duties, in which case the order itself would be legal. His official duties include commanding the armed forces. If the president gives an order, a marine or a Navy SEAL cannot choose to not follow that order on legal grounds. They can choose to not follow on moral grounds but that refusal in itself would be illegal. Should it come to that, I would hope the vast majority of the armed forces would refuse the order.
          In her dissent, justice Sotomayor specifically said that the president could order an assassination and could not be prosecuted for it. I am assuming she knows more than you are I about how the legal system works.

          • atrielienz@lemmy.worldEnglish
            34·
            4 months ago

            That conflicts not just with other established law, but also with what I actually said and what the ruling says. The problem with it is that the order can’t be considered lawful regardless of what the Supreme court ruled because it doesn’t fit all the criteria of a lawful order.

            “What is considered a lawful order in the military? It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. Finally, it must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. In sum, an order is presumed lawful if it has a valid military purpose and is a clear, precise, narrowly drawn mandate.”

            https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-lawfulness-of-orders.html

            One other thing is that you’re quoting dissenting members of the SCOTUS, not the ruling itself. That’s a single interpretation of it, and one deliberately intended to alarm people so that they push back against it.