Do presidential boors deserve immunity?
My dad, bless his soul, was a lifelong acolate of the Arby's food chain. Why? Becase they alone provided horseradish as a side flavoring to their beef offerings.
Horseradish.
Horseradish.
And as such are affiliations born. For others, it may be ketchup. (I've heard that Donald Trump likes excess ketchup on his beef, but precisely which - Heinz, Hunt's, wot? - we dunno). As a child of 1950s suburbania I personally appove of Chef Boy-Ar-Dee raviole in the can, even against authentic Italian food in Italy -- Venu de Veusvio chicken in Italy (I did that!), BUT I am against tossing of food against the wall. That's just bad manners.
So, that brings us against the bad manners of a USA chief executive?
The proposition of "immunity" in clearly criminal cases is absurd, almost comedic on it's face, albeit evil in its consequences.
This proposition is well and truly ancient history - it was didsputed and won against King John in Anglo-American law by the proclamation of the Magna Carta in 1215. The existance of the "Supreme Court" in American law is founded on the Magna Carta as transliterated from Briitsh to American contract law per the American constitution. Under the US Constitution of 1789, Presidents are executive administrators, not kings. Thier proclamations and exeutive orders are subject to objection and contravention by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. (For that matter, even kings are not kings over an independent people per the Carta, e.g., in 1649, King Charles was executed by parliament for treason against his own subjects - the English people - talk about a precedent against immunity!).
The "review" of executive immunity by the SCOTUS is, on it's face, an antti-revolutionary (and anti-American) act and is, in effect, tossing spaghetti against the wall.
current-events #immunity #trump #politics #SCOTUS #law #precedent #fascism
No comments:
Post a Comment