Timeline for Can the US president legally kill at will?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6 at 17:54 | comment | added | reirab | @bharring The President can indeed fire the AG - this is within their Constitutional powers - but if they fire the AG to prevent themselves from being charged with murder (which is probably not going to be very helpful anyway, since murder is normally charged at the state level, with no involvement from the US AG,) Congress can still impeach the President,. at which point the former President would no longer be able to fire AGs because former Presidents have no legal powers. | |
| Jul 5 at 19:56 | comment | added | bharring | I named the wrong law in regards to conspiring or commissioning a murder. It's hard to argue demanding someone murder somebody, then punishing them when they do not, is some form of crime. But it's also Article II conduct when it's the President talking to the AG. | |
| Jul 5 at 16:14 | comment | added | phoog | @bharring firing an AG for refusing to murder someone is not attempted murder. It may be a crime under some sort of corruption statute, either one covering government officials or RICO. | |
| Jul 5 at 16:02 | comment | added | bharring | @phoog a crime that requires motive, such as attempted murder, might involve demanding AGs murder a political opponent, and firing people when they say no. The "act" of attempting to murder his opponent would be a crime. The act of communicating with and terminating an AG would be absolutely immune. But because he's absolutely immune, even video of him doing so is inadmissible. Worse, even, is prosecutors can't consider his motive, as it's an absolutely immune act. So he can't be convicted. | |
| Jul 5 at 15:26 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | If the military obeys an order to forcibly end the impeachment process, which is clear violation of their oaths taken to the Constitution, the justice branch is equally powerless, and the SCOTUS decision is wholly and irrevocably mooted in that kind of scenario. | |
| Jul 5 at 6:21 | comment | added | phoog | @bharring it's never been a crime for the president to fire the AG. The immunity protects the president from criminal prosecution, but that doesn't have any effect on acts that aren't crimes because such acts cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution. | |
| Jul 3 at 17:18 | comment | added | bharring | Yeah, one of the problems with the fallout is to even understand what the actual changes were, one first needs to understand a lot of different legal and governmental details. | |
| Jul 3 at 17:09 | comment | added | time takes its toll | @bharring: yeah, it's related, but it was accepted that presidents could do that even before this SCOTUS decision. I thought the Q was mainly what this decision brings to the table. But of course, some people commenting above haven't even heard of pardons to political allies, so... I guess someone could write a more extensive primer on POTUS powers. | |
| Jul 3 at 17:05 | comment | added | bharring | If it helps improve the answer, wasn't firing the AG the example of absolutely immune conduct, for which even motivations don't apply? The answer could either dicuss how he could blatantly demand this of the AG, and fire AGs until one agreed, or do the same to the DOD. | |
| Jul 3 at 16:42 | history | edited | time takes its toll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 856 characters in body
|
| Jul 3 at 13:57 | history | edited | time takes its toll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 221 characters in body
|
| Jul 3 at 13:45 | history | edited | time takes its toll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| Jul 3 at 13:39 | history | edited | time takes its toll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 298 characters in body
|
| Jul 3 at 13:32 | history | edited | time takes its toll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 298 characters in body
|
| Jul 3 at 13:27 | history | answered | time takes its toll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |