Timeline for Can the US president legally kill at will?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 5 at 19:22 | comment | added | user3753318 | @BenVoigt George W Bush and Al Gore both followed the legally accepted practice of bringing their arguments to court. As opposed to Donald Trump, who instead did what JoeW pointed out in his comment above, which was to call election officials and ask them to "find" more votes. That's a big difference. I contend that what Trump did would not be considered by a reasonable judge or jury to be within his "official duties" -- thus, no immunity. This was the crux of my answer above | |
| Jul 5 at 18:45 | comment | added | Joe W | @BenVoigt George Bush followed the legally accepted practice of taking the issue to the courts for a decision as happens in many elections across the country on a regular basis. The courts weigh the all of the evidence in order to make a decision. Donald Trump on other hand just called government officials and ordered them to find more votes while ignoring the well established path to contest an election. | |
| Jul 5 at 18:14 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @JoeW: "Asking officials to find more votes" is a pretty good description of Gore's approach in 2000 also. Bush is the one who sued in court, and did so to STOP that from happening. I make no claims about everything Trump is in trouble for, only that the thing Gore did and Trump also did, Trump is facing criminal prosecution for. Separately from any/all other complaints and prosecution against Trump. | |
| Jul 5 at 16:14 | comment | added | Joe W | @BenVoigt Are you really trying to compare a challenge using the court system to a sitting president calling officials to find them more votes or not to certify the votes? Or attempting to submit their own electoral college votes in an order to get different votes counted then what the sate submitted or get those state votes thrown out? Or calling for their supporters to storm the capital building during the vote process? There is a big difference between filing a case in the court system and following the ruling and trying to use any means possible to change the results. | |
| Jul 5 at 15:35 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @JoeW: Must've been before 2000, when a former vice-president exactly did "try to overthrow the results of an election they lost ". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore Of course, not all challenges to an election are equal (but Trump is in trouble for trying to hash it out through government processes, which qualitatively is what Gore also did). | |
| Jul 4 at 20:40 | comment | added | Joe W | @user3753318 And how long ago was it that we would have thought that a president trying to overthrow the results of an election they lost would be an outlandish situation that never would happen. | |
| Jul 4 at 18:44 | comment | added | Gray Sheep | @user3753318 Yes, "killing in Iraq" means that he orders the military to kill bad guys by predator drones, as enemy combatants and terrorists. At least, that is the USA view. A lesser popular view is that he murders the political opponents among with their family, as punishment. | |
| Jul 4 at 18:25 | comment | added | user3753318 | @GraySheep I would argue that a president has no more authority to kill anyone in Iraq then they do in the U.S. Killing someone anywhere could only be considered an official duty if there is something about that person or what they did, that could make it a legitimate assassination. | |
| Jul 4 at 18:22 | comment | added | user3753318 | @JoeW But that is still an "if". The Supreme Court ruled that a president has immunity under some circumstances and not others. If, for example, a prosecutor were to argue that what the president did does not fall under the scope of their official duties, and a court agrees, then there would be no immunity in that case | |
| Jul 4 at 7:08 | comment | added | Gray Sheep | Afaik the verdict says that the president can kill only in connection to his official duties. Thus, he can kill at will, for example, people in Iraq. If he just walks on the street and kills random people, that is not official duty, so he would be legally responsible. | |
| Jul 3 at 18:26 | comment | added | John Bollinger | The question text clarifies that it is about whether the President would have immunity from prosecution in the event they order a government subordinate to kill someone, and in particular, about the implications of the SC's recent decision about presidential immunity for official acts. This answer doesn't engage any of the main thrusts of that. | |
| Jul 3 at 18:00 | comment | added | Joe W | If he has immunity from those laws they don't mean anything. | |
| Jul 3 at 17:54 | history | answered | user3753318 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |