Constitution gives president license to kill

A loophole in the U.S. Constitution, expanded by Congress, lets the president of the United States murder his political enemies with impunity.

Until 1971, persons who attempted to assassinate members of Congress, a candidate for president or vice president, and various other high federal officials were prosecuted by the state in which the offense occurred.

Congress found this situation to be unsatisfactory on at least two counts: 1) Persons who committed assassination faced widely varying sentences and could escape the death penalty, and 2) Local jurisdictions might not have adequate resources to effectively investigate and prosecute a case.

Legislation, effective in 1971 and amended through 1996, seemingly remedied this by making it a federal crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, to kill members of Congress, members of Congress-elect, department heads, the CIA director and deputy director, presidential and vice presidential candidates, and federal justices and justice nominees.

While supposedly deterring any assault against their exalted beings, members of Congress failed to grasp that making their assassination a federal crime also made it a crime eligible for a presidential pardon. Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

That means a president could freely send forth his minions to kill any member of Congress, the Supreme Court and any presidential candidate and then, when the assassins are arrested and indicted, grant them pardons so they can be released and carry on further assassinations as required. Eliminating or intimidating a sufficient number of uncooperative senators and representatives would make impeachment a moot point.

Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.
Michael: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?
— The Godfather

 

Lol

 

This goes back to my position: The office of president needs to be eliminated along with most of the Federal Government. We always assumed the decency of a person elected to office. That can no longer be assumed. If Americans are willing to elect scum like trump, the system has failed and needs to be eliminated.

Write your representatives and DEMAND that States be given the right of secession.

 

That would make things worse.

 

It would require an amendment for states to be able to secede.

 

Lmao

"I didn't get my way, so eliminate the entire office of president and balance of power"

Good lord.

 

Man, to get from point A to point B on that you must have had to squeeze your brain through a sieve.

 

No, I don't trust trump supporters and the system has failed. The nation has failed and is becoming something it was never intended to be - exactly what it was never supposed to be. And 40% of the voters would support a dictator.

Don't judge me by your trivial level of understanding.

 

The ignorance is enough to make me puke.

 

You think very highly of your opinions.

Opinions are like *******s. Everybody has one and they all stink.

Somebody needs to explain to you that your opinions are not facts no matter how much you believe them.

Your position and crying... wait, are you a millennial?

 

Nothing like hysterical hyperbole because the Marxist agenda is threatened.

 

No it doesnt. It gives him the right to defend the Country. Especially in a crisis.. Move to another Country if you do not like this one. Stop attacking verbally the Country you live in.

 

Don't insult my intelligence with your half baked nightmares.

 

"The Russians are coming"
"Iran is the #1 State Sponsor of Terror"
"Saudi Arabia are the good guys"


Hard to get through a segment on our MSM these days without intelligence insulting nightmare propaganda being peddled.

 

They don't make a bright enough lantern to find good guys in the Middle East.

 

Exactly - It is then picking good guys over bad in the case where there are no "good guys". Assad is a bad guy - No kidding .. really tell me something we don't know. Is he any worse than El Saud, Iran, Iraq , Qatar, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Turkey and so on. Nope.

That said - the fact of the matter is that Assad was a whole lot better that all of the aforementioned. Of all of those nations ( Turkey is perhaps an exception but they are now reverting - and Assad was better than them anyway) Syria was the only Secular nation. They do not apply strict Sharia .. there is no theocracy.

In Syria you had Christian Churches - and a fair bit of religious freedom. There was no death penalty for apostasy (leaving the Muslim faith). Assad has Christian Generals in his army. There is drinking alcohol and dancing to "western music" in bars. Women do not need permission from a man to be educated and they can associate with men. Women wear skirts and proper bathing suits .. and so on.

As is the case in China - and Russia to be honest - one thing you should not do is criticize the Gov't in Syria. Other than that there was a ton of freedoms that you did not have in the other Sharia loving Orwellian nightmare states - the worst of which is El Saud.
'

 

The last is debatable, The SAudis at least are willing to limit their perfididy to their own people the same cannot be said of the Iranians who are expansionist.

 

What is debatable ? and what difference does it make if El Saud admits it is a totalitarian nightmare - far worse than Iran if you want to compare goblins.

And what does their perfidy have to do with expansionism ? - aside from this being false.

El Saud has been promoting their brand of extremist Islamist Salafi ideology around the world for decades. Iran hasn't been doing this - sans perhaps a few places like Yemen - which is a fight between the two ghouls so El Saud is just as expansionist as Iran in that conflict - and of course Syria but this is not about Iranian Islamist Ideology in the slightest. Again El Saud is also involve in Syria where it is completely about their sick extremist ideology.

In Iraq - we were the ones that put the Shia in Power - can't blame Iran for that one.

Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Shabaab, nut jobs in Pakistan and India - and numerous other groups around the world "ALL" share the same Saudi inspired extremist Islamist Salafi ideology.

Saud has been promoting this ideology all over the world and supporting and arming these groups in many cases.

 

El Saud isn't looking for nukes, El saud isn't trying to destabilize every other country in the region and become a regional hegemon.and they aren't lashing girls with a knotted rope for holding hands with their fiance.

 

You have a point in relation to nukes but you were completely off base with respect to your terrorist and other claims. You are spouting State propaganda as if it has some basis in reality.

Iran is not trying to destabilize every other country in the region ... what are you talking about. Quit making nonsense claims you can't back up and that have no basis in reality.

Then you spout this gibberish about lashing girls with a knotted rope - as if El Saud does not stone women for adultery and give harsh punishments to women for associating with a man who is not some direct relative.

 

The President can't legally be charged with a crime while in office, and a pardon can only be used once charges have officially been filed, so no a President can not use a pardon on himself.

If congress knows the president killed someone, they just have to impeach and then the DOJ is free to file charges.

The President can't issue a pardon for a crime. The pardon is for CHARGES. He can't killl someone and then issue himself a pardon for it so that charges can't be filed. He is only allowed to issue a pardon once someone has actually been charged, which can't happen to a sitting President.

 

What an interesting concept. It sounds quite plausible. Time to change that statute before Trump hears about it.

 

Are or are not the Huthis Iranian Proxies? Are or are not Hamas and Hezbollah funded, armed, and equipped by the Iranians?

 

Yes, just like contras in Nicaragua were funded, armed and equipped by the U.S.

By April 28, 1987, the Reagan administration’s training, funding, and arming of counterrevolutionary forces known as the contras in Nicaragua had claimed many victims: thousands of people murdered by death squads, thousands of others who were kidnapped and the tortured, and the still thousands more who lost their livelihoods when they were forced to abandon their homes.

https://jacobinmag.com/2017/05/reagan-ben-linder-nicaragua-contras-sandinistas