To: Broken_Clock who wrote (1465875 ) 7/2/2024 4:36:31 PM From: Tenchusatsu Read Replies (4) | Respond to BC, I'll call out two excerpts from the article:The Court has often adopted tiered approaches in balancing the powers of the branches. For example, in his famous concurrence to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson broke down the line of authority between Congress and the White House into three groups where the President is acting with express or implied authority from Congress; where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area); and where the President is acting in defiance of Congress. Here the Court separated cases into actions taken in core areas of executive authority, official actions taken outside those core areas, and unofficial actions. Actions deemed personal or unofficial are not protected under this ruling. So according to this, anything that Congress allows the president to do constitutes "official acts," including broad powers of authority such as the Patriot Act or other bills that essentially launched the War on Terrorism.It is certainly true that the case affords considerable immunity, including for conversations with subordinates. However, this did not spring suddenly from the head Zeus. As Chief Justice John Roberts lays out in the majority opinion, there has long been robust protections afforded to presidents. There are also a host of checks and balances on executive authority in our constitutional system. This includes judicial intervention to prevent violations of the law as well as impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. So then tell me this. Which "check" or "balance" will prevent Brandon from arresting Trump, throwing him in prison, and keeping him there until all of his criminal court cases are done? After all, he could certainly declare Trump to be an existential threat based on the seriousness of the charges, from classified documents (national security) to insurrections (treason, election interference).
