• gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      Except over 100 years before the war of Independance you had the trial of King Charles I, where thr Britjsh Parliament made a point that not even Kings were above the law.

  • Andy@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    What a crazy legal defense. ‘Your honor, I’d like to dismiss these charges because I privately unilaterally decided while president that silently dissolving the the Constitution, usurping all powers of the other branches of government and asserting the divine right of kings is actually an unenumerated presidential power, which I secretly exercised three years ago but only decided to reveal now. Anyway, because of this, I’m actually the presiding officer in this court. Case dismissed.’

    Obviously, I’m aware that it’s just a delay tactic, but even so, it’s truly bonkers.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s actually what the prime minister did in Australia during Covid. He took all the power, secretly.

  • mrbubblesort@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Stupid senile Brandon is at it again, spouting stupid bullshit. Everyone knows if you don’t want to be criminally prosecuted you need to put an ® next to your name. The rule of law only applies to Democrats.

    • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well yes, Democrats get rule of law. Republicans get law and order, which is usually existing systems of power to effect maintenance of existing social hierarchies and oppress the outgroup. It’s all very clear.

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s great, but unless you codify it, it’s not exactly binding or even guiding (like past legal precedent).

    • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      There’s no reason to codify it because it’s a like proving a negative. Unless a law exists saying that a president can’t be prosecuted, then that automatically means he can be prosecuted.

  • Vortieum@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    What no one is asking: What’s the first illeal thing Biden should do to Trump if Trump were to win this argument?