Asklemmy

43945 readers

593 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

192

What is the functional difference between the President having immunity for “official acts” and the powers granted to the German President under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution? (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 months ago by BmeBenji@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For reference: Article 48 Wikipedia I’m trying to understand how anyone with any knowledge of the history of dictators could possibly justify granting a president unchecked “official” power so if anyone has any actual theories I am ALL ears.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] oxjox@lemmy.ml -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I appreciate the few level-headed people observing this historic event.

[–] stembolts@programming.dev 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's interesting that a "level-headed" comment is one in which bringing up the murder of a US president's rival is not an unexpected topic.

If that is the new threshold for level-headed then this world has gone insane.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Bringing it up is not unexpected since that has been some of the online fervor. It isn’t uncommon to talk about what people are saying.

You’re arguing that the world has gone mad, which is true.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The assassination of political rivals by Seal Team 6 is what Trump's lawyer argued before the Supreme Court. They argued that anything the President orders is an official act, and immunity must apply to it (unless in their bad faith reading of the constitution he was impeached AND convicted by the Senate). But the court also said that if a President is immune, then by this new ruling the Presidents actions cannot be used in court, aka President is above the law without any check in place.

[–] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago

This is really the key device in the ruling. How are we going to let judges decide if their acts were or were not official if he has presumptive immunity for official acts and they aren't even allowed to bring the evidence to court?! The ruling prevents the very review they are suggesting should happen in any case where the president argues he was discharging his official duties.