https://www.cuttingedge.org/newsletters/index.html
The US Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting president enjoys limited immunity from civil lawsuits. This ruling is based on the separation of powers doctrine and the need to ensure that the president can effectively carry out their duties without being distracted by litigation. However, it's essential to note that this immunity is not absolute and does not shield the president from all legal actions. Accordingly this law will do nothing to change a status quo that has been there ever since the inception of the United States.
The president can still face legal challenges in certain circumstances, such as matters related to actions taken before assuming office or issues unrelated to their official duties. The specifics of this limited immunity are outlined in various legal opinions and rulings by the Supreme Court. The essential word to note here is limited and so nothing has changed.
There have been instances where presidents have been accused of acting outside the law or engaging in actions that some perceive as criminal. The decision-making processes of presidents, especially regarding matters of war and foreign policy, can be subject to intense scrutiny and debate. The example of President George W. Bush and the Iraq War is one such controversial case.
Critics of the Iraq War have argued that the invasion was based on faulty intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction and that it had devastating consequences for the Iraqi people, leading to loss of life and destabilisation of the region. These critics have also raised concerns about the legality and justification of the war.
It is essential in a democratic society for there to be checks and balances on the power of the executive branch, including oversight by Congress, the judiciary, and the media. While presidents may have certain immunities or powers, they are not above the law, and there are mechanisms in place to hold them accountable for their actions.
Debates about presidential immunity, executive power, and accountability are ongoing and are integral to the functioning of a democratic system. It is crucial for citizens to engage with these issues, hold their leaders accountable, and participate in the democratic process to ensure transparency and adherence to the rule of law.
The actions of the US shadow government in the Middle East, utilising Israel in their conflict with Hamas, exemplifies unchecked US hegemony. However, this situation may not persist much longer, as China is increasingly asserting its influence globally.
The suggestion that because Biden is unfit for office, the enemies of the United States will take advantage and attack is a thought pattern of a very sick mind. Biden is nonfunctional and out of his mind, but as a puppet for a shadow government, no world leader cares enough to use that to their advantage as you falsely suggested. CEM are writers of fiction and anyone who believes differently is just as mad.
The US Supreme Court made this decision shortly after the debate. As a result, it was clear to everyone that Biden could not win the election, despite his wife's insistence for him to stay in the race. This effort would be in vain. Therefore, the Court decided to enact these laws to save taxpayers millions of dollars trying to prosecute Trump. The laws also aimed to protect Biden from the alleged atrocities he has committed in the Middle East against innocent Palestinian citizens. Where there is an action, there is an opposite reaction. This decision also plays into the hands of Trump, who could potentially pardon himself once back in power anyway.
Once again, you are taking everything out of context, especially when quoting Revelation 13:1-3, KJV. This in no way applies to the current law. This is all total nonsense from the money-hungry, lying deceitful individuals that you are at CEM.
Blessings
No comments:
Post a Comment