🇺🇸 Traitor, Con-man, Insurrectionist, Sexual Predator, Convicted Felon and Soon-to-be Fascist Dictator: The Trump Thread

[Ironfan72]

If trump wins its our last free election

 

[DKDetective]

Fascinating. My legal practice is certainly ego-centric, so I never consider what other sovereigns do in their legal systems.

But I do see your point and probably agree with you.

And I too, don’t see where any of Trump’s actions that are in question are to be considered “official.”

I did a comparative constitutional law course in law school, which was fascinating and one of my favourites. Other interesting differences are that there is no originalism here.

Our Supreme Court buried it within a year of our Charter of Rights coming into effect. Since the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867* specifically incorporates the unwritten UK constitution into our constitutional framework, we have a strong body of unwritten constitutional principles and a fundamental principle that our Constitution changes with the times, rather being some fixed or locked in place document.

Almost none of the constitutional rights in our Charter are considered absolute. They are all subject to reasonable limitations based on a test adopted from German/European law (which the Germans developed after WW2 because of how the Nazis used their constitutional rights during the Weimar period to destroy democracy).

Our constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms, having only been adopted in 1982, expressly includes and protects affirmative action as part of our Equality Rights.

*since our Constitution was written right after the American Civil War, the Fathers of Confederation basically looked at you guys and the US Constitution and said "**** that".

Similarly, our 1982 Charter did things like give rights to "individuals" as opposed to persons so as to preclude corporations from having those constituonal rights.

 

[Babillygunn]

I did a comparative constitutional law course in law school, which was fascinating and one of my favourites. Other interesting differences are that there is no originalism here.

Our Supreme Court buried it within a year of our Charter of Rights coming into effect. Since the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867* specifically incorporates the unwritten UK constitution into our constitutional framework, we have a strong body of unwritten constitutional principles and a fundamental principle that our Constitution changes with the times, rather being some fixed or locked in place document.

Almost none of the constitutional rights in our Charter are considered absolute. They are all subject to reasonable limitations based on a test adopted from German/European law (which the Germans developed after WW2 because of how the Nazis used their constitutional rights during the Weimar period to destroy democracy).

Our constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms, having only been adopted in 1982, expressly includes and protects affirmative action as part of our Equality Rights.

*since our Constitution was written right after the American Civil War, the Fathers of Confederation basically looked at you guys and the US Constitution and said "**** that".

Fascinating. Does this result in selective enforcement or arbitrary and capricious application of rights and rulings?

Having litigated against (and on behalf of) the government for two and a half decades, I am entirely cynical about the capriciousness of the government.

And kudos to your courts for doing away with originalism. It’s such an archaic notion. And ironically, its proponents would readily embrace its archaic nature. That’s literally why they love it.

 

[Ironfan72]

Ive never seen wording like i have the court, the minority were pretty clear that the majority just gave the president the green light to be a dictorship, that only the supreme court will judge whether a president broke a law, not the people, it seems the ground work has been laid by the court to allow any president the right to rule like a king.

 

[DKDetective]

Fascinating. Does this result in selective enforcement or arbitrary and capricious application of rights and rulings?

Having litigated against (and on behalf of) the government for two and a half decades, I am entirely cynical about the capriciousness of the government.

And kudos to your courts for doing away with originalism. It’s such an archaic notion. And ironically, its proponents would readily embrace its archaic nature. That’s literally why they love it.

Nope, not at all. We have a strong system of precedent. And the test for limitation of constitution rights is very onerous.

The test from R v Oakes provides:
Step 1 - The government that infringed the Charter right must explain the objective of its impugned law or conduct. The objective must be pressing and substantial.

Step 2 - The government must demonstrate that the law or policy is rationally connected to the pressing and substantial objective. If the law or policy is arbitrary or serves no logical purpose, then it will not meet this standard.

Step 3 - The government must demonstrate that the law or policy is minimally impairing of the Charter right. This means that the law must impair the Charter right as little as possible or is “within a range of reasonably supportable alternatives.”

Step 4 - The government must demonstrate that the beneficial effects of the law or policy are not outweighed by its negative effects on the Charter right in question. This is generally known as the proportionality requirement.

 

[Boom]

"It's for the lower courts to decide what is an official act and what is an unofficial act."

SCOTUS knows full well that Trump is going to appeal every single "unofficial act" determined by the lower court right back up to them. So yeah, SCOTUS basically set itself up to be the sole entity capable of ruling on the legality of a president's actions.

 

[DKDetective]

As well, @Babillygunn even before we had a constitutional Charter of Rights one of the foundational principles of the Canadian legal system from the Roncarelli v Duplessis case is that the unwritten constitutional principle of the rule of law means no public official is above the law and so can neither suspend nor dispense with it. As such, our law holds that there is no such thing as an absolute discretion for public officials such that all government powers must be exercises in good faith and cannot be done so arbitrarily.

 

[Babillygunn]

As well, @Babillygunn even before we had a constitutional Charter of Rights one of the foundational principles of the Canadian legal system from the Roncarelli v Duplessis case is that the unwritten constitutional principle of the rule of law means no public official is above the law and so can neither suspend nor dispense with it. As such, our law holds that there is no such thing as an absolute discretion for public officials such that all government powers must be exercises in good faith and cannot be done so arbitrarily.

I say this as an American barrister, the arrogance of us Americans as having the most equitable and progressive legal system is very much misplaced.

It’s not bad, mind you. But neither is it the absolute pinnacle of achievement that we often celebrate it to be.

"It's for the lower courts to decide what is an official act and what is an unofficial act."

SCOTUS knows full well that Trump is going to appeal every single "unofficial act" determined by the lower court right back up to them. So yeah, SCOTUS basically set itself up to be the sole entity capable of ruling on the legality of a president's actions.

True. But it technically would have been overstepping of the Court to prematurely rule on matters that are reserved for the trial court and which were not yet ripe.

Again, this is why, in a perfect world, the trial court would have already ruled on these issues and gotten into these weeds instead of asserting the blanket ruling that immunity was per se not applicable.

 

[Iceman]

"It's for the lower courts to decide what is an official act and what is an unofficial act."

SCOTUS knows full well that Trump is going to appeal every single "unofficial act" determined by the lower court right back up to them. So yeah, SCOTUS basically set itself up to be the sole entity capable of ruling on the legality of a president's actions.

Trump's SCOTUS. He'll see the payoff from stacking entities in his favour and this time it will be clean out everyone who's not a loyalist from day 1. There won't be anyone neutral left in any position that could challenge him again.

 

[Ironfan72]

Trump's SCOTUS. He'll see the payoff from stacking entities in his favour and this time it will be clean out everyone who's not a loyalist from day 1. There won't be anyone neutral left in any position that could challenge him again.

Project 2025 is already preparing to do just that, they have enlisted and vetted thousands of loyal Trump followers and if reports are correct they have already identified government employees they see are disloyal to Trump and to be replaced, they are planning massive changes to the country, including eliminating the department of education, requiring the bible be a required subject in public schools, enact a national abortion ban, immediate interment camps for illegial aliens and a muslim ban among other right wing agenda

 

[DKDetective]

I say this as an American barrister, the arrogance of us Americans as having the most equitable and progressive legal system is very much misplaced.

It’s not bad, mind you. But neither is it the absolute pinnacle of achievement that we often celebrate it to be.



True. But it technically would have been overstepping of the Court to prematurely rule on matters that are reserved for the trial court and which were not yet ripe.

Again, this is why, in a perfect world, the trial court would have already ruled on these issues and gotten into these weeds instead of asserting the blanket ruling that immunity was per se not applicable.

To be fair, you guys were one of the earliest modern experiments in representative government following the Enlightenment. Canada, like many other liberal democracies, had the benefit of you guys going first and being able to learn from both the good and the bad of the American experience.

 

[Iceman]

Project 2025 is already preparing to do just that, they have enlisted and vetted thousands of loyal Trump followers and if reports are correct they have already identified government employees they see are disloyal to Trump and to be replaced, they are planning massive changes to the country, including eliminating the department of education, requiring the bible be a required subject in public schools, enact a national abortion ban, immediate interment camps for illegial aliens and a muslim ban among other right wing agenda

The US checks and balances seem to only work on the assumption that a president will respect the expected norms. In reality it seems a president backed blindly by their party with a majority (so can survive impeachment) can fire and replace those who have the power to hold him accountable. Very dangerous times given that Trump is currently the favourite to get back in.

 

[Boom]

So how does one go about proving an unofficial act then? Because it seems to me that if the president says it was an official act, then that's paramount to any evidence to the contrary. Oh and his communications are privileged.

 

[InCali]

So how does one go about proving an unofficial act then? Because it seems to me that if the president says it was an official act, then that's paramount to any evidence to the contrary. Oh and his communications are privileged.

I don't know the details, but I think the lower courts determine that (which I assume could be appealed to the SCOTUS). This seems like a power grab by the SCOTUS as they are essentially deciding whether someone will or won't be put on trial; rather than deciding matters of law.

It also seems like a problem to say that any presidential contact to federal agencies can't be used as evidence or be non-protected action. It seems to say that the president can use federal agencies for illegal action and can't really be liable for that. Maybe I've got that wrong??

 

[squeekness]

Project 2025 is already preparing to do just that, they have enlisted and vetted thousands of loyal Trump followers and if reports are correct they have already identified government employees they see are disloyal to Trump and to be replaced, they are planning massive changes to the country, including eliminating the department of education, requiring the bible be a required subject in public schools, enact a national abortion ban, immediate interment camps for illegial aliens and a muslim ban among other right wing agenda

This Nazi crap scares me.

 

[squeekness]

I don't know the details, but I think the lower courts determine that (which I assume could be appealed to the SCOTUS). This seems like a power grab by the SCOTUS as they are essentially deciding whether someone will or won't be put on trial; rather than deciding matters of law.

It also seems like a problem to say that any presidential contact to federal agencies can't be used as evidence or be non-protected action. It seems to say that the president can use federal agencies for illegal action and can't really be liable for that. Maybe I've got that wrong??

Maybe not now after the SCOTUS decision. They'll just say it was an "official" action.

 

[InCali]

Maybe not now after the SCOTUS decision. They'll just say it was an "official" action.

So here's the details of how I could see this playing out.

A president breaks the law, but the question is whether it's "official duties" or not. So, a judge determines the actions weren't part of official duties. An appeal is filed and, depending on whether SCOTUS supports the president or not, a ruling is made whether the acts are subject to prosecution. I had this fear, evidently realized, that the guidelines would be deliberately made vague by the SCOTUS because, essentially, it increases their power. Instead of setting out guidelines a priori, you leave the decision to your own, particular, desires.

I don't know if that's really the end result, but it's how I saw the decision.

 

[squeekness]

So here's the details of how I could see this playing out.

A president breaks the law, but the question is whether it's "official duties" or not. So, a judge determines the actions weren't part of official duties. An appeal is filed and, depending on whether SCOTUS supports the president or not, a ruling is made whether the acts are subject to prosecution. I had this fear, evidently realized, that the guidelines would be deliberately made vague by the SCOTUS because, essentially, it increases their power. Instead of setting out guidelines a priori, you leave the decision to your own, particular, desires.

I don't know if that's really the end result, but it's how I saw the decision.

Sounds right to me. This is bad. We're now relying on our Presidents to be moral people. Good luck with that.

 

[blueharvest]

Trump seeks to set aside New York hush money verdict hours after Supreme Court ruling

Donald Trump’s lawyers have sent a letter to the Manhattan judge in his hush money criminal case seeking permission to file a motion to set aside the verdict.

apnews.com

 

[blueharvest]

 

[InCali]

Pre-official acts????

 

[Lily Adler]

 

[blueharvest]

Donald Trump says fake electors scheme was "official act"

The Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents are immune from official acts undertaken during their presidencies.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Ironfan72]

Donald Trump says fake electors scheme was "official act"

The Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents are immune from official acts undertaken during their presidencies.

www.newsweek.com

Thats concerning, but we now live in a country where the president is immune to all prosecution if he deems something official, if Biden wanted to arrest Trump as a traitor to the republic he can, Trump will

 

[Boom]

And now his team is moving to have the NY conviction tossed under SCOTUS' ruling.

Great timeline we're in.