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.

    • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think this makes sense, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I don’t agree with some of the things I’ve seen online about having seal team six assassinate political rivals just because one uses the power of the office does not mean it is an official act of the office. That is where courts would decide which is true. Previously they were making the argument for absolute immunity for everything, the Supreme Court said that isn’t the case.

      I think there is trepidation because there aren’t precedents yet and this is happening in the context of January 6 and the big lie. I don’t think it ends Trump’s trouble, his speaking to the public that day was on the behalf of DJT, not the president. It gets more murky if someone questions not sending the national guard, was that an official act and just a bad call? The hope would be some sort of reasonable president standard is created but really who knows.

      • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
        ·
        6 months ago

        There is absolutely precedent for these exact events. Pick the name of a famous dictator from history out of a hat and they most likely have acquired absolute power through “legal” means.

        • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
          ·
          6 months ago

          What legal precedent is there in US courts for deciding if something is official or personal?