All the SCOTUS ruling did was just reaffirm what our founders already envisioned. It’s nothing new.
Why am I not surprised you're still here, posting shit and furiously rubbing those two poor semi-functional brains cells together with the unrestrained ferocity of a masturbating monkey on the brink of climax?
Without betraying what my own thoughts are on the topic, I am curious what
you thinkwhomever uses you as a mouthpiece thinks about Alexander Hamilton's positions, outlined in The Federalist 69 (GIGGETY!):
"The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."Is it your position that a President who violates the law can
never be prosecuted? If so, how do you square that position with Hamilton's? who directly compares and contrasts the person of the President to the person of the King of Great-Britain who
"is sacred and inviolable: There is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution."Do you believe that
afterwards refers only to a post-impeachment situation?
Or are you a Nixon man, and your position is that a President can
never violate the law, no matter what he does, because "if the President does it, it's legal"?
