When do specific actions taken by the current US administration cross the legal line into treason or other legal lines where defense against domestic enemies is warranted?
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
[1] https://www.congress.gov/about [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Blanche
Freaadom isnt free. I think americans forget that. They are waiting for someone else to come save them, which will NEVER happen.
That has not yet been shown. When it comes down to it, I wonder what the military will do. Will they uphold their oath, which is to the Constitution? Or will they obey the President, as commander in chief?
It is being shown daily. You're forgetting how things work in authoritarian states. In those countries, the military is AT ALL TIMES a risk for a dictator. They must be mollified somehow, lest the trucks with the armed men come rolling towards the palace.
In those countries, the military top brass will voice concerns privately, will leak unhappiness with the regime discreetly to other factions in the country. The US military is completely silent and subservient. This means Trump has their support. No one in the military complained when he bombed Iran or sent them to LA, for example. For all we know he did it for them. So Trump does not fear the trucks with men, and so has military support.
It did not declare that the president cannot be impeached. It did not declare that the president cannot be criminally charged for what he does that exceeds the scope of his office (though it's a high bar to prove it). And most of all, it did not declare that whatever he does is automatically constitutional.
He could order the assassination of rival politicians for national security purposes and we would get a 6-3 ruling that nothing can stop him except the GOP congress.
No.
> Or was that just for the president?
Also no.
It established a three-branch approach to whether the President is immune to criminal prosecution for acts that, ignoring any immunity he might have due to being President at the time of the act, would be within the domain of potential criminal prosecution, in which (loosely):
(1) Acts relating to a narrow set of core Constitutional powers of the Presidency are given absolute immunity,
(2) Other official acts have a case-by-case analysis for immunity weighing whether allowing prosecution for the kind of act involved would impair the functioning of the office,
(3) Acts that, despite being committed while President, have no official character have no immunity stemming from the fact that they were committed while President.
One must understand that the more safeguards we have to enact retribution in these cases, the better. You're not supposed to point to one after loss of another - you're supposed to point towards as many as possible. Before last July, the courts were the one we pointed to the most, and they are no longer nearly as much at our disposal as they were before then.
It doesn't invoke sovereign immunity through a loud roar, but from an understood nod.