What you are saying is that even if Obama activated a nuke that he believed was in DC and not deep in the Atlantic Ocean, nobody could do a darn thing to stop him from having the nuclear football for at least another 6 months or so that it takes to do an impeachment - all because that’s the DOJ’s opinion of what the Constitution says.
Unless they use the preferred communist method of unaccountability - declaring him insane. The only difference between that and a military coup is that it is a political coup. Anything to keep the power in the hands of the already-too-powerful. Who gets to decide that the POTUS is insane? Let me guess - the politically-motivated Congress which obstructs justice by voting on the basis of politics rather than evidence?
And the officers’ oath HAS to mean nothing. The country is forcing our military officers to perjure themselves by making them take an oath they are never allowed to keep.
I don’t buy it.
I was responding to a comment that anybody in the military who suggested that Obama be arrested for attacking the US would be removed right away. If what these people have said is correct, the instructors with advanced Harvard law degrees are outright TEACHING that this IS the contingency plan for when a POTUS blatantly attacks the US.
I wanted to find out if that is what the advanced law degree people ARE teaching the military - because if that is true, it makes the DOJ “opinion” suspect.
I read the opinion quite a while ago, and what I remember from it is that it is just that - opinion. The scenario pondered in one of the cited cases, IIRC, was whether somebody could arrest a Congress member or the POTUS for speeding in order to keep them from a vote - and the answer was that you can’t do that - and it was extrapolated that you therefore can never arrest a POTUS in that kind of scenario.
And again I say, if the law can’t tell the difference between arresting somebody for speeding and arresting somebody who has done an action he thought would blow up Washington DC.... then the whole rationale for martial law is blown to bits. The whole idea of martial law is that when there is great danger, sometimes the normal guarantees - even of the Constitution - MUST be suspended.
Does the DOJ say that martial law is unconstitutional?
Does the DOJ say that all the Constitutional guarantees that have been suspended by folks like the NSA, TSA, etc because of the “war on terror” are unconstitutional and so they must never, ever happen?
When they start applying the same logic to the POTUS as they apply to other terrorists with the potential to kill thousands if not millions of Americans, then and only then will I take them seriously.
But then maybe they are. The terrorists that Obama has trained and armed can hop on a plane to the US without having to go through the TSA, or they can waltz right through our open southern door that Eric Holder is making sure they can go through without anybody stopping them. It’s just the 90-year-old nuns who have to be photographed naked or groped. God knows those little old nuns are SO MUCH MORE dangerous than an enemy in the White House or his terrorist allies that he’s armed, trained, funded, released, and enabled in every way imagineable.
Spit. If this country buys this crap, it deserves everything it’s going to get. And it’s gonna be bad, bad, bad.
My questions still stand; you have not once addressed my questions - and it does no good to point to the DOJ opinion because it doesn’t address those questions either. AND that opinion was from 1973 and updated in 2000 - BEFORE 9-11-01. If so, the whole “Constitutional guarantees can be suspended because of the asymmetrical warfare we face” rationale wasn’t even brought up, so that opinion is WAY out-of-date - in effect, overruled by what’s transpired since 9-11-01.
The court rulings on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act would come to bear on issues such as whether a terrorist POTUS could be arrested. If nuns can be groped before being allowed on an airplane, without violating the Constitutional protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures”, then a LOT more is “reasonable” now than before 9-11-01...
My questions still stand, and you are refusing to address them.
I also still want to know if military officers are taught by the advanced-degree Harvard law people that this is the proper procedure for keeping their oaths to the Constitution and protecting the country from an enemy POTUS.
Also, the 20th Amendment mentions specific situations in which a POTUS has not yet been removed from the OFFICE but is still not allowed to ACT as POTUS. Arresting a POTUS does not remove them from office. It disables them from ACTING as POTUS, with the Congressionally-approved line of succession being followed as to who ACTS as President during the interim. Arresting the POTUS if/when he attacks the US... contradicts nothing in the Constitution.
One other note: the DOJ opinion that you cite was first written by Nixon’s DOJ in the year before he resigned (not sure whether that was right before, or right after, Nixon’s alleged crimes but either way it could have been the clearing the way for him to not be arrested for said crimes).
It was reaffirmed by Janet Reno’s DOJ right after Clinton was impeached but not convicted of the SMALLEST of criminal claims that were brewing (perjury and obstruction of justice regarding consentual sex with Monica Lewinsky) - shortly after 2 Congressional investigations had called for AG Janet Reno to appoint an independent investigation of even more consequential potential crimes committed by Clinton (selling White House visits for campaign cash, and giving away national security secrets to the Chinese). Just like Eric Holder today, AG Janet Reno was in her position to make sure that justice was never done for the POTUS who appointed her.
And Clinton went even farther; immediately he appointed the “Magnificent Seven” (later expanded to 8) DC Circuit judges to cover for him just in case his crimes actually made it to court. Those “Magnificent 8” met privately once a month to decide which of them was going to hear which of the criminal cases against Clinton and his cronies. Those “Magnificent 8” have been overturned at a very high rate.
The 8th of that “Magnificent 8” was the judge who decided that it was “frivolous” for military people to question the
Constitutional qualifications of Obama, because Obama had already been ruled to be eligible through Twitter. A precedent that somebody else should try to use so it can be smacked down as it deserves....
Even though Janet Reno effectively blocked investigation of Clinton’s more serious crimes, Clinton needed to claim he was above arrest by ANYBODY because the military, when it saw that Clinton’s giving away of national security secrets was not going to be investigated, began its own investigation into potential “front companies” through which the Chinese were getting critical classified information. They began an intelligence project called “Able Danger” to do datamining that would show fishy “Discover the Networks” type relationships. This group discovered a fishy Al Qaeda “cell” led by Mohammad Atta, but they were dumped by the DOJ because they also found fishy actions between a company owned by SecDef Perry and a Chinese “front company” owned by the wife of the Chinese military leader - which was used for Perry to sell encrypted satellite technology (”dual-use” technology forbidden for disclosure) to the Chinese military (as eventually forced to be revealed because when Judicial Watch won a FOIA lawsuit).
Because the DOJ was desperate to get rid of the suspicions surrounding SecDef Perry, they destroyed the intelligence on the Mohammad Atta AQ cell - resulting in the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9-11-01. That should have shown everybody within government just how badly Clinton and his regime sold out America for their own political/financial interests. Treason is deadly, and when arrests are not made, LOTS of Americans die.
So this DOJ opinion that you’re talking about was created right when Nixon was going to need protection from arrest, and it was reaffirmed by Janet Reno right when Bill Clinton needed protection from arrest - not only from the DOJ or other law enforcement but also potentially by the military. It takes a ruling regarding frivolous arrest of Congress members to keep them from voting on bills (something that nobody else can do for them while they are incapacitated), and claims that means that a POTUS can NEVER be arrested while in office even though the duties of his office will ALWAYS be covered even when he is incapacitated.
This was all done BEFORE 9-11-01, which shook the legal system into saying that national security trumps (or maybe “redefines” is a better word) a LOT of Constitutional protections.
And you’re calling me a flake for questioning the claims made by this DOJ opinion, which was used by their AG picks to protect two of the past crooks in the White House. And in fact, it was used to protect the 2nd crook in the White House while his regime was purging info that could have protected us from 9-11-01 in an effort to hide the national-security-breaching crimes of SecDef Perry.