Is this power limited in any way? So if the President decided that Rush Limbaugh was a threat to the American way of life could he have him executed? The problem Paul brings up is an important one where giving the President the sole power to decide who lives and dies is not something to be taken lightly. In this particular case, it may have been evident that this was justified, but without the appropriate checks and balances, it’s something that can be easily and dangerously abused.
Is this power limited in any way? So if the President decided that Rush Limbaugh was a threat to the American way of life could he have him executed? The problem Paul brings up is an important one where giving the President the sole power to decide who lives and dies is not something to be taken lightly. In this particular case, it may have been evident that this was justified, but without the appropriate checks and balances, it’s something that can be easily and dangerously abused.
Obama only makes decisions on when/where to play golf, what type of pie he wants and what flavor of ice cream to buy. Chewbacca makes decisions on vacations and his handlers in the regime tell him what to do and what to say.
I agree with your point. the role is not clarified as I can see. We have some ‘precedents”, but the issue is an important one.
This bad actor was really dangerous and very visible and very treasonous...but the “definition’ of who is treasonous is not clear and what the prosecution of that person is is not clear.