this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
66 points (91.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36172 readers
729 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ja2@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
66
What is stopping the vice president from ever murdering the president? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So the supreme court already ruled the president cannot be held accountable for anyone they kill.

The vice president becomes the president instantly if the president dies.

What is preventing any vice president from waiting until day 1 of their parties presidency, and then murdering the president? And then instantly pardoning themself?

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 78 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The action would have been done as vice-president, not president. Vice-presidents are held accountable. This is why Trump got in trouble for defamation of E. Jean Carroll.

He defamed her as president and called it an official act. The case was put on indefinite hold. Then he said the same things while he wasn't president. A new case was brought against him and he was found liable. Then, Carroll's lawyer asked the original case to be resumed arguing that Trump's statements couldn't be an official act of the president since he performed the same action while he wasn't president. The courts agreed and resumed the case and he was found liable again.

[–] timroerstroem@feddit.dk 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Also, impeachment. One would like to think that even today, a president-through-killing-the-president-while-being-vice-president would be impeached and removed by congress, but who knows.

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, but Republicans do what they want with no consequences, so check and mate.

[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee 25 points 1 month ago

You grossly oversimplified what the Supreme Court basically "said," and then posited a ridiculous assertion on top of it.

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I'm sure analogous situations have come up many times in history, such as in the Roman empire. The Borgia clan in the Italian Renaissance got a possibly unjust reputation for stuff like that. Machiavelli's "The Prince" was supposedly inspired by Cesare Borgia.

Part of the answer has been to be careful who you pick as VP. Trump picked Pence partly because Pence (at the time) seemed to have no presidential ambitions. It worked reasonably well, since Pence could have (politically) put the shiv into Trump during either of Trump's two impeachments. If Trump becomes president again, he'll likely get impeached at least a couple more times, so we'll see if Vance is similarly loyal.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 12 points 1 month ago

so we'll see if Vance is similarly loyal.

Yeah. Considering how Trump may have actually intended to have Pence killed during the January 6 insurrection, my money is on "not particularly loyal".

I like to think there's still hope that people around Trump and Putin will recognize the clear signs of dementia and not drag the world to war, this time.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I had the same question about the Prince of Wales and the King

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

William would become king, but then things get weird. I strongly suspect there'd be a rushed act of parliament on behalf of the dead Charles, to whom the parliament was loyal, in order to - ahem - reign in this inexplicably power-mad William and perhaps even try to seek to apply some kind of punishment.

I could see a cross-party vote to not recognise William as king because of the grievous act and instead choose to recognise the next in line who was not in favour of that grievous act. This might mean that parliament chooses to recognise George as king and seek to appoint a regent in his stead until he was of age, for example.

Whatever was to happen I don't think there'd be a civil war over it, but there'd probably be a referendum on becoming a republic fairly soon afterwards so the whole thing could be sidestepped.

If it turned out William wasn't acting alone then I still think there'd be an investigation as to who was in favour and maybe expunge William's line from succession altogether... but then I don't think the powers that be would want Harry as king either. Or Andrew.

Edward would be unwilling, but I think he'd make a good, if quiet, king.

Anne would be f**king hilarious.

But all of this is moot. The chance of Wills becoming a homicidal maniac is about as likely as his gran coming back from the grave and doing the job herself.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago

Or just shoot William and make George King. Lol.

[–] fubarx@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

There should be a Shakespeare play with that plot.

[–] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

In a trump/vance administration.... Not a damn thing

Probably a good bet it will happen

[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, logically the immunity would also cover the vice president, as the stated argument for immunity was that a president should be able to act without having to clear everything with a lawyer. Logically, a vice president should then also have the same immunity.

So I guess murdering the president to take their job simply has to be done while shouting "This is an official act of the office of the vice president!" as a battle cry.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

That logic doesn't work because the official duties of the VP are both narrow and distinct from the President. Its not obvious that legal powers confer from the President to the Vice President in any way except under predefined circumstances. The VP would need to wait until those circumstances occurred, for example if the President was sedated for a medical procedure, and then do the official act while they have the actual powers of the Presidency behind them.

[–] mortimer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It works for the Klingons.

[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Well, let’s wait and see when it happens. There’s a first time for everything.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's not what the Supreme Court said, though. Only official acts have absolute immunity. Murder is not usually an official act.

And as always, if you're talking about a coup d'etat, the question is if the military or spy agencies will kill you before, during, or after it. When the rule of law is out the window, you must expect physical violence.

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is trying to overthrow an election an official act?

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

it's much harder to prove because the official acts part also includes all the evidence and testimony needed to prosecute.

So if you can't use evidence from official communication to prove that the treason happened. That makes the prosecution of presidents very difficult. It's going to be extremely difficult for a prosecution to tell a coherent story to a jury without including any "official" acts as part of the crime.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

An official act is defined as a purposefully undefinable and thus uncheckable label the temporarily-illegitimate supreme court can apply to any action without reason or precedent so that donald trump can do whatever he wants.

[–] 8000gnat@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month ago

😏

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The president Can’t be held accountable is one thing. The vp as far as I know (if the vp killed the president) would need certain people in the cabinet to make him president. They’d have to sign off on it.

But of they signed off on it then really at this point nothing stops it

[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

I believe the VP only becomes "acting President" and doesn't assume the actual office until sworn in by a proper authority (usually the Chief Justice of SCOTUS but I believe contingency plans exist). So it would be interesting to figure out when the immunity attaches.