Comments by "afcgeo" (@afcgeo882) on "George Conway predicts what FBI was looking for" video.

@jaykay1053 No, Royal Law as in the law of the United Kingdom that existed prior to US Constitution. It gave the King ultimate legal power over all courts.
19
@Paul Whitcomb Presidential Immunity protects a SITTING President from CIVIL action against him or her for acts made within the scope of the presidency. That is for official acts instead of individual acts. This type of immunity extends to most government employees on all levels, placing civil responsibility on the government instead of the employee, as long as they were functioning within the scope of their authority. There is nothing particularly right wing, libertarian or Federalist Society about that.
16
@cherylsibson2529 I think if people insert themselves into conversations of others they should at least have the decency to read what’s being discussed.
5
@jeffreydunn7842 Traditional conservation would dictate that men and women are only allowed firearms if they are registered with the selective service. 🤷‍♂️
3
@thathobbitlife I’m honestly not sure the FBI cared if Trump was onsite or not. The USSS would have been told to take him and contain him to one room while the search takes place.
2
@samuelluria4744 I think she meant the Magna Carta. If she did, she has NO idea of what Magna Carta was.
2
@samuelluria4744 He was talking specifically about the legal concept of “Presidential Immunity” being rooted in British Royal Law.
2
@samuelluria4744 It’s not “derogatory” to say something is rooted in Royal Law. However, the US Constitution differs from British Royal law of the 1700s in providing democratic processes in law and government; processes which were mostly lacking in Britain at that time. Context is something you’re ignoring solely to be a troll here. Stop.
2
@samuelluria4744 That’s not at all what I took from her comment. She was following up on another poster’s comment and that’s the context it has to be viewed in. Her comment was about “Presidential Immunity”. She is correct in the fact that the US Constitution is silent on that concept. It grants no civil or criminal immunity to the President. The concept of absolute civil immunity for the President stems from Common Law. It was established by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982). One could argue that the concept of the “untouchability” of heads of state stems from monarchies. I believe that it does. Thankfully, our courts do not at least believe that absolute immunity extends to criminal acts, acts committed outside the scope of the office or acts committed by staff. Unless you are a major fan of monarchs, dictators or autocrats, you would not be a fan of absolute immunity for anyone. While I can see why it may be necessary in some circumstances, it isn’t a very democratic concept. Those who feel very strongly in support of individual rights have every reason to believe that laws that descend from protections of monarchs are derogatory.
2
@whovotedforthis6907 That’s 100% false.
1
@samuelluria4744 The fact that it was nonsensical wasn’t being argued by anyone, as she clearly doesn’t understand what the Magna Carta was or did, but that wasn’t what you were arguing AND don’t you think any issue with her comment should be taken up with her and not me?
1
@samuelluria4744 So you’re just a troll. Got it.
1