Comments by "Charles Brightman" (@charlesbrightman4237) on "Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump presidential immunity case" video.

  1. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: Concerning Presidential Immunity: Kind of like a choose your own adventure. In a system of 'self governance' what do we, individually and as a society of individuals choose? a. A single person who has possibly the most power and authority on this Earth and is completely immune from all prosecution. If so, that is the path the nation would go down. b. No person is above the law, not even a sitting US President. A law in a small town is just as valid as the US Constitution. The law is the law. A sitting US President violates even a small town's law, the US President is held accountable for their crime. If so, that is the path the nation would go down. c. Some line in between the 2 extremes. Whatever and wherever that line is, that would be the path the nation would go down. * So, what path do we, individually and as a society of individuals, want to go down? Only 1 single path is allowed. Not choosing and one is automatically chosen for us, whatever system we have is the system we have. If we choose, what path do we choose? How exactly do we, individually and as a society of individuals, want to exist while we do exist? We do have choices especially in a system of 'self governance'.
    2
  2. QUESTIONS: US President acting within being President: a. A terrorist is in a foreign city, and there are even American citizens in that foreign city, and the US President bombs that city to take out the terrorist, BUT many American citizens and Foreign citizens are no longer with the living. That would be okay? And sure, the foreign nation would most probably want to retaliate. But okay from the US President's perspective? b. Now another hypothetical: A terrorist is in a domestic US city filled with many American citizens, no other foreign citizens are in that city. The US President bombs that city to take out the terrorist but many American citizens are no longer with the living. That would be okay? Is there a magic number as to how many American citizens can be taken out so as to take out even a single terrorist? And even if there is, would it matter to a US President who was just 'acting within their job description' of taking out terrorists? * So, what path do we, individually and as a society of individuals, want to go down? Only 1 single path is allowed. Not choosing and one is automatically chosen for us, whatever system we have is the system we have. If we choose, what path do we choose? How exactly do we, individually and as a society of individuals, want to exist while we do exist? We do have choices especially in a system of 'self governance'.
    2
  3. QUESTIONS: US President acting within being President: a. A terrorist is in a foreign city, and there are even American citizens in that foreign city, and the US President bombs that city to take out the terrorist, BUT many American citizens and Foreign citizens are no longer with the living. That would be okay? And sure, the foreign nation would most probably want to retaliate. But okay from the US President's perspective? b. Now another hypothetical: A terrorist is in a domestic US city filled with many American citizens, no other foreign citizens are in that city. The US President bombs that city to take out the terrorist but many American citizens are no longer with the living. That would be okay? Is there a magic number as to how many American citizens can be taken out so as to take out even a single terrorist? And even if there is, would it matter to a US President who was just 'acting within their job description' of taking out terrorists? * So, what path do we, individually and as a society of individuals, want to go down? Only 1 single path is allowed. Not choosing and one is automatically chosen for us, whatever system we have is the system we have. If we choose, what path do we choose? How exactly do we, individually and as a society of individuals, want to exist while we do exist? We do have choices especially in a system of 'self governance'.
    2
  4. QUESTIONS: US President acting within being President: a. A terrorist is in a foreign city, and there are even American citizens in that foreign city, and the US President bombs that city to take out the terrorist, BUT many American citizens and Foreign citizens are no longer with the living. That would be okay? And sure, the foreign nation would most probably want to retaliate. But okay from the US President's perspective? b. Now another hypothetical: A terrorist is in a domestic US city filled with many American citizens, no other foreign citizens are in that city. The US President bombs that city to take out the terrorist but many American citizens are no longer with the living. That would be okay? Is there a magic number as to how many American citizens can be taken out so as to take out even a single terrorist? And even if there is, would it matter to a US President who was just 'acting within their job description' of taking out terrorists? * So, what path do we, individually and as a society of individuals, want to go down? Only 1 single path is allowed. Not choosing and one is automatically chosen for us, whatever system we have is the system we have. If we choose, what path do we choose? How exactly do we, individually and as a society of individuals, want to exist while we do exist? We do have choices especially in a system of 'self governance'.
    1
  5. Would the only legal recourse any remaining 'We The People' left would be to vote the President out of office? And if it's the last term of the President, the People could not even do that?
    1