• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 11th, 2023

help-circle



  • Hey so there’s some echo-chambery stuff going on in Lemmy right now, so I want to provide some clarification:

    1. The court decision did not create a new law. It provided clarity on laws already in place. Presidential immunity is not a new thing. It’s a well established power. See: Clinton v. Jones (1997), United States v. Nixon (1974), United States v. Burr (1807), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

    2. The court decision does not expand on the law either, it clarifies that:

    The President has some immunity for official acts to allow them to perform their duties without undue interference. However, this immunity does not cover:

    • Unofficial acts or personal behavior.

    • Criminal acts, (to include assassination).

    The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties. It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.

    People who are giving opinions based on what they read on Lemmy instead of going and reading the supreme court opinion that is totally online and right here for you to reference are spreading misinformation and fear.


  • It’s called Sodium in English because an English chemist Sir Humphrey Davy discovered it & named it “Sodium” He was able to isolate it via separation of caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) and therefore named it after the caustic soda “soda-ium”. A few years later, a German chemist (Ludwig Wilhelm Gilbert) was able to isolate it and named it “Natronium” Just under a decade later, Jöns Jacob Berzelius coined the term “Natrium” as he felt the name “Natronium” was too lengthy to catch on.

    As to exactly why the earlier term was not respected is likely due to nationalism. During the earlier 1800’s a lot of countries were desperately trying to take claim for various rapid advancements in chemistry, physics, mathematics, and medicine. Getting to have the name that “your guy” coined was largely bent around national pride.



  • Would it be legal for Biden to assassinate them? Asking for a friend.

    I realize you’re likely being rhetorical, but in case you or any other users are actually curious, the fact of the matter is that criminal acts, including assassination, are not protected by presidential immunity. Here’s a breakdown:

    Official Acts are things the President does as part of their job, like signing laws, directing the military, and managing foreign policy.

    Criminal Acts are illegal activities, and they are not protected by presidential immunity. Assassination is definitely illegal and falls under this category.

    The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process of law, meaning that the government cannot deprive anyone of “life, liberty, or property” without fair legal procedures and protections. Additionally, Executive Order 12333, explicitly prohibit the U.S. government from engaging in assassination.

    In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): The case granted the President immunity from civil damages for official acts, but clarified that this doesn’t apply to everything a President does. Unofficial acts, like crimes, are not protected.

    In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): The Supreme Court ruled that President Truman’s seizure of steel mills was unconstitutional. Even though it was for “official use” and it was for “the good of the country” it was nevertheless deemed not part of his presidential powers and therefore not covered.

    Presidential immunity protects certain official actions, but it doesn’t cover illegal activities. Assassination would be an unofficial act and is definitely prosecutable.




  • grandkaiser@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    AI didn’t write this. AI would never write this. It’s outrageously wrong to an extreme degree. Making dangerous and false claims have happened on occasion with LLM’s (Often due to being fed various prompts until the user twists it into saying it), but an AI wouldnt write something like that, come up with a fake graph, and include a made up song (!?!) from the beetles about it. The fact that you are believing it doesn’t speak to the danger of AI as much as it speaks to the gullibility of people.

    If I said “obama made a law to put babies in woodchippers” and someone believes it, it doesn’t speak to Obama being dangerous, it speaks to that person being incredibly dense.