Zeitpunkt Nutzer Delta Tröts TNR Titel Version maxTL Mo 29.07.2024 00:00:15 20.799 0 1.193.383 57,4 Newsie 4.2.10 500 So 28.07.2024 00:00:43 20.799 -1 1.192.091 57,3 Newsie 4.2.10 500 Sa 27.07.2024 00:00:15 20.800 0 1.191.046 57,3 Newsie 4.2.10 500 Fr 26.07.2024 00:02:04 20.800 0 1.189.344 57,2 Newsie 4.2.10 500 Do 25.07.2024 00:00:02 20.800 0 1.187.419 57,1 Newsie 4.2.10 500 Mi 24.07.2024 00:00:53 20.800 0 1.185.718 57,0 Newsie 4.2.10 500 Di 23.07.2024 00:00:23 20.800 0 1.183.719 56,9 Newsie 4.2.10 500 Mo 22.07.2024 00:02:28 20.800 +1 1.181.470 56,8 Newsie 4.2.10 500 So 21.07.2024 00:00:41 20.799 -1 1.179.920 56,7 Newsie 4.2.10 500 Sa 20.07.2024 00:04:58 20.800 0 1.178.877 56,7 Newsie 4.2.10 500
(@toussaint) · 11/2022 · Tröts: 7.359 · Folger: 747
Mo 29.07.2024 17:35
#SCOTUS cited Hamilton's 1788 Federalist Paper's writings to make a 2024 decision on trumps immunity.
#election2024 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70#:~:text=70%20argues%20in%20favor%20of,legislative%20encroachments%20on%20his%20power
![Federalist No. 70 has also been cited by the Supreme Court as an authority on the importance of presidential accountability.[83] In its 1997 opinion in Clinton v. Jones, the court weighed whether or not a sitting president could delay addressing civil litigation until the end of his or her term.[83][84] The court cited Federalist No. 70, stating that the president must be held accountable for his or her actions, and thus cannot be granted immunity from civil litigation.[85] However, in the 2010 case of Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the court cited the need for executive accountability as a basis to expand presidential power.[86] Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stated:
The Constitution that makes the President accountable to the people for executing the laws also gives him the power to do so. That power includes, as a general matter, the authority to remove those who assist him in carrying out his duties. Without such power, the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else. Such diffusion of authority](https://assets.newsie.social/media_attachments/files/112/870/506/735/058/846/small/72724418d19cc1d2.jpg "Federalist No. 70 has also been cited by the Supreme Court as an authority on the importance of presidential accountability.[83] In its 1997 opinion in Clinton v. Jones, the court weighed whether or not a sitting president could delay addressing civil litigation until the end of his or her term.[83][84] The court cited Federalist No. 70, stating that the president must be held accountable for his or her actions, and thus cannot be granted immunity from civil litigation.[85] However, in the 2010 case of Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the court cited the need for executive accountability as a basis to expand presidential power.[86] Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stated:
The Constitution that makes the President accountable to the people for executing the laws also gives him the power to do so. That power includes, as a general matter, the authority to remove those who assist him in carrying out his duties. Without such power, the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else. Such diffusion of authority")
Federalist No. 70 has also been cited by the Supreme Court as an authority on the importance of presidential accountability.[83] In its 1997 opinion in Clinton v. Jones, the court weighed whether or not a sitting president could delay addressing civil litigation until the end of his or her term.[83][84] The court cited Federalist No. 70, stating that the president must be held accountable for his or her actions, and thus cannot be granted immunity from civil litigation.[85] However, in the 2010 case of Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the court cited the need for executive accountability as a basis to expand presidential power.[86] Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stated: The Constitution that makes the President accountable to the people for executing the laws also gives him the power to do so. That power includes, as a general matter, the authority to remove those who assist him in carrying out his duties. Without such power, the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else. Such diffusion of authority "would greatly diminish the intended and necessary responsibility of the chief magistrate himself." The Federalist No. 70, at 478.[86] Roberts argued that the act in question deprived the president of the ability to hold members of an independent board accountable...
[Öffentlich] Antw.: 0 Wtrl.: 0 Fav.: 0 · via Web