A question for those familiar with court decisions in US Just because a politician has power to act, can't court rule intent is corrupt?
or that the act does not serve any public good but instead appears to threaten the public good or public safety.
There is this aspect of American law that long has kind of bothered me. It seems a lot of time politicians are allowed to do something simply because they have the power to do it or at times because there is no stipulation in the law that they cannot do that thing. But what if the politician is acting to harm his constituents and especially in a way that is too serious to simply say lets just vote him out in 2 or 4 years etc...
The last 4 years has kind of exposed some weaknesses in our system. What if we really did get a raving mad lunatic and absolutely traitor to become President who then started giving a rash of Presidential orders that clearly are aimed at weakening the county vis a vis its global enemies and to even cause massive economic calamity and deaths of citizens by the hundreds of thousands or millions.
That very bad President can simply say, I have the power to attack Canada to protect the USA, or invade Mexico because their citizens are coming in US, or do some crazy stuff with the stock market regulations or bank regulations etc... that absolutely makes no sense and will create a big mess. Yes I know you will say he could be impeached, but what if impeachment is not possible because he is in league with the Senate Majority which will not remove him because he has intructed say foreign enemies to deposit millions of dollars in their accounts?
If a lawsuit is filed against that president to make him stop, it likely will get thrown due to lack of standing, basically saying that what the president is doing does not affect you, which sounds crazy, or it will be defeated because there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding the President from harming the country and its citizens.
Be the first to answer this question.