– #Sticky Note on a Donald’s Double Doom Infallibility[1] (Papal/ex officio) –
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution forll hi a s official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. (US Supreme Court, Trump v. United States 07/01/2024)
More commonly known as the Enabling Act ..., which consisted of only five articles, the government ... was to be vested with almost unlimited powers to enact laws, even in cases where the legislation encroached on core provisions of the Constitution. (German Parliament on The Enabling Act of 23 March 1933)
REVIEW | Once upon a time, there was a special Presidential Election …
The US Presidential Election in 2000[2] having featured George W. Bush[3] and Al Gore[4] could’ve been rated an Election Scandal. Eventually Bush won by court decision not ballot (re)counting.
According to reports, Sandra Day O‘Connor[5], i.e. Mrs Per Curiam[6] then being an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States had availed confidential support in Bush’s favour.
Doesn’t a Collegial Courts' Judicial Counselling Confidentiality bear sufficient room for a discreet perversion of justice in the sense of keeping individual judical votes on a Court Ruling anonymous?
Wasn‘t this a juridically stolen election and wasn’t Al Gore betrayed of his Status as a Legit President Elect?!
PREVIEW | (Ab)Use of Office in (il)legal terms of Ruling by Doing (so) as follows …
Permitting Trump's ink eradicators an abstrusive rationalisation of a former US President's conspicuous Abuse of Office by means of preserving the fiction of Sacrosanctity post ex officio, is as ridiculously medieval as Papal infallibility[7].
Apparently, Trump’s Monkeys on a Stick[8] seem to ‘ve paved the way for the Very First Enabling Act[9] in US History.
Now what?!
Dear (il)legal practioners: Congratulations!
You too, Nikki!
Frame of Reference
Scotus' & Croesus' Love Divine!
Ink Eradicators of The US Constitution
Repubs vs Democs | A Nation Going Paranoid
An American Idiot’s Helter Skelter!
When Trump said: "We're going to the Capitol!"
A Counterfeit World: Not only Trump’s
TrumPutinian Tango & Th‘ Russian Mafia!
Withstanding Êpitomes of Destrûctiveness!
Fiat Iustitia Et Pereat Mundus
[1] 23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) (supremecourt.gov) ––– related as follows: The Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Immunity | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org) ––– The Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org) ––– The Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Is a Victory for Donald Trump | The New Yorker ––– The Supreme Court’s Stunning Gift to Trump - POLITICO ––– How Supreme Court’s immunity ruling ‘transforms’ US presidency | Donald Trump News | Al Jazeera
[2] United States presidential election of 2000 | Bush vs. Gore, Electoral College & Supreme Court | Britannica ––– Bush v. Gore | Summary, Decision, Significance, & Facts | Britannica ––– Bush v. Gore :: 531 U.S. 98 (2000) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center ––– Bush Wins in Supreme Court; Gore Is Pressured to Concede - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com) ––– Bush v. Gore: A special report.; Election Case a Test and a Trauma for Justices - The New York Times (nytimes.com) ––– Legal Precedent and the Bush-Gore Ruling : NPR ––– Bush v. Gore and the 2000 Election Never Ended (nymag.com) ––– Lessons From Bush v. Gore: How to Win an Election in Court | TIME ––– Why Bush v. Gore Still Matters in 2020 — ProPublica ––– Bush v. Gore destroyed us | The Hill ––– How the 2000 Election Came Down to a Supreme Court Decision | HISTORY ––– ––– On this day, Bush v. Gore settles 2000 presidential race - National Constitution Center ––– Whether in 2000 or 2024, There’s No Upside for Supreme Court in Deciding Elections - WSJ ––– Supreme Court: New documents show how Sandra Day O'Connor helped George W. Bush win the 2000 election | CNN Politics || Bush Vs Gore - Supreme Court Decision (supremecourt.gov) ––– The Bush vs. Gore Case in the Supreme Court | Law Paper Example (lawbirdie.com) ––– Bush Vs Gore - How the Press Covered the Final Stages of the Presidential Campaign (pewresearch.org) ––– U.S. Reports: Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). (loc.gov) ––– The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush V. Gore (umn.edu) ––– Bush v. Gore: The Worst (or at least second-to-the-worst) Supreme Court Decision Ever (unlv.edu) || [Bush v. Gore] and the 2000 Election | C-SPAN.org ––– Inside Bush v Gore: The Divisive Election That Shaped History - YouTube ––– Bush v. Gore: How a Recount Dispute Affects Voting Today - Retro Report ––– related as follows: George W. Bush | Biography, Presidency, & Facts | Britannica ––– Al Gore | Biography & Facts | Britannica ––– Sandra Day O'Connor (Wikiped)
[3] George W. Bush | Biography, Presidency, & Facts | Britannica
[4] Al Gore | Biography & Facts | Britannica
[5] Sandra Day O'Connor (Wikiped) ––– Supreme Court: New documents show how Sandra Day O'Connor helped George W. Bush win the 2000 election | CNN Politics
[6] Per curiam decision (Wikiped)
[7] Papal infallibility (Wikiped)
[8] List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump (Wikiped) ––– Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies (Wikiped) ––– Federal judges nominated by Donald Trump - Ballotpedia ––– related as follows: President Donald J. Trump Is Appointing a Historic Number of Federal Judges to Uphold Our Constitution as Written – The White House (archives.gov) ––– Trump’s Supreme Court and other federal judges could spell doom for Democrats - Vox ––– Trump's court appointments will leave decades-long imprint | AP News ––– Trump's Judges, Mostly White Men, Will Rule For Decades : NPR ––– Trump’s judges will call the shots for years to come. The judicial system is broken | Shira A Scheindlin | The Guardian
[9] By historical analogy: Enabling Act | 1933, Definition, Adolf Hitler, & Third Reich | Britannica: Enabling Act, law passed by the German Reichstag on March 23, 1933, that enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler to assume dictatorial powers. Deputies from the Nazi Party, the German National People’s Party, and the Centre Party voted in favor of the act, which “enabled” Hitler’s government to issue decrees independently of the Reichstag and the presidency. It gave Hitler a base from which to carry out the first steps of his National Socialist revolution. ––– The Enabling Act of 23 March 1933 (bundestag.de): The next step towards the ‘Führer state’ was the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Although the NSDAP-led government had a stable working majority in the Reichstag, the National Socialists aspired to formalise their absolute de facto political power by means of an amendment to the Weimar Constitution. Through the ‘Act for the Removal of the Distress of the People and the Reich’ of 24 March 1933, more commonly known as the Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz), which consisted of only five articles, the government of the Reich was to be vested with almost unlimited powers to enact laws, even in cases where the legislation encroached on core provisions of the Constitution.
The "US Enabling Act" of 1 July 2024: