12 votes

Will It Ever Be Legal For A Citizen To Assassinate A President?

How would you even start asking that question.

I started asking myself that about 2 days ago and I'm stuck.

How could it ever,

ever,

ever,

ever,

ever,

ever,

ever be legal for a citizen of the United States to kill a president!?!

What a frickin' stupid question!!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

um... people don't usually ask THAT particular question.

the question is usually, "why is it illegal to say you want to do it?, write about doing it or saying that someone else should do it, etc... " not actually DOING it... obviously killing people is illegal...

people talk trash all the time... just because people say something or say they are going to do something doesn't make it true. if it did, we'd have no problems today and i'd have invented the replicator, because i said i would... there. it's done. i get all credit for it now since i said i was going to do it, just as i would get full credit for mudering someone if i simply said, "i'm going to do it." without actually doing anything ...

precrime is alive and well... people, today, can just gang up and say that you said something and then you can be jailed for it. which is why we originally HAD freedom of speech and due process... keyword, had.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

let me add

with the word you used, assassinate, it can never be "legal".

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Already has been, unfortunately.

If you are banker-backed / CIA / Bush family / Bay of Pigs flunkies / use an effective patsy / influence media and political class / rig an investigation / etc. ...

...you already done did it, dawg!

(Do keep up.)

What would the Founders do?

According to the AG: NO American citizen

can be targeted on American soil.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

And all they have to do is

And all they have to do is declare you a "terrorist" aka enemy combatant and you are striped of US Citizenship! then they CAN & WILL Kill you if they deem you a threat.

"Great Men Do Not Seek Power, They Have Great Power Thrust Upon Them"
www.campaignforliberty.com
www.downsizedc.org
www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://scarecro.users.sonic.net/blog/

The only problem with something like that....

Is that with Obama out of the picture,we would have Biden as potus.Then we would be in worse shape,because Biden believes in obamas policies,but Biden is dumber than a box of rocks!!!

I suspect biden has alot more

I suspect biden has alot more say on things then you give him credit, not acusing him of intelligence or anything, but i "suspect" he'd be great at giving pupet shows

There were whisperings of the shutting down of that site megaupload, and biden being associated with it, have no idea how legit that was though, twas a drive by read

Just a personal suspicion mind you, could be wrong, but eyes and ears are perked because of it

If the circumstances are right....

If we are forced into a civil war(which none of us want),then he becomes the enemy & I would say there will be a lot of people gunning for him.And the one who bags that turkey,will get a Gold Medal of Honor for sure!!!

Amen brother

the one who bags that turkey,will get a Gold Medal of Honor for sure!!!

NOTICE TO PTB SCUMBAGS: Many of us KNOW WHO YOU ARE so if you pull the trigger on this civil unrest thing don't think we're going to be gunning for the cops.

The perpetrators of this madness WILL be brought to justice!

Sure, in self-defense. If you

Sure, in self-defense. If you follow the non-aggression principle, you can't kill a man simply because he has an axe. He has to be using that axe against you or another person. You can stop immediate aggression but you can't initiate it. He deserves due process as he is a human being. Unfortunately, those who are tasked with that undertaking are cowards themselves. They are the ones who need replacement and perhaps due process themselves first.

________________________________________

Id say politician rather then

Id say politician rather then president, essentially anyone using their governing power, the person responsible the person who made that life or death decision, if that so happens to be a president......that would be one hell of a check and balance, not that i condone it, but not saying no, depends how far the USA government will take things, lets just say, if people start getting arrested on mass, if people are killed on a regular basis without due process, if threats are made using information gathered from internet or other surveilance or just general mass manipulation with that powerful information,

In that situation, where we are essentially powerless, and choice has been ripped from the people
i wont call for it, i wont suggest it, , but i wont be lossing sleep over it if it were to happen.......thinking about it, i still have a long way to go before those thoughts go through my head, as im still hoping for a peacfull transition

Not

Not while you are a "US CITIZEN".

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

do you have an attorney

do you have an attorney general you wish to nominate in the la-la kangaroo court universe ?

lawrence

The Attorney

is the part that completes the "kangarooness" of the court.

He's just there to make you think someone's on your side. The outcome has been pre-determined. Only a fool has an Attorney to defend their RIGHTS.

Brilliant

Question!

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

well, if it's legal

for a President to assassinate a citizen, then turnabout would seem to be fair play.

The word "legal," however, has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness. Or morality, decency, responsibility, or common sense.

The word "legal" is simply our rulers' demand that we follow their orders and heed their threats. Are you asking if the President will ever allow someone to assassinate himself? Duh.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

I think you may be thinking of the word lawful

which of course is a different word and has an entirely different meaning.

Is it lawful to kill the president? Of course. We are proscribed a path for doing so.

There are also lawful ways for Obama to kill citizens but he is circumventing them.

The methods he is using currently may or may not have been lawful - we may never know. But they are definitely illegal.

Pandas can't drive.

I think you got that backwards my friend.

Lawful = constitutional
Legal = is in line with all 6 million plus statutes.

It is never LAWFUL to kill anyone who is not an imminent threat... but the BARFLIES could definitely make it LEGAL.

The distinction escapes me.

The same people make the laws, enforce them, judge them, and have the final say on their interpretation. Where's the difference?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Men do not make laws.

They make rules. Statues are NOT laws. Statues are public servant codes and only applicable to public servants.

Our right to common law (hey u hit me that's wrong - ask a jury - no statues) - is protected by the 7th Article of the Bill of Rights.

"In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Here, let me try. It is not

Here, let me try.

It is not legal for you to go up to a person who killed 20 people yesterday and pull the trigger on him today. However, there is a lawful way to kill such a person. The lawful way is to indict him, bring him to court, have a jury of peers convict him of the crime, then assign him the death penalty as his sentence. The end result is the same, either way. It is not legal to kill the guy but it is lawful to kill him provided he was afforded his rights to trial, etc.

________________________________________

I'm still not seeing it.

1. Today I pull the trigger on a guy who killed twenty people yesterday.
It is not legal for me to do this. Nor is it lawful for me to do this. Where's the difference?

2. Government indicts the killer, tries him, sentences him to death and executes him. This is both legal and lawful. Where's the difference?

I Googled for the question and came up with this on Wiki.answers:

"Legal" looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and "Lawful" to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed

According to that, it looks like "lawful" is used when referring to the "spirit" of the law, or to some theory of "natural law" or common law. "Legal" means the letter of the law, as interpreted by government courts. Does that seem about right to you? If so, then I was right the first time, in my use of "legal."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

A+

Yep. That's what I meant to say...

Gotta love how many words people use every day not knowing what they mean: legal, lawful, understand, charge, law, ordinance, statute...

Pandas can't drive.

What if the President becomes suicidal?

Will the President call in a drone strike on his/her self?

Of course it's legal.

.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.