Limited Executive Versus Unlimited Executive

[CitizenZero]

Some of the Justices at the Supreme Court seem to be concerned that a limitation on the President's power is somehow harmful to the nation and our form of government. My view is that a limited executive is much better than an unlimited one. This court seems too concerned that limiting a President's power is some sort of danger to our country and form of government.

The danger of having an autocrat in the White House is much greater than a Presidency with clearly limited powers. The Founders understood this, having overthrown a dictatorial monarch when the nation was founded. A President should not be above the law. No one should be.

It is surprising to me that many so called conservatives are the ones calling for complete Presidential immunity. Traditional conservatives want limited government, not an unlimited executive. So what if a President can be held accountable if they commit a crime? That is much better than an unlimited President that is free to commit crimes. An unlimited autocrat is much more of a danger to our democracy than a limited executive. That is what the court should focus on.

[CitizenZero]

1. Also

We need something like a ten year term limit for Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices. They are too unaccountable with lifetime appointments.

[Ponietz]

2. 10th Amendment US Constitution is a reservation of powers to the States and the People

Executive powers require express enumeration. States’ rights and presidential immunity are antithetical. They disappear into their own asshole, again, trying to have it both ways.

[LiberalFighter]

3. If the president has immunity then why are their restrictions in the Constitution?