I typed "can you sue..." into google.

[LuckyCharms]

Google then auto-completed with "the president"

Can you sue the president?

I found the auto-complete interesting.

The answer appears to be no because of something called "absolute immunity", which I knew as much.

See, I'm tired of hearing that we can't do anything until "congress" decides to take action.

I know that is true, but it is unacceptable to me.

This man, who in actuality represents a large plurality of Americans who voted against him, (popular vote) lies.

He lies to the entire world, on behalf of Americans.

Maybe someone smarter than me can come up with a creative remedy. But there probably isn't one.

Because the people who were elected to look after our best interests are purposely refusing to address the mortal danger he places us in, and places our children in. Save for a few representatives.

[LuckyCharms]

3. Yes thanks. I caught that and changed it just before you responded.

I hope it makes more sense now. Thanks again.

[PJMcK]

4. It's still a very good post! (n/t)

[LuckyCharms]

6. Thanks, I'm just so frustrated.

We don't know how to fix problems in this country, and we use our interpretation of the Constitution as an excuse on why things can't be fixed.

We obviously have a gun problem, and any prudent individual would agree that we do. Yet we can't fix the problem because of what the constitution says, and it is too difficult to get it amended. I am of the mind that the constitution can be interpreted differently with regard to the 2A. I am also of the mind that the death of our fellow countrymen due to a glut of guns in the hands of unstable people constitutes a national emergency and needs to be fixed now.

We have a madman as the commander in chief. Most people have trouble now explaining that he is not crazy. Yet, it can't be fixed because congress won't take action. I wonder if they will take some action from the great beyond when they get blown up along with the rest of us?

[jberryhill]

17. Well that is the first step along the road...

...to realizing that appointment of Supreme Court justices is one of the few areas where the President exercises primary unilateral authority.

One thing that people need to understand is that the powers of the President are enumerated. Less important are those areas where the president's power is more limited than in other areas.

And, if one considers the sort of Supreme Court justices that EITHER Hillary or Bernie would have nominated versus ANY justice this idiot and his band of merry men will nominate....


THEN

...one reaches the inescapable conclusion that any candidate has his or her imperfections, but I will be more interested in arranging the deck chairs once the ship is safe from sinking.

[saidsimplesimon]

2. Correction Lucky

It was Putin's Russia that did the dirty deed. Some facebook and tweeter groupies were blind, deaf and dumb.

[JoeStuckInOH]

5. Correction: "... large PLURALITY of Americans ..."

"This man, who in actuality represents a large majority of Americans who voted against him, (popular vote) lies.

Technically, a majority of people did NOT vote against Trump.
Hillary had a Plurality of votes, not a majority of votes. Majority requires over 50%.

[LuckyCharms]

7. thanks i will change. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

8. The 'no' applies to actions the President takes as part of being President, as Bill Clinton learned

you can be sued while being President for things you did before becoming President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

So Trump could be (and has been) sued for things he did before becoming President.

[LuckyCharms]

10. Yes, I'm just now reading something along these lines...

But in any case, it appears that a private citizen has to go through some onerous and prohibitive hoops to sue.

[Demsrule86]

9. Clinton was sued while president. So you can in some circumstances.

[LuckyCharms]

11. Yes, I agree. Still reading about this.

[Demsrule86]

14. It cuts both ways...imagine if Obama could have been sued...the GOP would have

found some pretext. So while it is annoying with Trump...it protects our people who are attacked non-stop by Republicans.

[LuckyCharms]

15. Agree. n/t

[ck4829]

12. Remember, Trump's power is not genetic or divinely inspired

Trump's power as President is ultimately socially constructed and agreed to by us. The first step if you truly want to do something meaningful is to take any remaining "respect for the office" you may have and cast it aside.

Once you do this, you may find yourself questioning his legitimacy, or you may come to realize that the members of the electoral college who voted to subvert the will of the people have blood on their hands when they voted to normalize alt-right violence, and more. These changes are nothing to fear.

[LuckyCharms]

13. I absolutely agree with all that you typed except I'm confused by...

your "nothing to fear" comment.

[jberryhill]

16. The president can be sued for lots of things

Depends on what sort of suit we are talking about.

If you mean the person of the president for private acts as an individual - in general yes (see, e.g. Paula Jones v. Clinton).

If you mean the office of the president by a party with standing to sue over an official act of the president - yes.

Whether a party has "standing" to sue can be a complicated subject. To provide two extremes, "I am a taxpayer and I am suing Trump over his mis-use of funds", no ; "I am Congress attempting to enforce a subpoena?", yes.