It seems on this topic that too many fall prey to vague and emotive theoreticals.
The theoreticals described are vague because it lets your mind wander and fill in the blanks however one is inclined. In this instance, we have presumed that Biden would be behaving corruptly or capriciously. But under a narrow set of circumstances defined by law, Biden as POTUS would indeed be authorized to "take out Trump", or anyone else that they were legally authorized to.
So maybe it'd help to create a theoretical where most folks would find this sort of action justified.
Post 9/11, Congress passed the AUMF, which grants the President the authority to use military force against those responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Now, the constitutionally of this thing is debatable, but let's just say strong evidence has emerged that person X is partly responsible for 9/11, and even openly brags about it. They are hiding out in some remote country for several years that is refusing to extradite them. They are openly planning new attacks and coordinating new efforts against the US.
Under the powers granted to the executive by the legislature, is POTUS authorized to "take out" said individual?
What POTUS is not permitted to do, and has never been permitted to do, and was not even discussed by the court, is to unilaterally order executions for no reason. This would be what is known as an unconstitutional order, which you can assume most civil officers would not follow, and would promptly be followed by an impeachment of said executive.
Those are the mechanisms we have for blocking a rogue executive and if you go much further than that, you don't have an executive at all (which the SC correctly acknowledged).
It seems on this topic that too many fall prey to vague and emotive theoreticals.
The theoreticals described are vague because it lets your mind wander and fill in the blanks however one is inclined. In this instance, we have presumed that Biden would be behaving corruptly or capriciously. But under a narrow set of circumstances defined by law, Biden as POTUS would indeed be authorized to "take out Trump", or anyone else that they were legally authorized to.
So maybe it'd help to create a theoretical where most folks would find this sort of action justified.
Post 9/11, Congress passed the AUMF, which grants the President the authority to use military force against those responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23/text
Now, the constitutionally of this thing is debatable, but let's just say strong evidence has emerged that person X is partly responsible for 9/11, and even openly brags about it. They are hiding out in some remote country for several years that is refusing to extradite them. They are openly planning new attacks and coordinating new efforts against the US.
Under the powers granted to the executive by the legislature, is POTUS authorized to "take out" said individual?
What POTUS is not permitted to do, and has never been permitted to do, and was not even discussed by the court, is to unilaterally order executions for no reason. This would be what is known as an unconstitutional order, which you can assume most civil officers would not follow, and would promptly be followed by an impeachment of said executive.
Those are the mechanisms we have for blocking a rogue executive and if you go much further than that, you don't have an executive at all (which the SC correctly acknowledged).