Conscription is just being extended to women the way men have been conscripted for centuries. Usually quite few are actually conscripted as volunteers fill most of the needed positions. The conscription is to my understanding mostly about having a sizable part of the population already trained in a worst case of invasion. This is not really a change in that sense, it has been a gender equality discussion for at least a decade or two. The conscription period is being extended as well, which is probably a result of increased risk posed by Russia, the lack of confidence in the US. Conscripts are however not sent to any frontline so to speak. Of course if an enemy army were to attack a European and or NATO country in what would look like a new world war, that would change, but at that point we are all in a pretty bad spot either way.

The first one’s probably won’t be. But I don’t think it’s too far off. I expect the first ones to be some random non white people who commited some indefensible crimes, or at least are accused of doing so. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go for people with terrorism charges so the next batch can be accused of terrorism as well to make the leap seem smaller. That they now define vandalism against tesla as terrorism will just help murky the waters to make the life sentence without judge or jury seem more palatable than it is every step of the way.

As far as I remember it was a two part protection. Any official act, no matter the intent, is protected. So as one dissenting justice pointed out, ordering seal team six to assassinate a political rival could be protected as it falls within the powers of the president to direct the military. Besides that, any criminal action outside of that overly broad protection still cannot be prosecuted using any evidence that comes from the actions of the president in their capacity as such. So if the president has a phone call logged in official records in which they outline or perform an illegal act, those logs will be inadmissible in court, only evidence reltaed to the president as a private individual is admissible. The stormy daniels case had to throw out evidence because of this, despite being related to crimes committed before the election even.

Obligatory disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and working off of memory. I might misunderstand or misremember some of this.

I get that non-violent crime has a specific meaning in law, but calling the selling of children, causing massive psychological damage non-violent really rubs me the wrong way. Not a criticism of you but of the system that conciders it non-violent just because it was done with the stroke of a pen instead of the wave of a gun.