Re: Immunity is nothing new
Posted by mark194 on 2024-July-6 16:54:21, SaturdayIn reply to Re: Immunity is nothing new posted by monkeyLostInHead on 2024-July-6 14:36:51, Saturday
|
Yeah, it would be the surpreme court that gets to define "official acts". They were at least somewhat ambiguous about what exactly constitutes an "official act" in this decision. I dont think a president could assassinate their opponent, for example, and claim it was an official act, and just get away with it. I dont think this ruling says that. Well, I mean, he couldn't assassinate the opponent himself, but if he, say, ordered Seal Team 6 to do it, then yeah, I think that's exactly what this decision says. On page 7 of the decision, Roberts writes: No matter the context, the President’s authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “con- clusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concur- ring). When the President exercises such authority, he may act even when the measures he takes are “incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.” Id., at 637. The exclusive constitutional authority of the President “dis- abl[es] the Congress from acting upon the subject.” Id., at 637–638. And the courts have “no power to control [the President’s] discretion” when he acts pursuant to the pow- ers invested exclusively in him by the Constitution. Mar- bury, 1 Cranch, at 166. So, as long as an "official act" taken by the president is within his "conclusive and preclusive" authority as delineated by the constitution, he has absolute criminal immunity for that act. Actually, page 6 might be a little more clear and concise on this point. It uses the wording "core constitutional powers" rather than "acts within the President's conclusive and preclusive Constitutional authority", but I think both phrasings are used basically interchangeably. Anyway, page 6 reads: ...We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power re- quires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be ab- solute. basically saying the same thing. But, is ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent an official act? Well, Roberts also writes on page 6: Article II of the Constitution provides that “[t]he execu- tive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President’s duties are of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800 (2020). They include, for instance, commanding the Armed Forces of the United States... So, in other words, commanding the US military is, in fact, a core constitutional power of the president, within his "conclusive and preclusive" constitutional authority. Therefore, according to this decision, yes, a president could just have his political opponent assassinated and get away with it. Since giving that order falls under his core constitutional powers, he'd be completely immune from any criminal liability for doing so. Sonia Sotomayor even said so explicitly in her dissenting opinion: The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. To be fair, that is just one dissenting opinion, and maybe Roberts intended the opinion to be interpreted differently, but he didn't address these possibilities, so who knows? All we have to go on is the opinion he wrote, and that is exactly what the opinion says. |
Follow ups: