5 ms·

I think it means that he is liable for anything he does that is illegal if those illegal things aren't powers granted by the legislature. If the president air

I think it means that he is liable for anything he does that is illegal if those illegal things aren't powers granted by the legislature. If the president air strikes people and uses drone strikes using whatever system congress has said that makes that "okay" then he cannot be prosecuted for murder while authorizing and ultimately conducting drone strikes (in most circumstances). However, if the president is having is own feud with some guy he doesn't like and finds a way to get him drone struck, that would not be covered by immunity because he wasn't acting as president in that capacity in any legally recognized way.

pseudalopex 2y ago
> I think it means that he is liable for anything he does that is illegal if those illegal things aren't powers granted by the legislature. Many disputes about presidential actions are about what the constitution allows. The majority said In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.[1] [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
OgsyedIE 2y ago
There's one crucial flaw. What is and is not covered by immunity can only be decided by a court, after the fact. Intimidating the court into ruling in your favor with guns to their heads is an official act until the court says it isn't official, but the court can't say it isn't offical, because they've got guns to their heads.
- argiopetech 2y ago
  That crucial flaw is the fundamental structure of our legal system. It's why case law is a valued and necessary part of our legal doctrine. Humans are bad at predicting the future, and attempts to write prescient laws often end with significant loopholes that must be corrected after the fact. That this system fails to work when it's axioms are ignored (i.e. in the stated case of a coup) cannot be construed as a failure of common law or an indictment on its 950+ years of success. Such act would be a failure of the Executive solely. The founder's stated intent for resolving such a situation is why we have the 2nd amendment.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  It doesn't matter. In the case where the president is using military force against political opponents it doesn't matter what the law says anyway.
- Almondsetat 2y ago
  There's one crucial flaw: you could neutralize the president in such a patently extreme situation and be acquitted by the jury
  - autoexec 2y ago
    These days I wouldn't expect anyone who makes an attempt to "neutralize the president" to live long enough to see the inside of a courtroom
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
  It aims to be "rules for thee but not for me", and the court's choice of who they hold to the rules. It's a more realistic and relevant flaw.
Muromec 2y ago
>However, if the president is having is own feud with some guy he doesn't like and finds a way to get him drone struck, that would not be covered by immunity because he wasn't acting as president in that capacity in any legally recognized way. When it comes to it, this exact thing will be covered by immunity because of how things work.
plandis 2y ago
> However, if the president is having is own feud with some guy he doesn't like and finds a way to get him drone struck, that would not be covered by immunity because he wasn't acting as president in that capacity in any legally recognized way. Why not? US presidents have murdered US citizens abroad with drones. All he needs to do is claim he did it under national security. SCOTUS explicitly calls out that the presidents motives are immaterial for determining immunity or not.
- anon291 2y ago
  And we have a way to deal with that. It's called impeachment and is the process by which one tries a sitting president for things that are part of his/her official powers. Impeachment is not a legal process but a political one. Congress can try a President for anything at any time, if they can muster enough votes for it. That's what the Supreme Court has said before -- Congress's motivations for impeachment are above any judicial oversight.
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    that sounds not totally crazy until you realize that you've just said that the president can kill all Congress members who think that killing Congress members is an impeachable offense
    - anon291 2y ago
      That was always true. EDIT: to clarify: Any president up until now, and from now going forward, has the power to command his generals to murder every senator, justice, and governor. Of course, American soldiers take an oath to the constitution, so hopefully this wouldn't happen, but he could. Moreover, anyone can 'just' murder all living politicians and declare themselves king. This is hardly a theoretical scenario to concern oneself over.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        I'm sad that we've made it to these kind of specious defenses being offered in a serious response.
space_fountain 2y ago
No the court was clear that motivation can not be used to divide official and unofficial behavior: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.
- sgc 2y ago
  So it's not really immunity they are after, but super-immunity. It's not enough that he should be found not guilty in most or almost all cases, but that he should not even be accused, even have his actions inspected or judged. They have done away with the right to discovery, and covered the executive in an almost impenetrable veil. That is just royalty with extra steps.
  - space_fountain 2y ago
    I think that's a bit unclear. They have this standard where things that are part of a presidents "core constitutional powers" enjoy absolute immunity and anything else enjoys "at least presumptive immunity". I think this hints that some members of the court wanted to go further, but anyway I'm not quite sure what "presumptive immunity" means in the context of the law, but I think this quote gives the most clarity for me. > unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15. This seems to be the real boundary. To show something doesn't have immunity you either have to: 1. Show it was an unofficial act 2. Show it wasn't part of the core presidential powers and that prosecuting it wouldn't have any danger of intruding intruding on "the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." I think that last standard is related to presidential immunity from subpoena which courts have also recently construed quite broadly
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
Unfortunately, the majority decision has the sentence > At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. Since imprisoning the president would obviously intrude on the functions of the Executive branch, it really looks like the majority opinion is that no president may be prosecuted for any "official act".

pseudalopex 2y ago

> I think it means that he is liable for anything he does that is illegal if those illegal things aren't powers granted by the legislature. Many disputes about presidential actions are about what the constitution allows. The majority said In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.[1] [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

OgsyedIE 2y ago

There's one crucial flaw. What is and is not covered by immunity can only be decided by a court, after the fact. Intimidating the court into ruling in your favor with guns to their heads is an official act until the court says it isn't official, but the court can't say it isn't offical, because they've got guns to their heads.

argiopetech 2y ago
That crucial flaw is the fundamental structure of our legal system. It's why case law is a valued and necessary part of our legal doctrine. Humans are bad at predicting the future, and attempts to write prescient laws often end with significant loopholes that must be corrected after the fact. That this system fails to work when it's axioms are ignored (i.e. in the stated case of a coup) cannot be construed as a failure of common law or an indictment on its 950+ years of success. Such act would be a failure of the Executive solely. The founder's stated intent for resolving such a situation is why we have the 2nd amendment.
fallingknife 2y ago
It doesn't matter. In the case where the president is using military force against political opponents it doesn't matter what the law says anyway.
Almondsetat 2y ago
There's one crucial flaw: you could neutralize the president in such a patently extreme situation and be acquitted by the jury
- autoexec 2y ago
  These days I wouldn't expect anyone who makes an attempt to "neutralize the president" to live long enough to see the inside of a courtroom
SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
It aims to be "rules for thee but not for me", and the court's choice of who they hold to the rules. It's a more realistic and relevant flaw.

Muromec 2y ago

>However, if the president is having is own feud with some guy he doesn't like and finds a way to get him drone struck, that would not be covered by immunity because he wasn't acting as president in that capacity in any legally recognized way. When it comes to it, this exact thing will be covered by immunity because of how things work.

plandis 2y ago

> However, if the president is having is own feud with some guy he doesn't like and finds a way to get him drone struck, that would not be covered by immunity because he wasn't acting as president in that capacity in any legally recognized way. Why not? US presidents have murdered US citizens abroad with drones. All he needs to do is claim he did it under national security. SCOTUS explicitly calls out that the presidents motives are immaterial for determining immunity or not.

anon291 2y ago
And we have a way to deal with that. It's called impeachment and is the process by which one tries a sitting president for things that are part of his/her official powers. Impeachment is not a legal process but a political one. Congress can try a President for anything at any time, if they can muster enough votes for it. That's what the Supreme Court has said before -- Congress's motivations for impeachment are above any judicial oversight.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  that sounds not totally crazy until you realize that you've just said that the president can kill all Congress members who think that killing Congress members is an impeachable offense
  - anon291 2y ago
    That was always true. EDIT: to clarify: Any president up until now, and from now going forward, has the power to command his generals to murder every senator, justice, and governor. Of course, American soldiers take an oath to the constitution, so hopefully this wouldn't happen, but he could. Moreover, anyone can 'just' murder all living politicians and declare themselves king. This is hardly a theoretical scenario to concern oneself over.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      I'm sad that we've made it to these kind of specious defenses being offered in a serious response.

space_fountain 2y ago

No the court was clear that motivation can not be used to divide official and unofficial behavior: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.

sgc 2y ago
So it's not really immunity they are after, but super-immunity. It's not enough that he should be found not guilty in most or almost all cases, but that he should not even be accused, even have his actions inspected or judged. They have done away with the right to discovery, and covered the executive in an almost impenetrable veil. That is just royalty with extra steps.
- space_fountain 2y ago
  I think that's a bit unclear. They have this standard where things that are part of a presidents "core constitutional powers" enjoy absolute immunity and anything else enjoys "at least presumptive immunity". I think this hints that some members of the court wanted to go further, but anyway I'm not quite sure what "presumptive immunity" means in the context of the law, but I think this quote gives the most clarity for me. > unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15. This seems to be the real boundary. To show something doesn't have immunity you either have to: 1. Show it was an unofficial act 2. Show it wasn't part of the core presidential powers and that prosecuting it wouldn't have any danger of intruding intruding on "the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." I think that last standard is related to presidential immunity from subpoena which courts have also recently construed quite broadly

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

Unfortunately, the majority decision has the sentence > At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. Since imprisoning the president would obviously intrude on the functions of the Executive branch, it really looks like the majority opinion is that no president may be prosecuted for any "official act".