3 ms·
I believe the best clarificstion there is that you have to consider the person and the office separately. When acting as the president and largely executing his
by _heimdall 2y ago
I believe the best clarificstion there is that you have to consider the person and the office separately. When acting as the president and largely executing his duties as defined by Congress and the Constitution, he can't be charged. If the person does something outside of the office's powers then immunity doesn't hold.
Meaning, if the president shoots a random bystander on the street they can be charged with murder. If the president orders a military strike as part of an official operation and done through proper channels, they can't be charged if it later turns out the intel was bad or the strike went wrong in some way.
- burutthrow1234 2y agoWhat if the President orders the Vice President to shoot someone in the street? What if the President signs an Executive Order directing himself to shoot someone in the street?
- _heimdall 2y agoSimply envoking the title of the office doesn't mean the act falls within the lawful powers of the office. Think of it like the police. An off duty cop is not acting under official powers. Even on duty, a cop is limited in what and how they are supposed to do their job and crossing outside those bounds technically makes them personally liable. I wouldn't begin to say we are any good at actually holding police accountable when they act outside their official duties, but that's a whole separate can of worms.
- metabagel 2y agoSounds reasonable, but that's not what the court decided.
- _heimdall 2y agoAny specific references in the court decision that jumps out at you? I read it and what is above is my understanding of how they attempted to parse the law, but I'm happy to be wrong if I missed something.