3 ms·

There is nothing bonkers about it. Should Obama be subject to prosecution for murder for allowing the bombing of a US citizen in the Middle East? Or should he b

There is nothing bonkers about it. Should Obama be subject to prosecution for murder for allowing the bombing of a US citizen in the Middle East? Or should he be immune because he was engaging in an official act as President to protect the US?

dragonwriter 2y ago
Neither, he should not be criminally liable for that, not because he has immunity invented by a Court in clear defiance of the Constitution, but because the act is, in fact, legal pursuant to the 9/11 AUMF. That the decision is wrong is pretty clear from the Constitution itself: where it intends there to be a Constitutional legal immunity for official acts for Constitutional officers, it explicitly states it (e.g., the speech and debate clause in Article I.) The absence of any such statement for the President and the narrow one provided for members of Congress make it clear that creating a broad Presidential official act immunity ex nihilo for the President is contrary to and an inversion of the Constitutional design, putting a single actor above the law rather than bound by it.
- blindriver 2y ago
  No, you're wrong. No law from Congress can supersede the Constitution and Obama is not criminally liable because of the Constitution, not because of the law you state. You can't create a law that deprives an individual of his constitutional rights. However, presidential immunity did give Obama the ability to launch a drone strike against him in the name of national security. He could basically execute the individual and was protected because of his presidential immunity. Immunity is implied by the Constitution because of separation of powers, and it's been a long-held policy that the president has immunity so that he can do his duties without fear of criminal or civil prosecution, and this is a perfect example of this. The only thing SCOTUS did was make it clear that the President does have immunity when conducting official acts. This was something that was long-held policy but never officially declared until last year.

dragonwriter 2y ago

Neither, he should not be criminally liable for that, not because he has immunity invented by a Court in clear defiance of the Constitution, but because the act is, in fact, legal pursuant to the 9/11 AUMF. That the decision is wrong is pretty clear from the Constitution itself: where it intends there to be a Constitutional legal immunity for official acts for Constitutional officers, it explicitly states it (e.g., the speech and debate clause in Article I.) The absence of any such statement for the President and the narrow one provided for members of Congress make it clear that creating a broad Presidential official act immunity ex nihilo for the President is contrary to and an inversion of the Constitutional design, putting a single actor above the law rather than bound by it.

blindriver 2y ago
No, you're wrong. No law from Congress can supersede the Constitution and Obama is not criminally liable because of the Constitution, not because of the law you state. You can't create a law that deprives an individual of his constitutional rights. However, presidential immunity did give Obama the ability to launch a drone strike against him in the name of national security. He could basically execute the individual and was protected because of his presidential immunity. Immunity is implied by the Constitution because of separation of powers, and it's been a long-held policy that the president has immunity so that he can do his duties without fear of criminal or civil prosecution, and this is a perfect example of this. The only thing SCOTUS did was make it clear that the President does have immunity when conducting official acts. This was something that was long-held policy but never officially declared until last year.