3 ms·

If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. We are a constitutional republic a

If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed. It's quite clear that the current President does not give a damn about the constitution, know anything about it, or have any compunction about blatant violation of the constitution. > Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf. This is factually wrong.

jimbokun 2y ago
> If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
- mrkstu 2y ago
  Sort of. He would still be breaking the law, it’s just that if it’s an ‘official act’ then the judiciary can’t do anything about it, just Congress via impeachment.
  - dcrazy 2y ago
    I think that opinion would have been less controversial if the President hadn’t openly advertised his intent to violate the law repeatedly. It’s not like the courts are rendered powerless if the President violates the law; any judgments they render are still binding on the parties, even if they require the parties act in ways contrary to the executive’s interpretation of the law. That still means something as long people continue to respect the judiciary. The dangerous game we’re playing is finding out whether that respect will continue.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      It also would have been much less controversial that, when asked, the Trump lawyer during oral arguments specifically dodged the question if the president can deploy Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent. That choice is very telling as to what the next steps probably are, and none of them are good for this country.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        The majority’s response to that is far more compelling than the dissent’s Seal Team Six hypothetical: > The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). Look at section 371! If President didn’t have immunity for official acts, Trump could easily have relied on that broad statute to prosecute him for opening the border and thus “impairing” the function of ICE. Our criminal laws are breathtakingly broad in their wording, and a contrary ruling from the Supreme Court would’ve meant that the Presidency would become subordinate to prosecutors.
        DrillShopper 2y ago
        > If President didn’t have immunity for official acts, Trump could easily have relied on that broad statute to prosecute him for opening the border and thus “impairing” the function of ICE Trump still wants to do this and the court will let him because you have to be incredibly naive or willingly ignorant to think that that this Supreme Court will apply the laws equally without regard to political party. > t would’ve meant that the Presidency would become subordinate to prosecutors Oh no, the President would have to follow the same laws as everyone else, how horrible!/s
        rayiner 2y ago
        > Oh no, the President would have to follow the same laws as everyone else, how horrible “Laws” aren’t magic. If you could just have “laws” and trust prosecutors to enforce them fairly and neutrally, then the entire constitutional structure, with three branches and checks and balances, is pointless. You would just have prosecutors as basically the government’s “microkernel” and then the other three branches on top. The framers didn’t create that system because they understood that you can’t trust prosecutors either—they’re political too! Our system is designed like a game of rock-paper-scissors, where the checks on each branch come from the other branches, not prosecutors enforcing “the law.”
- otterley 2y ago
  That’s not exactly what they held. They held that the President is immune from prosecution for official acts. Prosecutorial immunity doesn’t mean his conduct is not unlawful; it means he can’t be criminally prosecuted for it. That distinction is important because it doesn’t prevent courts from issuing injunctions. And, as stated by others, the immunity is extended only to official acts. What constitutes an official act isn’t super clear yet, but I think it’s safe to assume that golfing isn’t an official act.
  - throw16180339 2y ago
    The Roberts court invented the official acts immunity out of whole cloth for the sole purpose of keeping Trump out of jail. They're quite capable of interpreting everything he does as an official act.
mmooss 2y ago
> We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed. Also the law must be followed.
rayiner 2y ago
> > Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf. > This is factually wrong. It’s literally the first sentence of Article II! “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article II doesn’t even talk about an “executive branch.” It assigns powers and responsibilities to the President. It’s an extremely easy to understand structure that has been obfuscated during the 20th century. The constitutional actors are: the President, the 100 senators and 435 Congressmen, the 9 Justices, and Article III judges. They hold all the powers of their respective offices. Can Congress appoint employees to be part of the Supreme Court, and provide for them to exercise judicial powers independently of the Justices? Of course not! Can Congress delegate to a staff of employees the power to make laws independently of the Congressmen? No! Obviously not! That would be absurd. The executive branch isn’t any different.

jimbokun 2y ago

> If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

mrkstu 2y ago
Sort of. He would still be breaking the law, it’s just that if it’s an ‘official act’ then the judiciary can’t do anything about it, just Congress via impeachment.
- dcrazy 2y ago
  I think that opinion would have been less controversial if the President hadn’t openly advertised his intent to violate the law repeatedly. It’s not like the courts are rendered powerless if the President violates the law; any judgments they render are still binding on the parties, even if they require the parties act in ways contrary to the executive’s interpretation of the law. That still means something as long people continue to respect the judiciary. The dangerous game we’re playing is finding out whether that respect will continue.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    It also would have been much less controversial that, when asked, the Trump lawyer during oral arguments specifically dodged the question if the president can deploy Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent. That choice is very telling as to what the next steps probably are, and none of them are good for this country.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      The majority’s response to that is far more compelling than the dissent’s Seal Team Six hypothetical: > The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). Look at section 371! If President didn’t have immunity for official acts, Trump could easily have relied on that broad statute to prosecute him for opening the border and thus “impairing” the function of ICE. Our criminal laws are breathtakingly broad in their wording, and a contrary ruling from the Supreme Court would’ve meant that the Presidency would become subordinate to prosecutors.
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        > If President didn’t have immunity for official acts, Trump could easily have relied on that broad statute to prosecute him for opening the border and thus “impairing” the function of ICE Trump still wants to do this and the court will let him because you have to be incredibly naive or willingly ignorant to think that that this Supreme Court will apply the laws equally without regard to political party. > t would’ve meant that the Presidency would become subordinate to prosecutors Oh no, the President would have to follow the same laws as everyone else, how horrible!/s
        rayiner 2y ago
        > Oh no, the President would have to follow the same laws as everyone else, how horrible “Laws” aren’t magic. If you could just have “laws” and trust prosecutors to enforce them fairly and neutrally, then the entire constitutional structure, with three branches and checks and balances, is pointless. You would just have prosecutors as basically the government’s “microkernel” and then the other three branches on top. The framers didn’t create that system because they understood that you can’t trust prosecutors either—they’re political too! Our system is designed like a game of rock-paper-scissors, where the checks on each branch come from the other branches, not prosecutors enforcing “the law.”
otterley 2y ago
That’s not exactly what they held. They held that the President is immune from prosecution for official acts. Prosecutorial immunity doesn’t mean his conduct is not unlawful; it means he can’t be criminally prosecuted for it. That distinction is important because it doesn’t prevent courts from issuing injunctions. And, as stated by others, the immunity is extended only to official acts. What constitutes an official act isn’t super clear yet, but I think it’s safe to assume that golfing isn’t an official act.
- throw16180339 2y ago
  The Roberts court invented the official acts immunity out of whole cloth for the sole purpose of keeping Trump out of jail. They're quite capable of interpreting everything he does as an official act.

mmooss 2y ago

> We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed. Also the law must be followed.

rayiner 2y ago

> > Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf. > This is factually wrong. It’s literally the first sentence of Article II! “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article II doesn’t even talk about an “executive branch.” It assigns powers and responsibilities to the President. It’s an extremely easy to understand structure that has been obfuscated during the 20th century. The constitutional actors are: the President, the 100 senators and 435 Congressmen, the 9 Justices, and Article III judges. They hold all the powers of their respective offices. Can Congress appoint employees to be part of the Supreme Court, and provide for them to exercise judicial powers independently of the Justices? Of course not! Can Congress delegate to a staff of employees the power to make laws independently of the Congressmen? No! Obviously not! That would be absurd. The executive branch isn’t any different.