4 ms·

The recent SCOTUS opinion that the President's official actions are not bound by the laws of man does provide a clear line of sight to really any action taken b

by runako 1y ago

The recent SCOTUS opinion that the President's official actions are not bound by the laws of man does provide a clear line of sight to really any action taken by the Executive branch. So it may not really even be productive to discuss limits on Executive power anymore.

rayiner 1y ago
That is in fact not what the Supreme Court said. It said that the President has immunity for “official acts,” just like Congress members and judges. Say a judge dismisses an indictment of an accused murderer because the police didn’t have a proper search warrant. Then the accused murderer kills someone else. That could fall within the letter of “negligent homicide” laws, but the judge can’t be prosecuted for that because judges have absolute immunity for official acts. Similarly, a red state prosecutor could have tried to prosecute Biden for something like negligent homicide on the theory that his opening of the boarder was a negligent act that resulted in deaths. Obviously you can’t do that, because the President has immunity for official acts. It would be completely insane if the President didn’t have immunity. President do lots of things which cause people to be killed, property to be destroyed, etc. You could prosecute those as crimes if you literally applied the criminal laws.
- runako 1y ago
  I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everything we are discussing is an official act. If the Executive isn’t bound to follow federal appropriations laws, there’s no principled reason why he should have to follow other federal laws. And as you show, the president has full criminal immunity as well. What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms.
  - xyzzyz 1y ago
    There are all kinds of laws that limit president's conduct, but the point is that there is no way to actually enforce these laws, other than voluntary compliance by the president and his government, and impeachment by legislature. This is by design, that's how the separation of powers works.
    - runako 1y ago
      These is a different way of stating my point that the President is not bound by laws, only politics.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms. The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Those are the main checks on the executive. We have this 20th century conception of “the rule of law,” where we imagine this neutral, independent “justice system” as the base layer on top of which the elected branches operate. Like the lowest level of an operating system kernel. But if you look at the debates at the constitutional convention, and read the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers, that’s not the system the founders actually created. The founders didn’t trust anyone to neutrally enforce the law. You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy. Instead, what we have is a game of rock-paper-scissors, where no branch is assumed to be “independent” and no branch is a “base layer of the operating system.” Courts can declare the law, but can’t force the President to do something. But if the President doesn’t listen to the court, he can be voted out of office, or impeached, or Congress can withhold funding for the administration. That is a complete system of checks and balances as it is.

by runako 1y ago

rayiner 1y ago

That is in fact not what the Supreme Court said. It said that the President has immunity for “official acts,” just like Congress members and judges. Say a judge dismisses an indictment of an accused murderer because the police didn’t have a proper search warrant. Then the accused murderer kills someone else. That could fall within the letter of “negligent homicide” laws, but the judge can’t be prosecuted for that because judges have absolute immunity for official acts. Similarly, a red state prosecutor could have tried to prosecute Biden for something like negligent homicide on the theory that his opening of the boarder was a negligent act that resulted in deaths. Obviously you can’t do that, because the President has immunity for official acts. It would be completely insane if the President didn’t have immunity. President do lots of things which cause people to be killed, property to be destroyed, etc. You could prosecute those as crimes if you literally applied the criminal laws.

runako 1y ago
I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everything we are discussing is an official act. If the Executive isn’t bound to follow federal appropriations laws, there’s no principled reason why he should have to follow other federal laws. And as you show, the president has full criminal immunity as well. What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms.
- xyzzyz 1y ago
  There are all kinds of laws that limit president's conduct, but the point is that there is no way to actually enforce these laws, other than voluntary compliance by the president and his government, and impeachment by legislature. This is by design, that's how the separation of powers works.
  - runako 1y ago
    These is a different way of stating my point that the President is not bound by laws, only politics.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- rayiner 1y ago
  > What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms. The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Those are the main checks on the executive. We have this 20th century conception of “the rule of law,” where we imagine this neutral, independent “justice system” as the base layer on top of which the elected branches operate. Like the lowest level of an operating system kernel. But if you look at the debates at the constitutional convention, and read the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers, that’s not the system the founders actually created. The founders didn’t trust anyone to neutrally enforce the law. You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy. Instead, what we have is a game of rock-paper-scissors, where no branch is assumed to be “independent” and no branch is a “base layer of the operating system.” Courts can declare the law, but can’t force the President to do something. But if the President doesn’t listen to the court, he can be voted out of office, or impeached, or Congress can withhold funding for the administration. That is a complete system of checks and balances as it is.