Yeah, both the Daily Beast article and the Slate article both misread the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case. If you dig two links down, you get this: http://www.oyez.or

Yeah, both the Daily Beast article and the Slate article both misread the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case. If you dig two links down, you get this: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_79_1738 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_79_1738 which states, > The Court held that the President "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." This sweeping immunity, argued Justice Powell, was a function of the "President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of separation of powers and supported by our history." If Obama signs a law that says everyone who sells beer has to pay a fine, and you sue him over it, and it's found to be an unjust law, then what you can't do is demand that he personally pay you for the lost business. What you can do is get the law he signed thrown out.