Isn’t the ruling more or less consistent with the established principle of sovereign immunity? That outside of some clearly delineated exceptions you can’t sue the government for carrying out the lawful functions of the government? If it’s a core authority explicity granted by the constitution, it’s ipso facto legal. As I see it, the only real controversy is over the scope of the president’s oversight of the executive branch. And that’s not a new controversy- there was the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson - Wikipedia over his claiming that the Tenure of Office Act (1867) - Wikipedia was an unconstitutional intrusion on the executive’s authority.
What are those core powers, explicitly?
If Trump shoots Biden on 5th ave, is that covered by any of his core powers?
The decision explicitly mentioned “for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.”
Where, I’m not seeing it? I want to make sure I’m looking at the same thing you are.
In any case, if Trump shoots Biden on 5th ave, is that covered by any of his core powers and/or is it an official act?
It is. The big issue really is what exactly are “Official Acts”?
Right, and I think none of us have an issue with the President having immunity for those specific actions.
From your link-
Roberts pushed back against the dissent by Sotomayor and a separate one by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, describing them as striking “a chilling tone of doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.” He portrayed the ruling as a relatively narrow one that decides only “that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts” for them to determine whether the other acts alleged in the indictment are entitled to immunity.
That’s a blog article by a reporter, not the actual decision.
I rarely do this, but I’m cross-posting one of my posts from another thread because I think this is critical to understand.
How about here, pages 14 and 15? “They include, for instance, commanding the Armed Forces of the United States; granting reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States; and appointing public ministers and consuls, the Justices of this Court, and Officers of the United States. See §2. He also has important foreign relations responsibilities: making treaties, appointing ambassadors, recognizing foreign governments, meeting foreign leaders, overseeing international diplomacy and intelligence gathering, and managing matters related to terrorism, trade, and immigration. See §§2, 3. Domestically, he must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” §3, and he bears responsibility for the actions of the many departments and agencies within the Executive Branch. He also plays a role in lawmaking by recommending to Congress the measures he thinks wise and signing or vetoing the bills Congress passes.”
I’m not seeing that text at all…?
ETA: Okay, pp. 14-15 of the PDF (pp. 6-7 of the decision). That is where the court lists some of the President’s duties under the Constitution. Only some of the Presidents actions taken under explicit Constitutional authority are “conclusive and preclusive”, see p. 17 of the PDF / p. 9 of the decision (“The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress”).
I think you (Lumpy) are severely misreading the opinion if you conclude all actions the President takes to satisfy a Constitutional duty are ipso facto legal.
~Max
Maybe I’m blind, but I don’t see where it explicitly mentioned “for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.”
But that doesn’t really matter.
If Trump shoots Biden on 5th ave, is that an official act? Is it covered as part of his core powers?
If he directs the military to do so, for example, then yes.
And could he have done that, with immunity, when he was president?
He would have been safe from being charged (with a Federal crime, at least) until after his term. Prior to the recent cluster@#$& decision from SCOTUS, he’d have been fair game after he left office. No longer.
ETA: In case you were getting at something different, the newly created immunity is only for acts committed in office. If he shoots Joe now, he’s in the soup.
Though if you do get to the point of doing such things in office, I’ll argue that you have absolutely no intent of ever leaving office before dying of old age. That’s why I’ve been musing over the actual effect here.
And I still think folks are thinking too small. If we’re discussing using the military as a get out of jail free card, why not go all the way, with firebombing New York City or doing a door to door roving summary execution of citizens with Democratic voter registrations?
The actual effect is that Trump will not be held responsible for sending a mob after his vice president and trying to overturn the American democracy. He has already done those crimes and will be immune from the consequences.
Now, he could do far worse things, but things that aren’t as bad as assassinating his political opponents, and still won’t be held responsible.
I don’t believe the opinion supports this conclusion. I think the Government can show that the act of ordering the killing of a political rival in fact violates the victim’s rights under the Constitution (i.e. denies his 5th Amendment right to life, w/o due process of law) and therefore lies “manifestly or palpably beyond” the President’s Constitutional authority. See Trump at 17. Being outside the President’s Constitutional authority, it cannot be considered an official act. Being an unofficial act, there is no immunity. Id. at 15. Even assuming the act was official in nature, I think “the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act poses no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch”, Id. at 14. &etc.
~Max
I should have appended at the end of the sentence, “before the president leaves office.”
Nope. This decision says that the president is immune from any crime committed via his core constitutional powers. They don’t say it’s not a crime. He may run roughshod over civil or constitutional rights, so long as he does so via his core powers, and has only slightly more jeopardy (if any) if the acts are not core but within the outside perimeter of presidential duties.
I doubt that. Since the act is illegal on its face.