How exactly does that refute my argument?
~Max
Not according to Justice Sotomayor.
Your argument ignores the actual decision and would render it just about irrelevant and toothless. The decision is not ambiguous regarding core constitutional powers. That a presidential crime may violate all kinds of statutes, including constitutional ones, is exactly the point. The president is immune, period.
Your argument that this example wouldn’t count contradicts what they ruled.
Well, I encourage you to read the decision. It’s a doozy.
Oh, for God’s sake, are we still arguing about basics? Even in my Factual Questions thread! If I had unlimited Dope power, I’d shut down this thread until everyone agreed about basic consequences and implications. Otherwise, this whole conversation runs around in circles again and again.
Feel free to ignore it.
At this rate, I might have to, though definitely not for the reason I expected.
Your summary of the decision is a misreading of the actual decision. Although the decision mentions “core” powers two or three times, the body of the opinion uses the phrase “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. Various powers are so described, including pardon, removal of subordinates, and recognition of foreign nations. The power to direct the military was not explicitly described as a “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority.
The rationale behind “core” powers being conclusive and preclusive to the executive is that said powers are bestowed on the President and the President alone by the Constitution itself. Direction of the military is not such an authority - Congress plays a significant role in regulating the military, for example the power to declare war, to ratify peace treaties, to appropriate money for a standing army, to maintain the naval forces, to provide for captures on land and at sea, and generally to govern and regulate the land and naval forces. You are mistaken to assume the President is within his “core” powers when he directs the military.
“Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action.” Trump at 17. “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”, U.S. Const. Art. II § 2. However, this authority is not limitless. “[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, Id. § 3. Aside from potentially applicable military regulations, one specific constitutional limitation is that “No person shall […] be deprived of life […] without due process of law.” U.S. Const. Amend. V; see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 5420 U.S. 507 (2019) (plurality holding that a U.S. citizen detained as a terrorist is entitled to due process under the 5th Amendment); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (holding that an alien detained in Guantanamo Bay is entitled to the right of habeas corpus). There is case law to the effect that the 5th Amendment does not apply when the federal government is pursuing its war powers, see Miller v. United States, 78 U.S. 268, 304-305 (1871) (upholding seizure of rebel property during civil war), however that was predicated on the existence of a state of war. Under the facts of your hypothetical, President Trump directs the military to assassinate former Vice President Biden. There is no indication that a state of war exists, nor is there any indication of due process for the victim. Therefore the President’s act is not authorized under the Constitution, but rather is expressly forbidden.
This makes the act “manifestly or palpably beyond [the President’s] authority”, Trump at 17, citing Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th, 1, 13 (CADC 2023). While the Court reasoned that immunity extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, this is conditional on the act not being manifestly or palpably beyond the President’s authority. Id. Because shooting Biden on 5th Ave is manifestly and palpably beyond the President’s authority, in this hypothetical President Trump could not claim immunity.
Even if the President could claim his act is within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and entitled to a presumption of immunity, the court hints that the government could overcome that presumption: “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. Somehow we’ve gone over 200 years without Presidents ordering assassination of political rivals. All other things equal, the Government should be able to show that applying a criminal prohibition to the former President’s act poses no danger to the authority and function of the executive branch.
~Max
You should get right on the horn to the dissenting Justices, who seem to lack your expertise and perception.
The dissents are not the decision of the court.
~Max
Thanks for setting me straight on that.
This isn’t the Pit - I apologize. Let me clarify. I’ve read the dissents and disagree with them. In fact I just explained why I disagree. They aren’t here to debate me. You are, if you so wish.
~Max
The majority didn’t directly discuss your nuance, when it seems it would have been relevant, and the dissent outright disagrees with you. I’ll leave it at that.
A lot of the comments here discussing the theoretical versus practical results of the ruling seem to basically boil down to “yeah, but this is TRUMP we’re talking about here!”
Quite a few legal experts have written articles or released videos that don’t agree with you.
Can you show me one that doesn’t present the decision itself as wrong?
I ask because if I’m going to defer to an expert about how to interpret a Supreme Court decision, that expert shouldn’t claim that the Supreme Court decision is wrong.
~Max
And the fact that many think the majority isn’t just wrong, but actively corrupt. That makes the discussion more complicated than just, oh, the majority has six and the dissent three, so the dissent is more likely to be wrong.
There’s a concept in the U.S. judicial branch, and I’m borrowing the name from a paper I read, called “narrowing from below”. The basic idea is that broad and radical Supreme Court rulings tend to be given narrow interpretations by lower courts. Thus the practical effect of the ruling isn’t quite so broad and radical. It makes sense because judges come in all legal, political, and philosophical persuasions, and a judge is unlikely to make a ruling he or she disagrees with unless absolutely required by precedent. Really this is just a name for the natural evolution of the common law legal system under the principle of stare decisis.
If you’re the judge and a former President claims immunity for assassinating a rival, let’s be practical, unless you’re on the take you probably don’t want to rule in his favor. But you’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution and you do not dispute that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the Constitution. You’ve resolved to follow the binding precedent of Trump v. U.S., but what exactly is the ruling in that case?
It ruled that the President cannot be criminally indicted for discussions with his Attorney General about potential investigations and prosecutions, regardless of the legal propriety of said contemplated investigations and prosecutions. It ruled that official acts of the President and acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities are entitled to a presumption of immunity. It ruled that official acts require official authority. It ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity when exercising powers under his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. It ruled that the President is entitled to interlocutory review on the question of immunity.
Did the Court rule that Presidents are immune to prosecution for political assassinations? No, it didn’t. The case did not include facts such as the President ordering an assassination of a U.S. citizen (unlike the drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki). Murder was mentioned as dicta in concurring and dissenting opinions, it was not part of the ruling of the Court that binds lower courts. The Court did not rule, one way or another, that a political assassination is authorized by the Constitution, is official in nature, or is within the President’s “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. These are all determinations you, the lower court judge, have to make based on the facts of the case before you.
The Supreme Court hasn’t tied your hands. You will have to hear the parties out and make your own judgement on the merits. Frankly, if it was me, it would take some wild facts to hold such a President immune. Maybe the case goes to the Supreme Court and they hand it back to me saying I got it wrong - then my hands are tied.
~Max
Moderating: Do not change poster’s quotes within the quote box. This is a pretty serious change. I will delete the quote.
I cannot think of one that doesn’t think the decision is wrong since seemingly most legal experts think the ruling was a really bad ruling.