Well…I’d say it expanded presidential powers since it is now MUCH more difficult to hold the president accountable.
Before this ruling the president would have to explain themselves if they sent people to murder your family.
Now, the president does not need to answer for that. Presidential powers…they thought you were a terrorist. End of story.
Heck, not even that level of accountability. The ruling says you cannot question the motives. If he has the power to kill people (which he does) then he does not need to explain why.
And I, of course, find the opposite counterintuitive and quite possibly absurd. But I have a feeling that elaborating would take this out of the realm of this forum. But it does highlight another potential major reason that I’ve been flailing around in confusion about this topic.
He can do that right now. The phrase “national security” comes to mind.
Previously, the action and especially the motive would be subject to review. Technically, it is still reviewable, but there’s practically no evidence that is admissible for review because they carved it all out. You cannot question the president’s motives. If the president’s political rivals all started dying because “national security”, then a prosecutor could bring charges based on the circumstantial evidence that somehow all of the president’s enemies somehow are all terrorists and ask a jury to consider that this looks a lot more like a personal hit. They could ask to see how those decisions were reached. What intelligence was used? Who advised the president on this? Based on what? Maybe the odds of such a case succeeding would be low, but currently such a case cannot even be brought. There is, in effect, no review even though the ruling technically says the courts may review the president’s actions. That ability for the court’s to review is a fantasy.
And if you want to get away from murder, consider that the president can take bribes to sell pardons. Could they have sold a pardon previously? Maybe, but they would have been charged with bribery (one hopes).
There’s all manner of corruption which is now permissible for the president.
Anyone saying this is wrong. It’s more like diplomatic immunity (not exactly the same, mind you!). It’s still a crime, but it can’t be prosecuted.
If someone argues that’s a distinction without a difference, I wouldn’t argue too hard against it. But technically it’s still illegal if the president commits a crime.
Okay, so federal prosecutors (one whose orders?) could have prosecuted a sitting president for (in the above cases) murder or bribery, maybe with the possibility of countermanding the “illegal” order if it wasn’t fulfilled yet?
Nope. The DOJ has decided, on their own, that you can’t charge a sitting president for a Federal crime, not while he’s in office. That opinion is likely to never be tested, since they’re the guys who would charge someone, and they’re not gonna.
I’ve heard Supremacy Clause defense arguments that would likely be trotted out should a state ever charge a sitting president. Who knows how that would go.
But wouldn’t that be considered an unofficial act (and, hence, prosecutable)? Trying to kill a political rival is something that’s clearly done for personal gain.
It’s not at all like Obama ordering SEAL Team 6 to go after Bin Laden in a compound in Pakistan, which is an official act done for the United States’ interests.
I could definitely see SCOTUS having a do-over if it ever came to this, but if he had the military do so, and directing the military is a core constitutional power (it is), the opinion says he has absolute immunity.
Giving orders to the military is clearly an official act and indeed is within the core Constitutional powers of the President. And per the Supreme Court’s misguided ruling, a prosecutor is prohibited from delving into the details of why an official act is taken or what the motive is for the action. That is what is so worrisome.
Note that this is not just my opinion: Justice Sotomayor delineates this scenario explicitly in her dissent.
If Biden wins, and he gets to appoint two new Justices to replace two conservative justices, they likely will put some strict guidelines on Official Acts.
[Moderating]
Just a friendly reminder that this thread is in FQ. Please stick to the facts of the case, and leave the judgement calls for the more political forums.
They believe there is, though there are constitutional scholars who disagree. Something about how the executive power resides completely with the president, or some other unitary executive stuff. IOW, the president can’t charge himself.
But as I said, since the DOJ is the entity that would have the authority to charge a sitting president for a Federal crime, and they won’t, there won’t ever be a case to get tested in the courts. Not unless they change their policy.
Okay, so the assertion is that before this ruling, there was a very tiny but theoretical chance that a sitting president moving to poison civil servants he didn’t like would be arrested and tried for murder, and this ruling specifically eliminated that tiny but theoretical chance?
A sitting president was safe before and after the ruling, since it’s basically a long-established, untested DOJ policy that keeps him from being charged for a Federal crime. Theoretically, a sitting president is still vulnerable if he commits a state or municipal crime. That was true before and after (the recent decision doesn’t really have anything to do with it).
Now, a president, after his term is completed, has absolute immunity for crimes committed within his core constitutional powers, and presumptive immunity for crimes committed with duties that exist within the outside perimeter of normal (but not core constitutional) authority. Zero immunity for unofficial acts. This is so for sitting presidents as well, but that’s academic since the DOJ wouldn’t have charged them anyway.
Okay, so when folks like Sotomayor, Legal Eagle, and many posters here say that Trump will NOW have the ability to do whatever they want, up to and including murder, rape, and forced quartering of soldiers, were they talking about in office actions or not?
The standard for an official act, of course, is now “the president says it’s official”, since his motive cannot be used as evidence and official acts cannot be used as evidence of unofficial acts.