In this thread, I gave my understanding of how things stand in regards to presidential immunity and constitutional law. Obviously the chance is decent that my understanding it incorrect, but I have read many debates on the topics.
But so in my understanding, the president has immunity for official acts as the president.
Why can’t he order, for instance, all homosexuals to be rounded up and killed? Certainly the Constitution and lots of official laws say that you can’t round people up and kill them, but it could easily be argued that this is entirely an act of official policy (to protect our youth) and not a personal grudge or some other thing that could be declared patently “not what was meant” by Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
Do we need to create an amendment that more clearly states what acts of policy the president can effect and be legally immune from the repercussions?
Well, I’d say, wthout doing research, that ordering all gay folks rounded up and killed would violate the hell out of amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 14 off the top of my head. All of that would probably qualify as “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” needed for impeachment.
The cases you cited in the linked thread address civil liability, not criminal. There are conceivable situations where “official acts as the president” could constitute crimes. Whether a sitting president can be arrested and/or indicted actually remains an open constitutional question (or so I recall from various threads about Bush and the Plame Affair). But, certainly he can be indicted after leaving office for crimes committed while in office. Why did Ford see any need to pardon Nixon? (Of course, it’s debatable whether Nixon’s complicity in setting up CRP and covering up its crimes constituted “official acts”.)