And that there are now much fewer restrictions on Presidential power than there were yesterday, nothing like the narrow band experienced since the time of Geo Washington.
Any restriction is now in question if it ties the Presidents' hands as much as in the past.
Unprecedented extreme actions are moved from black & white to a grey area.
Whatever might be brought to court is made more difficult to decide, and more likely to end up in the highest courts.
Decided by the same unelected officials who ceded more of the citizens' balance of power to an Executive who is already difficult to hold accountable, while gaining a greater portion of power for Judiciary also, as collateral damage.
I don't follow his antics very closely, but there's some accounting/tax shenanigans and there's the matter of an election in one of the states. Let me try to consider both.
If those tax things were official, then wouldn't that mean that the owner would be his employer? You can do your employer's or customer's tax paperwork during office hours, so if he did that during office hours the owner of the that ugly buidling is the federal state. Which doesn't make sense, right? So therefore he didn't do that in his official capacity.
If you work with the Georgian elections in an official capacity, then you're either an official of the State of Georgia. Is a federal official such as the president empowered to act on behalf of states? If not, then time spent calling a Georgian official about Georgian elections cannot reasonably be called official.
I don't see how we can have an effective executive without this.
The alternative is the president could be charged with murder, fraud, theft, etc anytime anyone in the country doesn't like something the President did. If the president was criminally and civilly liable for everything the office did, the executive would grind to a halt in tort lawsuits.
So a president determined enough to prevent impeachment could avoid it as long as he or she were able to find a large enough group within the military willing to go along with it.
Can you point to this in the ruling? They made it clear that hypothetical discussions with military personal are not evidence of lack of immunity, but the actual acts performed as president are not automatically granted such immunity.
> So a president determined enough to prevent impeachment could avoid it as long as he or she were able to find a large enough group within the military willing to go along with it.
The problem I have with this logic - if the president can get a large enough group of the military to go along with a Junta takeover, it doesn't really matter at all what the court or prosecutors think anyway.
So it's a bit less explicit than I remember from my first scan-through. What I was remembering was from one of the dissents, which reads:
> When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Barrett's concurring opinion touches on the idea that the president is immune from prosecution when ordering the military or police to kill, but only to show that the bar to presidential prosecution has historically been high.
As for the opinion itself, I believe the most relevant line is
> At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.
As far as core constitutional powers go, it doesn't get much more core than
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States
It's even in the same section as the president's power to pardon.
Combined with the opinion, the president cannot be prosecuted for ordering the army or navy, no matter what those orders are.
> The problem I have with this logic - if the president can get a large enough group of the military to go along with a Junta takeover, it doesn't really matter at all what the court or prosecutors think anyway.
This is a practical matter rather than a legal one, and I should have kept to legal matters in my other reply. After all, a strong nation requires a strong legal system. What I was replying to was the idea that the only check remaining on the president's core constitutional power is impeachment. However, this ruling makes it legal for the president to bypass impeachment through the military. So as a legal, not practical matter, impeachment is now severely weakened.
By as a practical matter, I don't think you need a very large group within the military at all to take out 6 (or 9, if you want to go that far) supreme court justices, and threaten one or two senators so you can railroad your preferred replacements in.
> The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.
Military actions against US citizens probably doesn't get the protection as a responsibility of the Executive Branch because it would neither be a national defense action nor a criminal justice one (in which case you would violate due process).
This argument is somewhat tested by the Obama administration's push for extra-judicial killings: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/obama-...
Yes, this is true. However, the ruling very explicitly separates "core constitutional powers" from the rest of the president's constitutional responsibilities. There's basically 3 categories of action here.
1. "Core constitutional powers" 2. "His remaining official actions" 3. "unofficial acts"
OK, so I separated it out to 3 categories where the Court recognizes 2: official and unofficial. But I did so to point out that the Court ruled that "core constitutional powers" are always official acts, and it's up to the prosecution to prove that the act was unofficial, which thus means proving it wasn't a "core constitutional power."
And commanding the army to do something is a core constitutional power. The constitution is silent on what the president may not order the army to do.
This is how I read it, and I could be mistaken, but it's also how Sotomayor reads it, and she's a much sharper legal mind than I. Even if I'm wrong, it's frightening to be in a situation where top legal minds can interpret it this way. It means it's far from explicit, or safe.
As for the Guardian article, I'm not seeing where this has been tested in court. The article even mentions that the SC doesn't consider killing non-US citizens by the government to be forbidden by the constitution. Fair enough. Couldn't fight wars otherwise. But even if we assume they would rule extra-judicial killings of US citizens illegal, we're left with.
1. It's illegal for the president to kill a US citizen 2. But it's not illegal for them to order the military to do it (core constitutional power) 3. It's illegal for the military to carry it out 4. But the president can pardon them 5. And it's not illegal for the president to pardon them (core constitutional power) 6. Only federal laws apply if it's done in D.C.
As I read it, simply ordering the military to do something makes it an official act. But should it come to trial, Biden could argue that he was doing it to defend the constitution from those trying to undermine it. That he wasn't merely justified, but required to do so, and thus, it was a legitimate order to give, and thus a core constitutional power. Trump could claim the same: He was doing it to protect the constitution from the deep state which is illegally changing the vote totals.
As we saw during the first trump administration, the army was unwilling to go along with his every desire. A general even apologized for getting pulled into a photo op.
The US military is large and geographically diverse. I suspect that most would not carry out such an order. But you don't need most. You only need enough.
The problem for a theoretical coup group has always been what happens afterwards. Even if they were carrying out official orders from the president, you still potentially had to face the judiciary. The rest of the military might not come after you if the president orders them to stand down, but that still left the police open as an option.
The SC has now ruled that's not an issue.
I do understand a lot of the logic that the executive couldn't function if every action was litigated. But I look at other countries, such as the UK, where the prime minister in fact can be jailed for crimes, and I don't see it really being an issue. Seems better to me if no one is strictly above the law. Post WW2, we recognize that the military can issue and carry out illegal orders. We should extend that to the presidency.
The SC has essentially handed Biden a loaded gun. If I were him, I'd point it at the SC and fire, then point it at congress and appoint a new court that will take the loaded gun away from him. Because if Trump wins in November, you can be sure he will attempt to fire it.
A president has always had the "military coup" option. In fact, Putin also has the "violent overthrow of the US government" option (though he would probably use his own military).
That said, as I mentioned in a different reply, I should have stuck to the legal implications around impeachment, rather than the practical. This decision states that the only remedy for a president breaking some laws is impeachment. At the same time, it says the president now has a legal, if not entirely reliable, means to avoid impeachment: Order the military to kill those who would impeach them.
Yes, that was always a theoretically practical option, but now it's also a legal option, and that's bad. A strong nation requires a strong legal system.
>If the president has the constitutional authority to do X, how can he be criminally liable for doing X? It seems rather obvious that he can't. [1]
We cannot have an effective executive without some absolute immunity. Limiting that to core constitutional acts seems like the bare minimum. Giving presumed immunity for other official acts seems reasonable too.
Can you imagine Biden being prosecuted for fraud for his student loan forgiveness? He doesn't have the constitutional authority to do this but it is an official act, so the courts should have a very high bar for a prosecutor to overcome in order to bring criminal charges against Biden.
The president has constitutional authority to issue orders to the military, so can he be prosecuted for ordering the military to, for example, drop a cluster bomb on a political opponent from a predator drone?
I believe this case is very close to the "seal team 6" hypothetical that seems to be top of mind for critics of this SCOTUS decision.
It does though.
It's not widely accepted that the US president can skip due process and murder US citizens.
One citizen at a time would have gained President Clinton wider acceptance if the intelligence would have been there to intercept the Oklahoma City bomber before he could act.
Until now I don't think a President would have ever been expected to proceed to such a terminal conclusion, or be chastised for failing to, but it is only that very end point that is so well defined.
OTOH, the former police chief in Uvalde was just charged with failure to shoot first and ask questions later.
Anything less and you have to draw the line somewhere but there is no clear guidance or precedent any more.
Well, maybe with Trump having already been elected then attempting violent insurrection instead of stepping down when his term was up, that's the precedent that's needed. Plus Trump has recently confirmed that he would like to murder more than one of the people he currently hates, and expects citizens to handle it jokingly. Also has confirmed he will do all he can to investigate anyone who he dislikes on a whim.
Biden doesn't have to completely skip due process and proceed all the way to murder, he can now stay in the gray area and merely compromise due process and intimidate suspect individuals, however many Trump supporters it takes to root out any extremists that have any chance whatsoever of acting in an insurrection ever again. Like nothing ever seen in a free country. Trump would surely be doing the same to his suspected adversaries and then some if he got back in office.
When the highest court in the land makes you dictator, your supporters expect you to step up to the plate, and hit it out of the park for the home team.
Obama was unchecked, never charged with a crime. Which I think makes him a dictator by your definition. The court never had the opportunity to rule on the matter.
Yes, presidents have always already had too much leeway to begin with.
So, if the president doesn't have the legitimate authority to order the military to do such a thing, could the president be prosecuted for giving such an order? As I read the decision, yes, he could.
Not necessarily, the majority opinion says that the prosecution can lay out an argument for whether the acts are official or not, then a grand jury can decide.
But to their point, will this probably come to the Supreme Court again? Very likely.
Essentially, the court has said that the president is immune if the crimes are carried out as "official" acts. Only "unofficial" acts can be prosecuted.
The trouble is, what constitutes "official" vs "unofficial" has been left extremely vague (and by their own admission probably unsolvable), and so only the Supreme Court can decide which is which on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, the Supreme Court now decides when and if the president is accountable for any criminal actions, and the judiciary and congress can do nothing about it. This is in stark contrast to how the law applies to everyone else.