> If he commits murder... that's not an official act.

Not true, it depends on how he does it. If he hacks someone to death with a sword, that's not an official act, and it doesn't matter why he does it. But if he orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, that is an official act. This example is specifically stated in the dissenting opinion.

> But if he orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, that is an official act. This example is specifically stated in the dissenting opinion.

One of the key things about a dissent, is that it's not the opinion of the court, but just that judge.

In general, one would hope Seal Team 6 would not follow such an act as they owe allegiance to our system of laws before any presidential order.

Yes. Hopefully the military wouldn't coup. But notably, the US President ordering them to perform a coup would be immune from prosecution, because it's an official act.

That's correct.

> One of the key things about a dissent, is that it's not the opinion of the court, but just that judge.

Can you find anything in the opinion of the court that would preclude it? I can't.

> In general, one would hope Seal Team 6 would not follow such an act as they owe allegiance to our system of laws before any presidential order.

It's a strange world we live in where a president can order something illegal but not face any consequences. I suppose you could argue we already lived in such a world, but now the difference is that he can brazenly do it.

> It's a strange world we live in where a president can order something illegal but not face any consequences. I suppose you could argue we already lived in such a world, but now the difference is that he can brazenly do it.

We always lived in such a world. I know you might think the court did this to protect Trump, but realistically, the one who's more protected (since murder is a much worse crime than anything Trump's been accused of) is Obama, who ordered the murder of an American citizen by the American military.

I'm not sure what your standard of brazen is, but since he basically got not even a threat of impeachment for that, I'm going to go with that being much more brazen.

Not that I particularly care. Obama made the right call IMO.

EDIT: Here's an article in which the ACLU raises the same hypothetical concern you do (the president will now be able to kill whomever): https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-drone-memo...

> I'm not sure what your standard of brazen is

Ordering the assassination of an American citizen not caught in the act of doing something illegal is illegal and Obama should be prosecuted for that. But his justification was that it was for national security, and as you say, some people think that's a fine justification. If his justification were that he didn't like the cut of his jib, then you'd be against it I assume.

As things lie now, rationale and justification don't matter in determining whether something is prosecutable or not, and that's scary, to me at least.

EDIT: Also, did you see my question from an earlier post:

>> One of the key things about a dissent, is that it's not the opinion of the court, but just that judge.

> Can you find anything in the opinion of the court that would preclude it? I can't.

> If his justification were that he didn't like the cut of his jib, then you'd be against it I assume

So this may surprise you but the government of the United States is naturally immune from any case where it kills you or harms you in any way.

Congress has consented to being liable because it thinks that's nice, but it withdraws consent whenever it wants. The entirety of the idea of 'suing' or 'prosecuting' the government is something that only happens with the governments consent and they regularly withdraw it if it's upsetting the them

So the government can violate my rights as long as it kills me too? That doesn’t pass a sniff test.

Your family could not sue the government* and obviously, being dead, you'd have no standing in court.

* You cannot sue because the federal government and all state governments are immune from all civil suits naturally. Congress has consented to be sued because it thinks that that's a nice approach, but it can always choose to not be sued if it wanted to

Ok, so what happens when the president says something along the lines of 'will no one rid me of this troublesome congressman' and then turns around and pardons the secret service agent that pulls the trigger?

Technically, the murder is illegal, but the pardon is legal because it's 'part of his official duties'.

There are any number of ways this can be abused.

Presidents can already pardon people who murder their political opponents. Famously, the Reconstruction-era presidents pardonned every single confederate so as not to divide the country further and increase tensions.

You are clutching pearls over something that is already allowed. Like I said, Congress can impeach a president who does this if they don't like it.

Moreover, a president can't pardon state level offenses anyway, and I would imagine the murder would have to take place in a state. The state could simply retry the case. States have much more discretion in the sorts of things they can criminalize.

> If anyone bothered to read the constitution, it clearly lays out the sorts of things that could be construed as official, and the sorts of things that are not.

6 members of the Supreme Court said Distinguishing the President’s official actions from his unofficial ones can be difficult.[1]

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

If law weren't difficult, there would be no lawyers.

Backwards.

If there weren't lawyers, law would be oh, so much simpler..

Realistically, not being a lawyer myself, it is painfully obvious that the vast majority of people do not have even a modicum of the nuance necessary to fairly judge anything.

Exactly and all the things which he has to just sign also fall under official, even if he was just briefed quickly on it and does not have a clue what’s going on.