I consider this to be very similar to the Business Judgment Rule that protects CEOs and executives against lawsuits from shareholders for actions they did in their job, even if their actions turned out to be a mistake and lost the shareholders a bunch of money. To proceed with a lawsuit, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that the executive took unreasonable actions which directly resulted in harm to the plaintiff. Basically, their actions were out of the scope of their mandate, and they can be sued.

For example, the CEO hires their clueless spouse to a high paying job and the spouse loses the company a ton of money. That does not sound like the CEO was doing their job, but rather it sounds like they were putting their spouse ahead of the company. Here a lawsuit would certainly be allowed to go forward.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/businessjudgmentrule.as...

There is no such law for criminal acts.

The argument is that the Constitution is the law which applies here. Specifically, the powers given to the executive to execute their role and enforce the acts of Congress.

Which is essentially all encompassing

Haha, prosecute someone who only needs a tiny excuse to kill you with immunity.

> How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no official basis for an act? Especially when the response is almost certainly going to be, "the reason for the official action is classified".

In my hypothetical? Because there's no congressional declaration of war or authorization of the use military force against the waitress, which can be determined by reading the journals of the house and senate.