The constitution gives me the power to kill people for good reasons (I am the commander in chief of the military, after all), and I assure you, I have good reasons. Which you can't ask about.

And don't tell me I need Congress to authorize my killing people. I haven't needed that since Vietnam or something.

This is a silly response.

The ruling has specifically left the definition of "official acts" for the lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis; they have not limited official acts to Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The president likely has modern "official acts" that are not in in the constitution (such as the ability to issue executive orders) so it is not as simple as pointing to it. As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size.

>"As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size."

Easily the best way I've seen the impact of this ruling, articulated.

You need to think about this a bit more carefully. Today's ruling states that the president has immunity for all official acts. Official acts can be literally anything the president does _in his capacity as president_.

Constitution also doesn't give the President the power to go to the bathroom.

It codifies rules for certain aspects of their role. Not everything.