As I have previously written, I am not someone who has favored expansive presidential powers. As a Madisonian scholar, I favor Congress in most disputes with presidents. However, I saw good-faith arguments on both sides of this case and the Court adopted a middle road on immunity — rejecting the extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower court.
One of the most glaring moments in the address came when President Biden declared that “for all…for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.”
That is not true.
The Court found that there was absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.
The Court has often adopted tiered approaches in balancing the powers of the branches. For example, in his famous concurrence to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson broke down the line of authority between Congress and the White House into three groups where the President is acting with express or implied authority from Congress; where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area); and where the President is acting in defiance of Congress.
Here the Court separated cases into actions taken in core areas of executive authority, official actions taken outside those core areas, and unofficial actions. Actions deemed personal or unofficial are not protected under this ruling.
It is certainly true that the case affords considerable immunity, including for conversations with subordinates. However, this did not spring suddenly from the head Zeus. As Chief Justice John Roberts lays out in the majority opinion, there has long been robust protections afforded to presidents.
There are also a host of checks and balances on executive authority in our constitutional system. This includes judicial intervention to prevent violations of the law as well as impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.
President Biden’s hyper-ventilated response is crushingly ironic. He was vice president when President Barack Obama killed an American citizen without a trial or a charge. When former Attorney General Eric Holder announced the “kill list” policy (that included the right to kill any American citizen), he was met with applause, not condemnation.
The Obama-Biden administration then fought every effort by the family to sue the government. President Biden would have been outraged by any attempt of a Republican district attorney to charge him or President Obama with murder.
He would also be outraged by prosecutors pursuing criminal charges for the deaths associated with the deluge of undocumented persons over the Southern border.
In his address, President Biden also claimed that “the law would no longer” define “the limits of the presidency.”
That is also untrue. This case was remanded for the purpose of defining what of these functions would be deemed private as opposed to official. Even on official actions, former president Donald Trump could be prosecuted if the presumptive immunity is rebutted by prosecutors.
What was most glaring for many civil libertarians was President Biden’s portrayal of himself as a paragon of constitutional fealty. He declared that “I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers as I have for the last three-and-a-half years.”
That was also untrue. President Biden has racked up an impressive array of losses in federal courts where he was found to have violated the constitution.
This includes rulings that his administration has exceeded his authority and engaged in racial discrimination in federal programs. Indeed, Biden has often displayed a cavalier attitude toward such violations.
For example, the Biden administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Biden admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him the move was unconstitutional. But he ignored their advice and went with that of Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe, the one person who would tell him what he wanted to hear. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.
Biden showed the same disregard over the unconstitutionality of his effort to unilaterally forgive roughly half a trillion dollars in student debt. Courts have already enjoined that effort as presumptively unconstitutional (though an appellate court in one of those cases relaxed aspects of the injunction).
The address was used to reinforce his “democracy is on the ballot” campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected, American democracy will perish.
While some of us have challenged these predictions, the other presidential candidates are missing a far more compelling argument going into this election. While democracy is not on the ballot this election, free speech is.
For many of us in the free speech community, President Biden has become the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” the Biden Administration has helped fund and maintain an unprecedented censorship system in the United States.
That record is hardly supportive for a president claiming to be the defender, if not the savior, of the Constitution.
Joe Biden, the Divider, has given more ugly speeches than any president in my lifetime. From the fake “Jim Crow 2.0” to the Red Scare speech to last nights ugly 4 minutes, this guy is a disaster, an ugly, stupid, corrupt, lying weirdo.
he is simply obamma without the veneer, except obamma really hates white people while biden simply wants money and power.
HullBobby,
You have to remember, he is not in charge. He is not calling the shots. It is his “team” who does. He just goes where they tell him to go, do what they tell him to do and say whatever is on the teleprompter.
One of those on the “team” is Jill Biden.
Another possibility is Hunter.
Dang scary.
And they are trying to convince the American people he is competent, in control, sharp as a tack and he is running for re-election.
The whole world is either laughing at us, or wondering if we have lost our minds. No wonder Russia, China, Iran, the Houthis, drug cartels all want another Biden admin. Clearly it benefits them the most.
Bannon calls the Bidens a “pack of feral dogs.”
The Bidens are all immoral, scumbag human beings. Period.
Joe Biden is one of the dirtiest, most corrupt politicians we’ve ever had in high office.
Anyone who hasn’t figured this out yet is a MORON.
The evidence of this is OVERWHELMING.
The evidence that Joe Biden is a good, decent, honest man is nearly NON-EXISTENT.
It’s interesting to see how the Democrats latched onto the tactic of labeling Trump a liar, while they dishonestly cover for one of the world’s biggest serial liars of all time.
Lying has never been a problem for republicans. They scoff at the notion and complain only when someone else does it. Trump lies incessantly. Every politician does. But, it’s only a problem when “the other guy” does it.
Lying has never been a problem for democrats. They scoff at the notion and complain only when someone else does it. Trump lies incessantly. Every politician does. But, it’s only a problem when “the other guy” does it.
Gee, that was easy
Irony is such a terrible thing to waste
LOL.
Trump lie: “We had the greatest _______ ever.”
democrat lie: “this is a good thing for people”
Why should there be any surprise that someone with the degree of cognitive impairment so obvious last Thursday would be unable to accurately understand the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, and be so cognitively impaired as to allow himself to be directed by his handlers to go in front of the country and try to explain his misunderstanding?
Turley ignores the problem with this ruling. Assassinating a rival isn’t legal, but prosecutors can’t use any documents or testimony relating to the order so good luck proving anything at trial. While it may not be legal. A president cannot be tried for even trying.
George, so you want to indict Obama???
The Obama issue is different. The American killed wasn’t exactly a model citizen. He was also a member of a terrorist group. He chose to join a group engaged against the United States. As it was a military operation Obama had the authority to do what he did. It was an official act. Given how you’re perfectly ok with the ruling you should be perfectly ok with Obama’s actions. You believe presidents should have broad immunity. Therefore you can’t complain about Obama’s actions.
The American killed wasn’t exactly a model citizen. He was also a member of a terrorist group.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has been afforded more due process. And subjected to criminal acts, that seemed to have enjoyed immunity long before this ruling.
Geta grip, dude.
Glad you feel that way. Betting you won’t feel that way after we deal with antifa and blm and soros and ms13 and brennan’s crew… I look forward to the cries of “dictator, King, fascist,…” I cannot f’ing wait.
Why do you keep saying a rival?
Fvcking disingenuous little prick.
Say minor child US citizen, jack ass and see how that shoe fits.
“There are also a host of checks and balances on executive authority in our constitutional system. This includes judicial intervention to prevent violations of the law as well as impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The judicial system does almost nothing to “prevent violations of law” but can only respond to most actions after the fact. The justice department doesn’t prosecute current office holders due to a policy and the courts take years to come to any conclusion. When considering voter suppression cases they often allow multiple election cycles to take place before taking action. The damage can’t always be undone. One of the things this decision does is to prevent some evidence from ever being brought to light. I’m sure it was the plan of the justices to announce this decision on the last day and then run for the hills, yachts, and private planes depending on the goodwill of their “friends.”
Show us the voter that was suppressed. Show us the voter that couldn’t drink water. Show us the voter that couldn’t show an ID.
Enigma, your tired rants are a real bore and a total lie.
Immunity has only to do with after the fact, Enema
If you know you have immunity, you have the freedom to act differently. It’s why Trump promised pardons to people if they went to jail for committing an illegal act.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/politics/trump-cbp-commissioner-pardon/index.html
“If you know you have immunity, you have the freedom to act differently.”
No shit, sherlock. EXACTLY the purpose of the ruling.
LMAO
Sorry, i dont click on cnn links.
If you did less, you might not make brain dead statements like the one above.
Why did SCOTUS REMAND the case? Because Trump has immunity for all acts???
So the court has to determine if the president can chat with a SoS about an election legally, but in your mind he has the freedom to assassinate someone suddenly?
Third grader.
Being immune is not the same as “being above the law”. Immunity is a legal doctrine that creates exceptions to general rules. It is probably fair to say that every general rule of law has exceptions. Journalists now complaining about the current Presidential immunity ruling should consider that in 1964 the Supreme Court created an immunity to libel actions that was not recognized in the common law. Are the journalists proposing to give up that immunity?
Edward, an excellent point, but no, they are not proposing to give up their own immunity. They are like the anti-gun activist who has guns at his house for himself to use. Even if that’s hypocritical, it’s not irrational.
SCOTUS says otherwise. Immunity is an “exemption from the legal process.” It is not a mere legal defense. Check out Hopkins v Clemson.
How are those different, practically speaking? I mean even if immunity is an exemption from the legal process, doesn’t it still have to be asserted by the defendant?
Res ipsa loquitur
These idiots act like we didnt just see this case remanded for that very reason
Rice-bring charges and see what happens. There usually is no statute of limitations on murder. The decision was remanded to the lower court to hash out the details and limits of official acts. Probably Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. I think it was later contested but research unable to give me a clear answer. Some of the attorneys here might have the answer. FDR’s concentration camp for Japanese Americans was likely illegal but the Supreme Court up held his order but reparations were later paid to the survivors.
The bombing of civilian populations in WW II clearly violated international law, yet no one suggested that FDR or Harry Truman be prosecuted. It is acceptable to kill millions, but let Trump challenge a dubious election? WOW, that can’t be allowed!
All of which is why the correct scotus decision was
Always
Impeach
Convict in senate
Prosecute
In that order
It is not possible to determine by law what crimes a president can and can not commit
“ This includes judicial intervention to prevent violations of the law as well as impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Oh, right. Because Trump appointed judges will always follow the law, riiiiighhht.
Congress made up of Trump sycophants and yes-men will never impeach him for anything. Much less remove him. Turley is sometimes naive to the point that it’s somewhat cute.
Project 2025 will make it much easier for Trump to abuse his authority if he’s re-elected and that’s the point. Anything done by the executive branch is an official act. Meaning they will follow Trumps orders like loyal minions and he will never be held accountable.
Turley will be singing a very different tune when things start to go sideways and suddenly he will be…surprised, that he did not see that coming.
I like the decisions of the Supreme Court until I dont
——-Svelaz George
Uppp, there it is. George starts sounding suspiciously like Gigi again with the project 2025 crap.
“if he’s re-elected and that’s the point.”
Denial is the 3rd stage.
Poor George. What a terrible 2 weeks its been.
“Anything done by the executive branch is an official act. “
George just can’t resist saying the dumbest things.
Meaning they will follow Trumps orders like loyal minions
Thats preferable to the minions running the brain dead President, like now,
“I’m told I have permission to call on 3 people. They gave me a list”
“If I take any more questions I will get in trouble”
——-Joe Biden multiple times
Biden and the dems are so lawless it’s difficult if not impossible to comprehend.
Thank you Mr. Turley for your ongoing service.
So the guy who wants full immunity from criminal law is a good person, and the person who tries to uphold the law is lawless? You have yellow lips.
Did you happen to notice that the Court’s ruling doesn’t apply to Trump and only Trump? Or is your TDS so far along that you cannot think straight?
Do you think Obama should be indicted? Yes or no.
Sometimes that is correct
Since there is no statute of limitiations for the crime of murder, perhaps, after Trump is elected, his AG (Ken Paxton,. please) should rebut Biden’s claims that the Court has created, from whole cloth, an unprecedented world where completely unfettered Presidential power is the law, by indicting and trying Obama, Holder, and Biden for the assassination of U. S. citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Since that was by definition a completely premeditated act, and since all involved have acknowledged the deed, I think that an argument could be made for the death penalty as the appropriate punishment.
Number 6
Definitely agree. Use to delineate the presidents official acts.
Two points. First, the man is a chronic liar. Second, how can any of us be sure he realizes what he is saying?
Exactly. He just read the teleprompter and said what they told him to say.
Notice he took no questions again.
May as well have been Joyless Reid reading it.
SCOTUS did exactly that. They invented immunity to criminal prosecution that did not exist. And they defined “official acts” quite broadly that even spearheading an attempted coup counts.
Spastic idiot non savant^^^^
While Robert’s erred whether you like it or not the had to do something
Presidents absolutely have the power to commit some acts that are also crimes
We can not have local da’s prosecuting them when they leave office for acts congress was unwilling to remove them for
The current levels of fear and hyperbole are analogous to what the democrats engaged in as they led up to succession and civil war. Their political leaders are stoking similar levels of fear and anger. This seems to be something inherent in the party and the sort of personalities that are drawn to the authoritarian tendencies embodied in their beliefs.
They are the true threat to democracy.
I think we need to give our friends on the left a little time to complete the stages of grief after seeing their leader self-immolate last Thursday night. Eventually, they may come to realize that it is not that unusual to throw away an election for POTUS. The Republicans did this twice, once when Robert Dole was selected to run against Bill Clinton and again, when John McCain was selected to run against Barack Obama. In both instances, the Republicans were running against very popular presidents seeking a second term. The party, the candidates and the people knew they had little chance of winning but their long service to the nation gave them eligibility to be in the history books. Although no one likes losing, those cases made sense at the time. Now, it’s Biden’s term to follow Dole and McCain and go down graciously and be respectful of his opponent. To hasten this, Trump might offer to debate Jill Biden, inasmuch as she is the de facto president these days while her husband meanders about keeping houligans off his grass.
jjc-McCain ran against Obama in 2008, not 2012. Obama was not yet President. Such a glaring mistake weakens your argument. Romney ran against Obama in 2012.
Such a glaring mistake weakens your argument. Romney ran against Obama in 2012.
I hope that is facetiousness.
GEB, I noticed that too but I think his comparison is still valid. Dole and McCain were nominated because it was “their turn” not because they were the most likely to win. Where I differ with jjc is in the concept that they were somehow the appropriate choice for the GOP in 1996 and 2008. Both nominations were ill advised, in my opinion.
OldManfromKansas-
We need a decision of “their turn”. Does that mean we will get nominated if we just outlive all of our opponents?
Late rejoinder. Was out walking my 3 miles. Pretty day today.
GEB,
Good on ya for getting out and walking. As we get older, we need to walk more.
It was an error
It does not weaken the argument
Can POTUS open an executive clemency stand outside the Whitehouse and sell pardons? Core function = absolute immunity.
The answer is yes. But he then would be eligible for impeachment by the House and upon conviction by the Senate, he could be indicted and tried for various criminal acts connected to selling pardons.
True. Except in the waning days of his administration, like Clinton did.
Agreed
But that is not what Robert’s decided
Sure. Bill Clinton did that already, while Hillary was busy stealing White House furnishings.
Hey, it takes a lot of furniture to furnish three mansions.
Stealing/breaking the w’s on some white house computers was pretty freaking hilarious – may have been the last funny thing a democrat has done.
But yeah, the billhillies were sore losers
As a non-lawyer, but a citizen (whose duty is to obey promptly and criticize constantly), what we have just witnessed is one reaction to the abuse of executive power by the current President’s DOJ to use the courts to cripple a political opponent who happens to be a former President. All of the prosecutors and all of the judges involved are Democrats, as are the three Justices who dissented. Whether the six who formed the majority were politically motivated, there is no question that the prosecutors and judges who have assembled the criminal cases against Trump are politically motivated.
As Turley notes, there is nuance here, and, of course, the decision echoes an earlier decision on civil cases, so why the hyper-ventilating on CNN and other news outlets that support the Democrats? Simply because the ruling throws a monkey wrench into their attempts to weaponize the DOJ and assure that the Democrats retain control of the Executive.
Ironically, it looks as if their denial of Biden’s dementia and their prosecutions of Trump may cost them not only the Presidency, but if they insist on running a fellow who appears to have Parkinsons for President, then the House and Senate as well.
Karma perhaps, rather than Kamala?
@Radical Pragmatist: RE: “Is the President now legally permitted to order the assassination of American citizens without trial?” A Supreme Court Justice’s tale….told by an idiot….full of sound and fury…..signifying nothing.
Unfortunately, POTUS’s kill US Citizens frequently in war. It’s called “friendly fire.”
Obama deliberately had two us citizens assinated
That was not friendly fire
That has already happened
Can someone please tell me how the Roberts Court addresses the Seal Team Six hypo? If the president orders the assassination of a political rival when acting in his official capacity as commander in chief, is he not absolutely immune?
Officers cannot obey unlawful orders.
That can’t be right. Immunity isn’t a defense to a crime. It makes the president exempt from otherwise applicable criminal laws. This court makes the hit lawful.
A court would easily determine that a hit on a political appointment did not meet the criteria of “within the outer limits of official acts”
Why does that escape you idiots?
You need a better scenario.
How about a drone strike on a US citizen without due process?
Thats a better example.
How about you take it from there?
No this is a core function. The outer limits test does not apply. The President’s role as commander in chief of the military is absolutely a core function. This is why the Obama killing an American hypo is used to justify the opinion. The only difference in the two hypos is the target/purpose. Without the ability to rebut a presumption of immunity for core acts, there is no way to differentiate between appropriate use of power and inappropriate use of power for core functions.
His function as Commander in chief is to defend the united states idiot. Its not to just willy nilly do whatever the fvxk he pleases. You people are so juvenile. Same oath each officer took, Who he would have to go thru to commit some heinous act.
Now, as it always has been, he would need to show (not just claim, like you petulant 3rd graders) that he was defending the US in order to enjoy the immunity.
That would have been absolute immunity for any act, which the court clearly did not grant.
How do we know the court didnt grant that?
Res ipsa loquitur, buggy boy. They remanded it back to chutkan for that very reason. Jeezus you people can play a good game of dumb and dumber.
Sorry. Not a plausible scenario.
Try droning a minor child us citizen instead. Much better example.
While that may be YOUR opinion, that is not the opinion of the Roberts Court.
For core functions, such as Trump’s discussions with Justice Department officials, Roberts held on Page 21 that the President is “absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.” Full stop. The prosecution is not entitled to rebut the presumption of immunity, by showing, for example, that Trump’s purpose for those discussions was nefarious. That is why the immunity is ABSOLUTE.
Likewise, his role as Commander-in-Chief is a core function of the role of the presidency (just like discussions with Justice Department officials). The president does not have to justify any action taken as Commander-in-Chief by proving it was done to “defend the united states.” That would be a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION of immunity, not an ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
You are correct but have the burden of proof backwards
The president does not have to show he is acting in his official capacity
First the house then the sent must find he is not
Then you can prosecute
As the constitution say the executive power of the us is vested in the president
He does get to decide what is in the us interests
He is still constrained
By what congress lets him get away with
The is zero doubt that Obamas execution of answer Al awari was a crime
There is also no doubt it was with the powers of the president
Contra Robert’s there is no absolute immunity
Just a giant roadblock that must be overcome to prosecute
Obama did drone a minor child us citizen who was also a terrorist
You are the petulant 3rd grader
While Robert’s is wrong
Your claims are worse
There are no bright lines regarding precisely what crimes a president can commit within the bounds of his official powers
That is one of the reasons we have impeachment and removal
Because the issues are difficult and fact specific
Of course there are hypotheticals where the president could dispatch seal team 6 to assassinate a rival as well as ones he could not
Re: “Officers cannot obey unlawful orders.”
When the President now orders any action that he claims is “job related”, it is lawful.
Immunity doesn’t make it legal. It just bars judicial action against POTUS. Remember, POTUS can impeached for “high crimes, etc.”
Re: ” Remember, POTUS can impeached for “high crimes, etc.”
A lot of good that does for the American citizens who were assassinated and / or tortured under the President’s orders.
Yes it does. See Hopkins v. Clemson, 221 US 636. This 1911 SCOTUS case clarified that immunity is “exemption from the legal process.” This is key to the whole opinion. Do you have authority that notes otherwise?
The potus enjoys no immunity from unlawful acts that can be shown to be outside of his duties as president.
End of story
You libtard morons dont get to define what that is.
Your comment has no connection to the above thread.
1) With immunity, no law prohibits the President to order a Seal Team Six assassination of political rivals. Immunity is EXEMPTION from the law, not a defense. Therefore, the order is not an “unlawful” act.
2) This order would not be “outside his duties as president.” The President is Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces. This is a core function. Per SCOTUS, core functions are given ABSOLUTE immunity. There is no rebuttable presumption for any act taken by the President, which is one of the President’s core functions.
3) This is why Professor Turley, Trump’s lawyers, and the conservative SCOTUS justices use the Obama hit on a American terrorist as their hypothetical. The act is a core function of Obama’s presidency because he is Commander-in-Chief of the military. The immunity for such an act is absolute. Therefore, a prosecutor could not question whether Obama’s action was justified (by considering whether the target/purpose was appropriate).
4) Similarly, no prosecutor could question whether a hypothetical president using the same core function for nefarious purposes was justified. It is ABSOLUTE immunity.
5) Despite the response by those above, an officer of Seal Team Six cannot rely on a military duty to disobey an unlawful order because such an order would NOT be unlawful. As noted above, immunity does not simply make the criminal act “justified” (as in an affirmative defense to murder, like self-defense). Rather, as SCOTUS has previously held in Hopkins v. Clemson, immunity is an EXEMPTION from the law, meaning that the crime of murder would not apply to the President’s assassination order.
6. Moron. Why was the case remanded?
Immunity is EXEMPTION from the law, not a defense.
AFTER THE FACT.
Immunity doesn’t give you the POWER to do a goddam thing.
Under this ruling, Immunity is adjudicated not proclaimed. Res ipsa loquitur
EVERY word you said after that is horse shit.
Because scotus was not asked to decide trumps immunity with respect to the charges against him
But whether the dc appeals courts standards regarding presidential immunity were correct
They rejected the dc appellate court
Set a new standard and directed chutkan to follow that
Trump will with near certainty appeal the decision chutkan makes and this will go back up the ladder
There is zero possibility of a trial before the election
And there never should have been
“Despite the response by those above, an officer of Seal Team Six cannot rely on a military duty to disobey an unlawful order because such an order would NOT be unlawful.”
I will give you credit bug, you are regurgitating the talking points well.
Immunity does NOT make any ACT lawful, LMAO.
What a ridiculous assertion. Immunity is AFTER THE FACT. Immunity is as determined by a court. Or did you miss the fact they remanded the case?
(A) They partially remanded the case. Not a full remand.
(B) The remand was for determination of whether Trump’s acts were official acts. This whole thread concerned a hypo, where the president’s action – using Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival – is unquestionably an action, which is part of the President’s core official power. The Constitution enshrines the President as Commander in Chief of the military.
Thus, the fact that the case was partially remanded is irrelevant. The Court did hold that Trump’s communications with his Department of Justice were squarely within his core constitutional authority and therefore, there is no question that any communications he has with his DOJ are entitled to absolute immunity.
The remand was for determination of whether Trump’s acts were official acts. T
Lmao
EXACTLY
what a moron
Adjudication, not proclamation, dum dum
using Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival – is unquestionably an unlawful action, well outside of the President’s core official power.
Fixed that for ya.
“The Constitution enshrines the President as Commander in Chief of the military.”
Sure does. But it doesn’t enshrine him as the Fuhrer, the General Secretary, or El Presidente. Stop arguing like a child. He takes an oath, as CIC, and violating that oath takes him ouside his “core official power”. Sorry. There are guradrails whether or not you want to stamp your feet and not admit it. Lack of “immunity” wasn’t one of those guardrails, sorry.
And if that political rival is preparing to set off a nuke in nyc ?
Ats whether you like it or not any hypothetical can be made legal or illegal by small changes to facts
This is why Robert’s erred
Impeach
Remove
Prosecute
That is the only arrangement that comes close to protecting the president legitimately and not illegitimately
The core is not a question of law
In arguably presidents can constitutionally commit crimes
Further contra Robert’s the law alone can not distinguish when those crimes are prosecutable
The oath is to uphold the constitution
The constitution sets the president as commander in chief inarguably with the power to have people killed
Whether the president killing people violates his oath is fact based not law or constitution based
Which is why Robert’s is wrong
And why the president is immune for all crimes committed as president until impeached and convicted by the senate
That was always the only correct decision
Robert’s has just performed a huge power grab to the courts
That is only slight less dangerous than what the left was attempting to
Which was the correct way to handle this
While Robert’s was correct that the president needs strong protection
He went about this the wrong way
Absolute immunity is not in the constitution
Impeachment is
The constitution did not delegate the decision as to when the president can be prosecuted to the courts
It delegated it to congress
^^*^ spoken like a coward who has never served in uniform, save for the black pants and white shirt of chic-fil-a
Simple answer: No. Not a core function
How is authority as commander in chief of our military not a core function?
He could nuke mar-a-lago
——-spastic idiot non savant
Youve been told why repeatedly.
The president has a specific duty as relates to the military.
Very Specific.
If you had served you would know this.
Guess what? Assassinating political rivals is not one of them. You people want to act like we live in Russia or Absurdistan.
Try that gaslighting and red herrings on your circle jerk friends. That turd dont float here.
Where in the Roberts Opinion is absolute immunity for core presidential functions qualified by the President’s duty?
Immunity is ABSOLUTE for core functions such as Commander in Chief. This is a core power given to him in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
This means that there is no criminal legal recourse against the president if he violates any duties owed to the American people by using this core function for nefarious purposes.
Where in the Roberts Opinion is absolute immunity for core presidential functions
qualified byconstrained to the President’sdutycore presidential functions?LOL
You think manipulating a couple of words will float. Nope, not that turd either.
You clowns that seem to think that the president holds some sort of absolute power over the military. Where in the wide world of sports did you get that notion? If that were true, why isn’t trump still in powe? You mark your own stupidity.
That is a far better argument
It is unlikely that those in government will follow an order that is not in the interests of the us
Changing the words does not change anything
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States and shall have unfettered power to do whatever the fvck he wants anyhow, anytime, anyplace.
Commander in Chief, defined: Mafia boss, with zero restraints and unfettered power to perform any act or crime, so long as its through the military.
Guess what, fvckstick. If thats the power he has, the SCOTUS didnt give it to him.
What a jack ass. Why does someone with that power need immunity? He leaves office the day he dies. You people have been gaslight by the most highly elevated dumb bltch on the planet—-Sotomayor
Get a grip and put down those puberty blockers.
The military could refuse the order as an illegal order. Their oath only requires them to follow legal orders. And it would be an illegal order. The drone operator under Obama could have refused the order. Likely he could have won in a court martial.
Evidently you have no concept of how the military works or the oaths they take.
No
He can be impeached convicted by the senate and prosecuted
Robert’s as usual trying to make everyone happy got this wrong
The president does not have absolute immunity
He has qualified immunity
He loses immunity when impeached and convicted by the senate
Not only do we now understand that Biden lacks the capacity to independently judge for himself, he is being led like the children of Hamlin, stepping to a tune piped by a coven of witches and knaves whose interests are one hundred eighty degrees opposite to the good and welfare of the nation.
Joe Biden’s hypocrisy in irrelevant. Professor Turley avoided answering the implicit question that he raised. Is the President now legally permitted to order the assassination of American citizens without trial?
There is no change to this. Did not Obama assassinate an American child without repercussion? Unless you support charging Obama you must support eh current Supreme court ruling.
Like Obama did, right? Obama drone struck Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen. No judge. No jury. No due process. That type of assassination of an American citizen?
We should also be concerned about the killing by drones of non-citizens. If no war has been declared, what right do we have to kill anyone?
9/11 gave us the right.
Hopefully, we elect leaders who are competent to make those decisions.
The “disposition matrix.” obama was and is a disgusting POS
The American president has already done that