This stupid topic again

But sure

  • @tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    13
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    /s ?

    The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.

    A President’s use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.

    This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.

    • Omega
      link
      fedilink
      54 months ago

      SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.

      • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.

      • @tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

        Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.

        The President’s authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.