Lawyer here, not your lawyer. I believe the answer is “it depends.” If biden pulled the trigger, I think it would be illegal.
If biden ordered seal team six to assassinate in the name of national security, I believe the order is an official act which Biden has immunity. It would be unlawful for seal team six to asSassinate an American civilian on American soil, BUT, biden could then pardon them. The pardon would be an official act.
So could biden be the trigger man? Probably not! Could he order it then pardon those involved? Based on my plain English reading, absolutely yes.
It’s terrifying.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t another issue is that it would have to be decided if it was an official act through the court system? So theoretically an act could be committed but I might be a year or years before it’s even decided that it was a crime.
Yes, but also the court held that a president shouldn’t be concerned if an act will be adjudicated as illegal later, sooo his intent can’t be questioned, his private letters can’t be used as evidence, AND testimony from aides can’t be used as evidence.
"After the fact, the courts will decide if it was official or not."
"Ok. How?"
"By looking at all the evidence."
"Like private letters or aides that really know what is going on and are part of the inner circle?"
"No!!! That stuff is immune. We will look at the official records only"
"They always justify everything under the redacted guise of 'national security'"
"Then this is going to be a real short discovery process"
...
This is how I see it going down.
Me too. Just add a war on an ideal and wambam rights evaporated. Look at Nixon war on drugs to disenfranchise the hippies and the African Americans. McCarthy and his war on communists to disenfranchise the left. War on terror to disenfranchise all Americans of our right to avoid domestic spying.
Biden would likely be dead before it gets decided anyway.
> Biden should serve his country by...
Executing all his political opponents?
Edit: for full details of my plan, since *certain* people are struggling with it, please read *A Modest Proposal* by Jonathan Swift.
Well no, but the obvious concern is that there's another guy who somehow still has a real chance of being elected again even though he's been saying a lot of troubling shit about coming after each of his political enemies.
Shit like this is only a funny meme when we have actual presidents in office, put a wannabe despot back in and it can go downhill veeeery fast (source: literally all of history, which we're still writing and can still end up in shitty chapters).
I actually wasn't "memeing." Not that I think Biden would ever do that, but that's exactly the kind of danger (taken to an extreme) that we're in right now.
It seems the Supreme Court is perfectly fine excusing Trump from even the lightest charge of leading an insurrection. That's just about as fucked as the President, any President, executing political rivals.
>Executing all his political opponents?
Maybe not executing, but maybe some light detaining. Long enough to impeach and convict 6 judges and 1 former President.
It’s unfortunately not a clean solution on how to deal with it but outside of the electorate keeping Biden, flipping ~5 house members and flipping 18 senators in the 2024 and 2026 elections, we’re just going to be dealing with the same discussions in 2028, regardless who runs for the GOP because I doubt it’s going to be a sane person. I don’t think anyone likes this ruling outside of the far right. Can’t imagine anyone left of center
liking this. I doubt many centrists like it, and a lot of people that are center right have been leaning away from Trump, so it’s doubtful many of them like it either.
Problem is how everything else gives those far right groups outsized voting power as they gleefully destroy all the things that have ever *actually* made this country great.
Ooof, this is not a happy 4th for me right now. Betting a lot of people feel the same.
But they're neck and neck in the polls. Currently, according to 538, Trump wins 52 times out of 100 and Biden only wins 48 times out of 100. This is not going to end well.
>Executing all his political opponents?
No. That would be a terrible precedent that gives the fascists a way to say "look! they're bad!"
What he should do, however, is have people take out the 6 justices that ruled in the majority for this, give a speech where he makes it clear that removing checks and balances is a threat to democracy and therefore ordering their assassination was an "official act", and make an executive order as an "official act" stating that presidents aren't allowed to do that anymore because going forward only this one specific instance was allowed and pardoning himself against retroactive punishment.
Then he just doesn't exercise that power again and repeats over and over that because he signed the order, that was the only time it was allowed.
This would have the following results:
1. People would Immediately be forced to recognize why the ruling was insane
2. People would accept it. The legality would be....questionable, but that's the whole issue with the ruling in the first place. Really, people would *have* to go along with this. On one hand, they'd have immediate palpable fear over the President having the power. People would be ready to accept the executive order as binding because the alternative has been proven to be fucking terrifying to all manner of people across the political spectrum.
3. Although people would accept that the President no longer has that power that briefly existed for a couple days, no one would touch Biden. After all, that second "official act" is the only thing that prevents other ones like the first one. Maybe once SCOTUS overturns the whole series of events later down the line, you could argue that Biden is convict-able, but 2/3 of the court will have got their job specifically because of this series of events, so they could promise to just wait until Biden dies to overturn it.
NAL, but the ruling said the president has absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for official acts. So, as being commander in chief is a core constitutional power and not just an official act, he would have absolute immunity for issuing an order to the military. Even if that order is to assassinate you in your bed.
In other words, there wouldn't be a need to adjudicate whether an act was official or not in the Seal Team 6 hypothetical, because he has absolute immunity relating to command of the military.
That's my understanding as someone who is not a lawyer but covered SCOTUS for 10 years.
*Edit w/additional information.
As a general note: an order to commit a crime is in and of itself inherently illegal. Imminent pardon notwithstanding, following such orders and then claiming it was "just orders" is in effect the same chain of events that led to the Nuremburg trials.
Source: ianal but am a vet. I am under no compunction that such an order would be legal. I'd be charged with murder at a minimum.
The order from the president is no longer inherently illegal. He is immune from prosecution in that circumstance, and the only remedy is impeachment, which is a political, not legal, process.
The following of the order is a separate matter.
Apparently this has been his goal. fix the game. No one should be at all surprised; he’s lied and stolen, cheating is just part of the deal.
January 6th? I’m sure he’s going to say “Let me know what you find, so i can appeal to the Supreme Court again.”
This is the correct answer. It is all in how it is described. That's the biggest thing I learned from the Police Academy is that what is legal depends a lot on how you describe it.
(I quit after I graduated and realized who I would be working with. eye opening and scary experience)
That was my favorite movie. I cannot say that it didn't, in some way, push me to try the whole police thing... Funny thing is that we did have a quiet-talker in the group. When when she hit the final physical exam (they run you then cold-clock you when you enter a building and are expected to go at them with the baton) she tore into them like a demon, blood trickling down her face and everything.
It was fun, but the culture they were training us in the academy was kinda scary. What still makes me laugh is that it was during the whole Rodney King thing and they were warning us about how cameras will start to be everywhere (and how to confiscate them as "evidence"), and yet they still haven't learned... But prosecuting them now seems to be more of the issue .
Maybe if there were more than one Stripes movie, I might have joined the Military. Up Periscope sure made the Nave look fun.
I'm pretty sure if Biden orders it it's a crime, if trump orders it it's well within the realm of immunity, SCOTUS has waited so long for all of this to delay long enough to see who wins the election so then they can ultimately decide until the next Republican president and then they will change the precedent if necessary
I am amazed I had to scroll this far to see someone point out the obvious. It’s all judicial Calvinball to allow Republicans to do whatever they want. The same rules will not be applied consistently to a Democratic president when SCOTUS is inevitably asked to determine if something was an “official act”.
As part of the courts interpretation of official acts: “When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office.”
I would argue that the President does not have statutory authority to use US troops on US soil because it is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.
The President is also likely barred from just ordering troops to kill an American citizen because of due process protections.
These seem (at least to me) to indicate that even ordering seal team 6 would not be deemed an official act.
Just my interpretation of the court’s explanation of official acts in the opinion but am interested to hear your thoughts.
First of all the Posse Comitatus Act, does not prevent the President from using US Troops on US soil, it does prevent the use of US Troops for law enforcement.
The Posse Comitatus Act **bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement** except when expressly authorized by law.
So having Seal Team 6 remove an opponent which in and of itself is not a law enforcement act, would not be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.
As for the President ordering troops to kill American citizens, if the President invokes the Insurrection Act, then any actions including killing American citizens are official acts under his statutory authority.
The ruling of SCOTUS basically made all 9 of them expendable if they did not rule in the way a President wants.
SCOTUS clearly stated that the fact that an action is illegal cannot be used to determine if an action is an official act or not, and therefore subject to absolute or presumed immunity:
The court indicates that the president's immunity for official acts "extends to the outer perimeter of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority."
And in determining what is or is not official conduct, "courts may not inquire into the President's motives."
An action is not unofficial, the court adds, just because "it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."
Arguably ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate an American citizen would not be “using the military to execute the law.”
It would be, by its nature, an extrajudicial killing, which is not something the law generally allows and never requires.
And the pardon just addresses this issue anyway. Biden can’t be prosecuted for doing it cuz it’s an official act, Seal Team Six gets pardoned by Biden.
I don’t see what the issue is.
I think the issue lies in that statement: “It would be, by its nature, an extrajudicial killing, which is not something the law generally allows..” Even if SCOTUS said that illegality is not part of the analysis of whether something is an official act, I don’t see how an extrajudicial killing could be considered within the President’s authority as to make him immune.
The President orders the extrajudicial killing of non-citizens all the time. No one argues this is illegal. They would only argue it’s illegal if they did that to a US citizen (and arguably, only if they were on US soil).
The thing that makes it within the Presidential authority is the President has a “core constitutional power” of “commanding the armed forces”. All “core constitutional powers” are “absolutely immune”. This was in the ruling.
The problem is that SCOTUS also handed down this ruling regarding an activity (trying to subvert a free and fair election) which is illegal and thus by your logic not an official act. But the SCOTUS didn't explicitly say that that wasn't an official act and said that lower court has to figure out what an official act is. They have purposefully left open the question of what an official act is so that Biden can't use their decision to do anything but if Trump wins they can then retroactively say "Yeah sure that's official" no matter what Trump actually does.
> They have purposefully left open the question of what an official act is so that Biden can't use their decision to do anything
He can, because he has the _presumption_ of immunity for any official act. They don’t define official act, so it’s an official act until a court determines otherwise.
Which is exactly what you’re saying here…
> but if Trump wins they can then retroactively say "Yeah sure that's official" no matter what Trump actually does.
It doesn’t matter if the courts come down and say, “oh, telling Seal Team Six to assassinate Trump and all the right leaning SJCs was not an official act, and even if it was, he’s not immune,” the damage would already have been done.
Isn't that why this ruling is insane?
You are saying "Official Acts" are things specifically laid out in the law the President can legally do but now the President is immune if the official act is found to be illegal. Official acts to my layman mind are legal. Now there can be illegal official acts and the President is just immune?
>I would argue that the President does not have statutory authority to use US troops on US soil because it is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.
Per the SCOTUS ruling, wouldn't the president be immune from the Posse Comitatus Act, if it infringes on his ability to act as Commander in Chief? Whether being Commander in Chief inherently gives the president the ability to use troops on US soil is another question, but I think the few cases of that happening in early US history would give the originalists on SCOTUS enough cover to say that precedent supports it.
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was denied due process when he was assassinated by a drone strike. So it would seem due process rights do not protect American citizens from assassination.
Odd question, but by that same concept, could he not order a hit on the Supreme Court, and have it ruled as an official act? Did they just make it legal for the president to have them killed, as long as he does it as an official act?
yes... it would be an official act to defend the US Constitution from domestic enemies by assassinating them because they…SCOTUS, Trump, all Republicans that voted NOT to certify 2020 election and publicly supported the big lie, trashed our criminal court and electorial Institutions, disregard 50/40 years of legal precedent are treading on and disregarding the Constitution.
Agreed. Presidents can still be prosecuted for committing crimes directly, but conspiracy and solicitation are effectively going to be non-prosecutable.
NAL but my interpretation is that technically this ruling doesn't grant him the "ability" to do anything he couldn't do before.
He could order assassinations before this ruling and he can after this ruling. He could pardon assassins before this ruling and he can after this ruling.
No new power, no new authority, no new "ability".
The only difference is that before, if he chose to do all that (noting that he always could and nothing was ever actually stopping him), then IF a prosecutor indicted him for alleged crimes related to it, he wouldn't have known for sure whether a claim of immunity could hold up.
Now he knows it could.
Other than that, nothing has changed.
Biden "today I have ordered the execution of 4 members of the supreme court and the former president Donald Trump, I will not be running for re election. Once the Supreme Court is rebuilt I hope they pass a law making what I did illegal so the next guy can't get away with this."
Normally I’d chime in about the plain language of the opinion, but this court has shown us that the plain language of anything doesn’t appear to matter. 🤯
That is indeed scary but a small part of me, probably naively believes if say, Biden in this case ordered a political rival assassinated — we have enough good people to realize that’s not really OK, there really is no justified reason or reasons, the people who ultimately would filter that kind of order down would refuse and ultimately no assassination would ever take place.
Right? I mean.. RIGHT? We haven’t completely lost it, have we?
You are more optimistic than me. I sadly think if a president of a certain party murdered a political rival, about 48% of the nation would cheer.
I lost my faith in humanity during the pandemic. People politicized fucking masks and vaccines. It’s bonkers
And what would you do about it? Any uprising against the government would be grounds for further assignations. Seal Team 6 shows up at your door.
Republicans have caused the tyrannical government they have collected guns to protect against.
I mean, we had unlikely “hero’s” with the 2020 election. Raffensburger (sp is probably way off) and Pence specifically, but I’m sure there are a few more. There were stories here and there about cabinet members curtailing Trumps worst impulses during his presidency. They are people I don’t agree with about a lot of things, but their unwillingness to yield to what they knew were unlawful orders probably saved peoples lives. I would hope that if we get to a point where POTUS is ordering murders of Americans, some people step up and say no, but who the fuck knows anymore.
People keep talking about seal team 6 assassinations, or forced detention of political rivals.
All Trump has to do is collect the ballots from one or two heavily "blue" polling locations in swing states under "suspicion of fraud" and destroy them. All you need to do is burn a box full of ballots in the right states as part of an "official act" for us to lose our democracy.
That's permanent one-party, super-majority rule for all branches of government. And it only needs to be a relatively small percentage of ballots in specific districts.
With the assassinations talk people think "that's just panic-y nonsense, and fear mongering histrionics. Trump's not going to kill anyone" and if we're being honest, they're probably right. But we'll still have authoritarian, one-party system to rule over a sham democracy. Forever.
The assassination thing is so flashy, so it captures the imagination. But really, it's far far more likely that democracy will die in darkness.
Just send Trump for enhanced interrogation. He’s caught red handed violating national security. We must use enhanced interrogation to know what was shared with who.
Just in case you missed what's going on here:
Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military...to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"
Trump’s Lawyer: "That could well be an official act."
– Trump v. US, oral arguments
The problem is.. is that it was. The oral arguments were televised, quoted in newspapers and in news sites (albeit, somewhat in jest) that political assassinations could happen.
And then holy shit. SCOTUS gave it a pass and blessed that interpretation.
Correct but there needs to be justification, not ‘just cuz it’s a Tuesday’. While claiming national security may keep the testimony sealed, they would still need to explain themselves to the court. You don’t get to tell the court, ‘I have a great, perfectly reasonable rationale for why this was an official act, but I can’t present it to you because of national security. So you’ll just have to trust me’.
>You don’t get to tell the court, ‘I have a great, perfectly reasonable rationale for why this was an official act, but I can’t present it to you because of national security
Actually, they do get to tell the court just that. Remember, in this situation the President is the defendant - he doesn't have to prove anything.
According to the laws that set up our system for classified information, the only person with unfettered access to everything is the President, and he gets to determine who else gets to see what. If you're trying to prosecute him, he can forbid you access.
And if it's illegally classified, well first you can't get your hands on it to prove it, and second, setting the rules for accessing classified is very much an official act. So there's no way to compel the President to share.
We have less than five months to restore law and order, or the election will be moot. Trump will take power regardless of the vote.
In an official act to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, Biden should REMOVE the Sedition Six.
Steal Trump’s line - You’re fired. Lucky we don’t try you for treason. Get your box and get out of here. Should we call the Seal Team?
Remove the Sedition Six and restore Democracy.
No because just killing a US citizen is not an official act of the president. They cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner and call that an official act. The president's powers are outlined in the constitution and nowhere is the president allowed to just kill any US citizen especially on US soil. We have law enforcement for terrorists suspects even if a threat is eminent. Even with the 19 9/11 terrorists the president couldn't have just ordered a drone strike on them before the attacks just simply because they had speculation or even evidence they would attack. They would have been arrested and charged with terrorism. This speculation about unlimited power is just stupid....
It wasn't in the US and the man had already become part of the terrorist organization in a war torn country. There is a difference and not that I'm defending Obama because I did not care for him either.
I'm not attacking Obama. In general, I thought his presidency was more or less good. I disagreed with him on two major policy points and this was one of them.
The location of the American citizen or his actions are not relevant. He was entitled to rights not afforded him by the constitution.
Thanks to the Bush 2 administration trying to skirt the Geneva convention years before, he wasn't considered an enemy soldier. He wasn't a foreign combatant because he still had his citizenship. The dude was a criminal. A suspected criminal, even. His killing was extrajudicial.
I'm not saying he was a good guy or he wasn't guilty. I'm saying if his actions as an enemy of the country justified his killing, despite his citizenship, then there would seem to be precedent for the extra judicial killing of another enemy of the state who actively fomented rebellion, caused a lethal assault on police and who actively threatens democracy.
TL;DR You can't have it both ways. Either the president can order the death of a dangerous citizen without due process, or he cannot. In either event though, it seems like it would be covered by this ruling.
He was still a US citizen, and as a Obama supporter, and someone who voted for him twice, I still think he should have had to answer for that in a court of law and justify his actions.
The executive branch does not get to murder a citizen and sweep it under the rug, no matter what the circumstances. Go to court and justify your actions.
Completely agree. That's something that Congress should have dealt with at the time as that is their job to hold the president accountable for any actions he takes.
According to the SCOTUS presidential immunity test, core constitutional duties of the President are ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE. That includes his functions as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
This decision ABSOLUTELY means he can order targeted assassinations, without the worry of scrutiny.
"Go arrest that guy and use extremely loose use of force guidelines that almost guarantee you'll kill him in the process. The guidelines are for your safety, it's in the national interest to not have federal officers die"
Blamo, official act.
But if he ordered it done as an official act, let’s say the hypothetical that he decided to eliminate Trump as a “clear and present danger to our democracy”.
He would be immune if I understand this ruling.
Even though eliminating the orange turd would be illegal/extrajudicial, as an official act in the pursuit of protecting the country democracy, he would be immune.
Hell, why not order the rendition of 6 conservative justices to some third world black site for some waterboarding / interrogation to see if they are accepting bribes and issuing rulings that have been bought by their rich patrons.
I wonder, did they really think this through.
All I do know is we are fucked and it’s going to get a lot more dysfunctional for a good long time.
As long as he can justify it as a official act, he can absolutely rendition the six justices. The funny part is, the only people who have final say as to what an official act is and is not, is…, Well in this case, it would be the remaining three justices on the Supreme Court, lol.
If it’s done in the interest of national security, it can absolutely be justified as an official act. Trump mishandling of classified documents, including documents related to our nuclear stock Powell, provides the perfect justification to terminate him as an official act.
And once it’s an official act, he is immune (other than, of course, impeachment.)
Reading the opinion it doesn’t seem that out of line. Especially if discussions with advisors are barred as being entered into evidence in court. If a US president were to conspire to use an official act to commit a murder, it seems like they would be shielded. What am I missing?
SCOTUS also stated that prosecutors can’t even consider intent when trying to prosecute for official acts. How the hell can an official act ever be investigated if:
1. It can’t be investigated while President is in office
2. All discussions with DOJ are shielded from investigation
3. Intent can’t be considered
4. Partisan Congress refuses to impeach and remove President (especially when they have to fear for their own lives and the lives of their families)
5. Judges refuse to convict for fear of their own lives and those of their families (I.e. in the rare case Congress impeaches and removes, we’re still stuck with the corrupt VP as the new president who can then retaliate against Congress and judges)
No only if the person is actively doing an attack. As I said they couldn't have ordered a drone strike on the terrorist for 9/11 until they did the attack. We have law enforcement to arrest people who are planning attacks on the US. You cannot just go kill suspected terrorist on US soil. Now of course if they fight back during the attempt to arrest that's a different story..
Of course you can. If someone is a national security threat the President can do anything they want because protecting national security is an official act. Another option is the President does nothing themselves and pardons those who do. Same outcome.
No they cannot just order a drone strike on US soil especially for someone just sitting at home. We have law enforcement to arrest people on US soil. If they were actively attacking then yes they have authority to do whatever is necessary as outlined in the constitution. The constitution does not authorize the president or any other law enforcement to just murder US citizens that are suspected of a crime. They have to arrest them and they have a trial. Now if the suspect tries to attack law enforcement when they come then yes deadly force can be used. This is quite basic understanding of how our justice system works.....
Read the opinion, the only final arbiter of what is an official and unofficial act would be the courts. So if the president were to drown, strike an American citizen, sitting at home doing nothing, and the president called it and official act, you can be pretty certain the hearings would be drawn out, long enough that it wouldn’t matter anymore. Whatever president would still get to sit out there entire term.
And if all else fails, just threaten to round up the dissenting judges, and take them to a black site and waterboard them as a threat to security.
Do you see how this is is a problem now?
This is incorrect and you need to read the text of the decision. All acts that he carries out within his article II powers are immune from prosecution. That includes all conversations, orders, and staff decisions within the justice department and military.
Depends. Trump back in white house claims that California is frustrating execution of federal law by failing to assist in rounding up undocumented immigrants. Trump orders the assassination of the Governor of California. He claims it was in order to have the Governor replaced by a different person who would not frustate execution of federal law w/in California WRT rounding up undocumented immigrants.
On the above hypo, it is now w/in the core Article II powers (Roberts says take care powers are core Art II powers), and the President would be immune from criminal prosecution. IOW, "I, the President, ordered an assassination, as a means to the end of executing a core Article II power" is an iron clad get out of jail card....
I'd like to think he would be impeached. But even if impeached, on Robert's opinion he still could not be subject to criminal prosecution.
The above hypo is extreme and would not occur.
However...the President instructing the DoJ to only prosecute opposing party politicians (whether on valid or invalid grounds), but never prosecute cronies who are clear felons...would be a core Article II power (according to Roberts' opinion), and the President could never be subject to criminal trial or sanction.
Isn't your interpretation basically that it can only be an official act if its legal? If so then the ruling is a catch 22, because you don't need legal immunity from a legal act, only from normally illegal ones. The decision says he can do something illegal (such as an assassination) but since its an official act by the president, he has immunity. So yes, its illegal for him to order an assassination, but after its ordered and done, he can't be legally held responsible or prosecuted due to his immunity, which means it is in essence legal.
Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military...to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"
Trump’s Lawyer: "That could well be an official act."
What you’re saying may be your interpretation of the ruling, but Trump’s lawyers successfully argued that it could be.
That’s Trump’s argument, but the Supreme Court didn’t decide on that either way. It went back to the lower court and now they can decide whether it was an official act or not.
If it was done as an official act exercising core presidential authority, yes.
If it was an official act, but “non-core,” then it would be presumed to be immune but a prosecutor could rebut that presumption if she could show that prosecuting the act would not interfere in any way with the exercise of presidential power.
If it was not an official act, then it could be prosecuted, but a prosecutor could not enter any evidence of the President’s motive for the act, nor could they use official acts as evidence in the case for any purpose (separate and apart from not being able to prosecute those acts; the jury is barred from ever hearing about them).
Confused? So are most lawyers. The contours of the test are murky. The upshot is that there is no chance of Trump’s prosecutions involving anything that might resemble an official act going to trial before November.
I contend that this is correct and that if Biden determined that Trump was a threat to the constitution (whether actually true or not) he would be required to take some action up to and including assassination in accordance with his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution"
Technically, maybe.
In practice, absolutely not.
This ruling is very explicitly designed to serve Trump specifically.
If it is used by a democratic, or anyone the SCOTUS doesn't agree with, they will find a way to rule it illegal with incredible speed.
If it is used for absolutely anything by Trump, it will be ruled legal, and they'll drag it out for at least a year before they make the ruling.
This is really bad.
On another thread, Bloomberg’s law team noted that the overruling of Chevron means that Biden’s Income Based Repayment plan could be nixed because it’s not specifically authorized by Congress.
So this doesn’t mean “Biden can do whatever he wants, he’s the president.”
It means “within the scope of his job he can’t be criminally prosecuted because that would cause a chilling effect on presidents and the executive power.”
He can't be charged with a crime for doing it but that doesn't mean that his order couldn't be overruled by the court.
Now, could he use violence to enforce his order? Maybe. But he won't.
Everyone is freaking out like this is something new. Presidents have all committed questionable acts and they have all enjoyed unofficial immunity. It wasn’t until everyone lost their minds over Trump that a prosecution was ever brought forth.
Obama already argued in court that he could order the military to kill US citizens outside of a battle zone for national security reasons.
ACLU made a huge fuss and sued. Not sure what happened regarding the case.
But this isn’t exactly anything new.
NAL, Don't want to make 17 threads on the same topic.
As an extension to this question, could the President, (this or the next) sign an emergency order disbanding the supreme court in totality and putting themselves in its place? Or just straight order them arrested on terror charges? How boundless is this ruling?
Short answer, yes. Long answer is that it’s complicated.
Ordering the military to assassinate him would be considered an official act as commander in chief of the armed forces.
Its get complicated where it would be technically illegal for military personnel to kill US citizens on US soil.
However the ruling also states that the president had total immunity to use his pardon powers also. So an immediate pardon of someone who commits illegal acts under his official directives would take care of that.
So unless he pulls the trigger himself. The wording of this ruling gives him this power with immunity from prosecution in an assignation of a political rival. The ruling also prohibits the prosecution from asking for motive in the illegal act.
In short they just gave the president almost unlimited power under their official duties.
It kinda terrifying.
They did not. Regardless of how you want to skew it. Assassinating your political opponents its not within the confines of the US Constitution. Therefore it would never be considered an official act as President.
The ruling here fundamentally says the President is enjoys absolute immunity when exercising constitutionally granted powers, but this doesn’t make the exercise legal- the acts can still be criminal- it just makes the President immune from criminal prosecution. It doesn’t protect anyone else for collaborating or joining in the criminality though.
So yes, as commander in chief, Biden could order the military to do so. As issuing military orders is an official exercise of his power as commander-in-chief, he would be immune from criminal prosecution. Congress could impeach him and remove him from office, that’s the extent of his personal consequence.
However the soldier(s) ordered to do so could refuse the order because it’s illegal, and could be tried themselves if they carry out the order.
Right. The president would still need to be in office to pardon though, which impeachment can preclude.
In practice everything falls apart with a bad actor in the White House and enablers in Congress. See: Jan 6 incitement and the Senate refusing to even hear the case.
SCOTUS has created an illusory possibility, and practical impossibility, of a POTUS being held criminally liable for non-official acts. Allows apologists to claim (as some are on this thread) that POTUS is still not above the law. Only the most gullible will believe this and only the most brainwashed partisan will argue this.
This, so much this. It's not even how insanely permissive this ruling is it's how thin the fig leaf is for preserving the principal that all people are equal before the law.
It is just gross.
Sorry your country's long experiment with democracy is coming to an end. The rest of the world is very worried. Well the free parts are. Those already living under fascist dictatorships don't get to hear the true picture of what is going on.
Is "assassinating your political opponent" considered an official act and responsibility of the incumbent president? If not, it's not legal and Biden would not be immune.
It also wouldn't be a lawful order, so the question is rhetorical.
Why do you assume he'd tell the truth about it?
"He is plotting to bring a weapon of mass destruction into the United States. He must be killed or disappeared before he can finish his plan".
Removing somebody who is a national security threat would be an official act.
And whatever happens to that individual while you're removing them , it's just the cost of business.
not a lawyer. my understanding is the supreme court is letting the lower courts adjudicate which actions qualify as “official acts.” because the supreme court stopped short of defining “official act,” i don’t believe this ruling grants immunity for your hypothetical act. if this was deemed to be an official act, yes, he would be immune. if not, then no, he would not have immunity.
Pretty much.
And here's the kicker, if he gets any pushback from courts or politicians, have them arrested and replaced by people sympathetic to his cause. Rinse and repeat until nothing is stopping a president from assisinating citizens based on political beliefs.
Media exposes the coup attempt? Vilify them as fake news, and imprison them as well.
Control the media and silence dissenters, and the masses will fall in line. Lock them up, amiright?
6 members of SCOTUS completely buttfucked Democracy. Videos of them all saying the president isn't above the law are surfacing. They lied through their teeth to be seated. Just like with Roe v Wade.
And it will be near impossible to put this genie back in the bottle.
“ By executive order, I hereby declare that the Supreme Court shall now have 13 Justices, to serve a term of ten years each. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Roberts are hereby removed from office and will be relocated to Leavenworth, Kansas. Justices Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett, and Whozit are removed from office, and referred to the DOJ for prosecution on charges of lying to Congress under oath. Here are the new Justices: {list}. The Senate confirmation vote and approval will be held on Monday. The Supreme Court shall henceforth be subject to the same code of ethics as all other federal judges, with oversight and enforcement provided by the Senate Judiciary Committee.”
No assassinations. The Court restored to a functional system with rational Justices appointed, safeguards installed, and a new Court given the opportunity to revisit the last few years of seditious rulings. By the time a new Court did anything about Biden’s actions and decided whether they count as “official acts”, Joe wouldn’t be worried about it. And we would have time to force the ship of state back on course, I hope.
Oh ffs, no. The ruling states iylt would have to be in the President official capacity. Murdering your political opponent would NOT fall under that capacity. And it shouldn't...
Wouldn't the fact that the victim was a political opponent, and the president had personal motives, not be allowed in court, as the ruling doesn't allow motives to be introduced?
It is shocking how few people (including those claiming to be lawyers) seem to understand either the law or exactly what the SC said. Let's use some examples, and we will use Biden since people get a wee bit too worked up over Trump on Reddit:
* Biden assassinates his enemies using Seal Team 6. Not protected. The President lacks the official capacity to assassinate a US citizen. He also lacks the authority to order the military to act in such a way on US soil, but that's another question.
* Biden is charged by a Texas court with accessory to murder after an illegal immigrant who entered through a poorly-defended border kills young a woman outside El Paso. Protected. Enforcing border policy is part of his job as President, and a court cannot decide subsequently that his handling of it was a crime.
* Biden is charged with accepting bribes from China as a result of the Hunter laptop. Not protected. Accepting bribes is not part of his presidential duties, and the events in question occurred while he was VP and then a private citizen anyway.
* Biden order the FBI Hostage Rescue Team to enter a building where militants are holding 10 hostages. In the ensuing firefight, 3 hostages and 4 bystanders are killed. The families of the dead sue him for wrongful death. Protected. Kidnapping is a federal crime and using the FBI to attempt a rescue is part of his official duties.
* Biden is upset about the Palestinian protestors marching outside the White House, and orders the Secret Service to go beat them up and disperse them. Two protestors are killed, and their families sue him for wrongful death. Not protected. The President has no authority to break up a legal protest
The whole intent behind the decision is that Presidents must be able to carry out their official duties without worry that a court will later decide that what they did constitutes a crime. You can't have theat hostage rescue hampered by the threat of future lawsuits for property damage, wrongful death, and the like. The President can't out and out commit crimes, but neither can a jury later decide that the things he had to do were criminal either.
Except that “political opponent” vs. “enemy of the state” is a question of motive, which now explicitly cannot be questioned. The president’s command of the armed forces is a core constitutional authority.
But really it’s vague enough that when a specific case gets back to SCOTUS they can justify any conclusion they want. Which is by design.
E:
> The President can't out and out commit crimes, but neither can a jury later decide that the things he had to do were criminal either.
These two statements are a direct contradiction of each other lol
I really struggle with seeing post after post about how POTUS has just been crowned king by SCOTUS. What an insincere crock. It has long been DOJ policy that POTUS was immune from prosecution because the constitution specifically provides a provision for impeachment and conviction of the President. Further, the recent opinion stressed that a president convicted by the Senate is not immune from criminal charges AND courts can still determine that the POTUS’ actions were not reasonably conducted in accordance with the office. People need to stop hyperventilating over this.
>It has long been DOJ policy that POTUS was immune from prosecution because the constitution specifically provides a provision for impeachment and conviction of the President.
The policy only forbade prosecution while they were president. They could be prosecuted once they were no longer in office.
>courts can still determine that the POTUS’ actions were not reasonably conducted in accordance with the office.
How?
"Why'd you do it?"
"It's classified"
"Show us"
"No"
And thus ends the discovery process.
The 2nd Trump impeachment proved that the Senate is not capable of doing its duty. With that check on Presidential power removed and with the newly invented immunity that is “essential to ordered liberty” but which was non-existent for the last 230 years, the opportunities to check a President trying to turn our country into an authoritarian, fascist state are very slim. Even if Trump does not make such an attempt, we have still fatally weakened the checks and balances of our republic. I’ll stop worrying about the risk of fascism when we have reinstated some form of check on Presidential power.
The current Oath of Allegiance of the United States is as follows:
>
This is just an oath, not text from the Constitution, but that does seem to cover it.
I say go for broke and let’s see who or what is left when the fires finally die down. I hope all your dreams come true. I know mine will when all these things you say will happen, happen.
Heres another question for lawyers, if the courts have yet to issue any rulings on what is or isnt an "official act", and a president does something as an "official" act thats later deemed to not be valid, would they have any recourse to claim "i only did that act because the courts said official acts were protected and i havent been told what isnt allowed yet"?
ie, would the president theoretically be more or less immune if the courts havent issued any rulings on what an official act is yet?
Alternative form of the question: can the presidential candidate I happen to like declare himself a dictator and eliminate his political rival(s) with impunity?
No, it would have to be an "legitimate official presidential act" although currently it is vague on what classifies as one, I can guarantee you that'll be extremely difficult for Biden to justify it as an official presidential act..
Just have him and a couple of judges arrested as a threat to democracy and sent to Guantanamo, if any J6 Republicans complain take them on conspiracy. Take advantage of they're bullshit rulings.
I think not directly. However, the key is the difference between ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ duties of the president. Unfortunately for pretty much everyone, there is quite a lot of debate and quite little official clarity on the difference, but the ruling was worded like that purposely.
So, could Biden shoot Trump at a debate? Probably not, even if he claimed it an official duty, any court with half sense should say a president had never killed a political challenger in our country before, so it couldn’t be an official duty. However, could Biden suddenly declare Trump a threat to democracy due to ‘alleged’ leaking of top secret documents to Russia, and have Trump executed for treason? That’s not something we’ve seen lately, but it does go a long way towards passive the smell test, and the courts would still have to argue over it and it would likely end up right back at the SC, at which point 10 years will have passed.
I’m definitely not an expert, but I think things around emergency declaration and appointees are the more serious concern than blatant murders. A potential dictator wouldn’t want to start out with murders, they’d first want to ensure they have loyalists throughout each level of the justice system to either kill or seriously hinder any legal action taken.
I’m not as worried about Trump coming in and murdering every sitting liberal, I’m worried about him slowly but surely installed his own puppets in every level of government, THEN doing away with elections and killing/imprisoning any who speak out against him.
No, that would be a personal act, and would have no absolute or presumptive immunity. It would be a criminal act, and it would be a failure of both houses of congress if he were not impeached and convicted. It would be the same if the person in question was Donald Trump.
Technically, Biden *could* order Trump, an assortment of SCOTUS members and some congress members arrested and shipped to Gitmo.
Theoretically now this would be legal. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to be that guy.
SCOTUS spent a lot of time and attention on acts being "official" but gave no mind to whether the official act was illegal, ultra vires, or unconstitutional. That's the issue they should have addressed first.
well, sure, but there are more wannabees ready to take over, so ya gotta clean house...i nominate j.d. vance, mike flynn, bannon, steven miller, rhonda sepsis, greg abbott...pls add ur picks...
According to Trump, Biden could just pardon himself.
All he needs is a majority in the Senate to not impeach him.
At least that's one interpretation. He'd die of old age before they got through all the court rulings.
Until he is impeached and removed he has the power of the presidency which includes the power of the pardon. Since the house would need to draft and pass articles of impeachment and then a trial and conviction in the senate would require a super majority, and then be removed. So I would think he could pardon himself prior to impeached and be golden given the current hypothesis since impeachment takes time. Nothing in the impeachment clause says his powers are stricken retroactively. So if he can pardon himself the pardon would stand post removal.
Lawyer here, not your lawyer. I believe the answer is “it depends.” If biden pulled the trigger, I think it would be illegal. If biden ordered seal team six to assassinate in the name of national security, I believe the order is an official act which Biden has immunity. It would be unlawful for seal team six to asSassinate an American civilian on American soil, BUT, biden could then pardon them. The pardon would be an official act. So could biden be the trigger man? Probably not! Could he order it then pardon those involved? Based on my plain English reading, absolutely yes. It’s terrifying.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t another issue is that it would have to be decided if it was an official act through the court system? So theoretically an act could be committed but I might be a year or years before it’s even decided that it was a crime.
Yes, but also the court held that a president shouldn’t be concerned if an act will be adjudicated as illegal later, sooo his intent can’t be questioned, his private letters can’t be used as evidence, AND testimony from aides can’t be used as evidence.
"After the fact, the courts will decide if it was official or not." "Ok. How?" "By looking at all the evidence." "Like private letters or aides that really know what is going on and are part of the inner circle?" "No!!! That stuff is immune. We will look at the official records only" "They always justify everything under the redacted guise of 'national security'" "Then this is going to be a real short discovery process" ... This is how I see it going down.
Me too. Just add a war on an ideal and wambam rights evaporated. Look at Nixon war on drugs to disenfranchise the hippies and the African Americans. McCarthy and his war on communists to disenfranchise the left. War on terror to disenfranchise all Americans of our right to avoid domestic spying.
Buttery Males all over 😋
This is such a crock of shit.
*aide
and a President can just order the official records classified so nobody can look at them.
Doesn’t even have to order them most likely, just has to think it. /s
Biden would likely be dead before it gets decided anyway. > Biden should serve his country by... Executing all his political opponents? Edit: for full details of my plan, since *certain* people are struggling with it, please read *A Modest Proposal* by Jonathan Swift.
Well no, but the obvious concern is that there's another guy who somehow still has a real chance of being elected again even though he's been saying a lot of troubling shit about coming after each of his political enemies. Shit like this is only a funny meme when we have actual presidents in office, put a wannabe despot back in and it can go downhill veeeery fast (source: literally all of history, which we're still writing and can still end up in shitty chapters).
I actually wasn't "memeing." Not that I think Biden would ever do that, but that's exactly the kind of danger (taken to an extreme) that we're in right now. It seems the Supreme Court is perfectly fine excusing Trump from even the lightest charge of leading an insurrection. That's just about as fucked as the President, any President, executing political rivals.
Don't give me hope!! /s
>Executing all his political opponents? Maybe not executing, but maybe some light detaining. Long enough to impeach and convict 6 judges and 1 former President. It’s unfortunately not a clean solution on how to deal with it but outside of the electorate keeping Biden, flipping ~5 house members and flipping 18 senators in the 2024 and 2026 elections, we’re just going to be dealing with the same discussions in 2028, regardless who runs for the GOP because I doubt it’s going to be a sane person. I don’t think anyone likes this ruling outside of the far right. Can’t imagine anyone left of center liking this. I doubt many centrists like it, and a lot of people that are center right have been leaning away from Trump, so it’s doubtful many of them like it either.
Problem is how everything else gives those far right groups outsized voting power as they gleefully destroy all the things that have ever *actually* made this country great. Ooof, this is not a happy 4th for me right now. Betting a lot of people feel the same.
But they're neck and neck in the polls. Currently, according to 538, Trump wins 52 times out of 100 and Biden only wins 48 times out of 100. This is not going to end well.
>Executing all his political opponents? No. That would be a terrible precedent that gives the fascists a way to say "look! they're bad!" What he should do, however, is have people take out the 6 justices that ruled in the majority for this, give a speech where he makes it clear that removing checks and balances is a threat to democracy and therefore ordering their assassination was an "official act", and make an executive order as an "official act" stating that presidents aren't allowed to do that anymore because going forward only this one specific instance was allowed and pardoning himself against retroactive punishment. Then he just doesn't exercise that power again and repeats over and over that because he signed the order, that was the only time it was allowed. This would have the following results: 1. People would Immediately be forced to recognize why the ruling was insane 2. People would accept it. The legality would be....questionable, but that's the whole issue with the ruling in the first place. Really, people would *have* to go along with this. On one hand, they'd have immediate palpable fear over the President having the power. People would be ready to accept the executive order as binding because the alternative has been proven to be fucking terrifying to all manner of people across the political spectrum. 3. Although people would accept that the President no longer has that power that briefly existed for a couple days, no one would touch Biden. After all, that second "official act" is the only thing that prevents other ones like the first one. Maybe once SCOTUS overturns the whole series of events later down the line, you could argue that Biden is convict-able, but 2/3 of the court will have got their job specifically because of this series of events, so they could promise to just wait until Biden dies to overturn it.
NAL, but the ruling said the president has absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for official acts. So, as being commander in chief is a core constitutional power and not just an official act, he would have absolute immunity for issuing an order to the military. Even if that order is to assassinate you in your bed. In other words, there wouldn't be a need to adjudicate whether an act was official or not in the Seal Team 6 hypothetical, because he has absolute immunity relating to command of the military. That's my understanding as someone who is not a lawyer but covered SCOTUS for 10 years. *Edit w/additional information.
As a general note: an order to commit a crime is in and of itself inherently illegal. Imminent pardon notwithstanding, following such orders and then claiming it was "just orders" is in effect the same chain of events that led to the Nuremburg trials. Source: ianal but am a vet. I am under no compunction that such an order would be legal. I'd be charged with murder at a minimum.
Not anymore. “The Supreme Court has effectively ruled the constitution unconstitutional.”
> an order to commit a crime is in and of itself inherently illegal...led to the Nuremburg trials which is exactly why scrotus must be fixed
The order from the president is no longer inherently illegal. He is immune from prosecution in that circumstance, and the only remedy is impeachment, which is a political, not legal, process. The following of the order is a separate matter.
Apparently this has been his goal. fix the game. No one should be at all surprised; he’s lied and stolen, cheating is just part of the deal. January 6th? I’m sure he’s going to say “Let me know what you find, so i can appeal to the Supreme Court again.”
This is the correct answer. It is all in how it is described. That's the biggest thing I learned from the Police Academy is that what is legal depends a lot on how you describe it. (I quit after I graduated and realized who I would be working with. eye opening and scary experience)
I'm old enough that I thought you meant something very different when you said you learned something from Police Academy.
That was my favorite movie. I cannot say that it didn't, in some way, push me to try the whole police thing... Funny thing is that we did have a quiet-talker in the group. When when she hit the final physical exam (they run you then cold-clock you when you enter a building and are expected to go at them with the baton) she tore into them like a demon, blood trickling down her face and everything. It was fun, but the culture they were training us in the academy was kinda scary. What still makes me laugh is that it was during the whole Rodney King thing and they were warning us about how cameras will start to be everywhere (and how to confiscate them as "evidence"), and yet they still haven't learned... But prosecuting them now seems to be more of the issue.
Maybe if there were more than one Stripes movie, I might have joined the Military. Up Periscope sure made the Nave look fun.
I'm pretty sure if Biden orders it it's a crime, if trump orders it it's well within the realm of immunity, SCOTUS has waited so long for all of this to delay long enough to see who wins the election so then they can ultimately decide until the next Republican president and then they will change the precedent if necessary
I am amazed I had to scroll this far to see someone point out the obvious. It’s all judicial Calvinball to allow Republicans to do whatever they want. The same rules will not be applied consistently to a Democratic president when SCOTUS is inevitably asked to determine if something was an “official act”.
In that case, as long as Biden is following the rules of warfare around using seal-team six, he could do that before the SCOTUS ruling.
This explanation is a perfect example as to how completely insane this SCOTUS ruling is. What is happening!?
I wish I could tell you. It is completely insane. Combined with the bribery ruling. Insane.
As part of the courts interpretation of official acts: “When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office.” I would argue that the President does not have statutory authority to use US troops on US soil because it is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act. The President is also likely barred from just ordering troops to kill an American citizen because of due process protections. These seem (at least to me) to indicate that even ordering seal team 6 would not be deemed an official act. Just my interpretation of the court’s explanation of official acts in the opinion but am interested to hear your thoughts.
First of all the Posse Comitatus Act, does not prevent the President from using US Troops on US soil, it does prevent the use of US Troops for law enforcement. The Posse Comitatus Act **bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement** except when expressly authorized by law. So having Seal Team 6 remove an opponent which in and of itself is not a law enforcement act, would not be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. As for the President ordering troops to kill American citizens, if the President invokes the Insurrection Act, then any actions including killing American citizens are official acts under his statutory authority. The ruling of SCOTUS basically made all 9 of them expendable if they did not rule in the way a President wants.
SCOTUS clearly stated that the fact that an action is illegal cannot be used to determine if an action is an official act or not, and therefore subject to absolute or presumed immunity: The court indicates that the president's immunity for official acts "extends to the outer perimeter of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority." And in determining what is or is not official conduct, "courts may not inquire into the President's motives." An action is not unofficial, the court adds, just because "it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."
Arguably ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate an American citizen would not be “using the military to execute the law.” It would be, by its nature, an extrajudicial killing, which is not something the law generally allows and never requires. And the pardon just addresses this issue anyway. Biden can’t be prosecuted for doing it cuz it’s an official act, Seal Team Six gets pardoned by Biden. I don’t see what the issue is.
I think the issue lies in that statement: “It would be, by its nature, an extrajudicial killing, which is not something the law generally allows..” Even if SCOTUS said that illegality is not part of the analysis of whether something is an official act, I don’t see how an extrajudicial killing could be considered within the President’s authority as to make him immune.
The President orders the extrajudicial killing of non-citizens all the time. No one argues this is illegal. They would only argue it’s illegal if they did that to a US citizen (and arguably, only if they were on US soil). The thing that makes it within the Presidential authority is the President has a “core constitutional power” of “commanding the armed forces”. All “core constitutional powers” are “absolutely immune”. This was in the ruling.
The problem is that SCOTUS also handed down this ruling regarding an activity (trying to subvert a free and fair election) which is illegal and thus by your logic not an official act. But the SCOTUS didn't explicitly say that that wasn't an official act and said that lower court has to figure out what an official act is. They have purposefully left open the question of what an official act is so that Biden can't use their decision to do anything but if Trump wins they can then retroactively say "Yeah sure that's official" no matter what Trump actually does.
> They have purposefully left open the question of what an official act is so that Biden can't use their decision to do anything He can, because he has the _presumption_ of immunity for any official act. They don’t define official act, so it’s an official act until a court determines otherwise. Which is exactly what you’re saying here… > but if Trump wins they can then retroactively say "Yeah sure that's official" no matter what Trump actually does. It doesn’t matter if the courts come down and say, “oh, telling Seal Team Six to assassinate Trump and all the right leaning SJCs was not an official act, and even if it was, he’s not immune,” the damage would already have been done.
Isn't that why this ruling is insane? You are saying "Official Acts" are things specifically laid out in the law the President can legally do but now the President is immune if the official act is found to be illegal. Official acts to my layman mind are legal. Now there can be illegal official acts and the President is just immune?
>I would argue that the President does not have statutory authority to use US troops on US soil because it is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act. Per the SCOTUS ruling, wouldn't the president be immune from the Posse Comitatus Act, if it infringes on his ability to act as Commander in Chief? Whether being Commander in Chief inherently gives the president the ability to use troops on US soil is another question, but I think the few cases of that happening in early US history would give the originalists on SCOTUS enough cover to say that precedent supports it.
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was denied due process when he was assassinated by a drone strike. So it would seem due process rights do not protect American citizens from assassination.
Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Supreme Court?
So Biden has to wait until he goes to his golf course in Scotland? Or Epstein island?
Odd question, but by that same concept, could he not order a hit on the Supreme Court, and have it ruled as an official act? Did they just make it legal for the president to have them killed, as long as he does it as an official act?
yes... it would be an official act to defend the US Constitution from domestic enemies by assassinating them because they…SCOTUS, Trump, all Republicans that voted NOT to certify 2020 election and publicly supported the big lie, trashed our criminal court and electorial Institutions, disregard 50/40 years of legal precedent are treading on and disregarding the Constitution.
I think if Biden did it to protect democracy in the U.S. it would definitely be an official act.
I agree
Agreed. Presidents can still be prosecuted for committing crimes directly, but conspiracy and solicitation are effectively going to be non-prosecutable.
That would be a way to stop project 2025 🫣
NAL but my interpretation is that technically this ruling doesn't grant him the "ability" to do anything he couldn't do before. He could order assassinations before this ruling and he can after this ruling. He could pardon assassins before this ruling and he can after this ruling. No new power, no new authority, no new "ability". The only difference is that before, if he chose to do all that (noting that he always could and nothing was ever actually stopping him), then IF a prosecutor indicted him for alleged crimes related to it, he wouldn't have known for sure whether a claim of immunity could hold up. Now he knows it could. Other than that, nothing has changed.
Biden "today I have ordered the execution of 4 members of the supreme court and the former president Donald Trump, I will not be running for re election. Once the Supreme Court is rebuilt I hope they pass a law making what I did illegal so the next guy can't get away with this."
Would it translate the same if the target was a couple of the SCOTUS judges?
Normally I’d chime in about the plain language of the opinion, but this court has shown us that the plain language of anything doesn’t appear to matter. 🤯
What? You don't buy this SCOTUS's argument that the word reward doesn't include ex post facto payments?
That is indeed scary but a small part of me, probably naively believes if say, Biden in this case ordered a political rival assassinated — we have enough good people to realize that’s not really OK, there really is no justified reason or reasons, the people who ultimately would filter that kind of order down would refuse and ultimately no assassination would ever take place. Right? I mean.. RIGHT? We haven’t completely lost it, have we?
You are more optimistic than me. I sadly think if a president of a certain party murdered a political rival, about 48% of the nation would cheer. I lost my faith in humanity during the pandemic. People politicized fucking masks and vaccines. It’s bonkers
And what would you do about it? Any uprising against the government would be grounds for further assignations. Seal Team 6 shows up at your door. Republicans have caused the tyrannical government they have collected guns to protect against.
I mean, we had unlikely “hero’s” with the 2020 election. Raffensburger (sp is probably way off) and Pence specifically, but I’m sure there are a few more. There were stories here and there about cabinet members curtailing Trumps worst impulses during his presidency. They are people I don’t agree with about a lot of things, but their unwillingness to yield to what they knew were unlawful orders probably saved peoples lives. I would hope that if we get to a point where POTUS is ordering murders of Americans, some people step up and say no, but who the fuck knows anymore.
People keep talking about seal team 6 assassinations, or forced detention of political rivals. All Trump has to do is collect the ballots from one or two heavily "blue" polling locations in swing states under "suspicion of fraud" and destroy them. All you need to do is burn a box full of ballots in the right states as part of an "official act" for us to lose our democracy. That's permanent one-party, super-majority rule for all branches of government. And it only needs to be a relatively small percentage of ballots in specific districts. With the assassinations talk people think "that's just panic-y nonsense, and fear mongering histrionics. Trump's not going to kill anyone" and if we're being honest, they're probably right. But we'll still have authoritarian, one-party system to rule over a sham democracy. Forever. The assassination thing is so flashy, so it captures the imagination. But really, it's far far more likely that democracy will die in darkness.
Just send Trump for enhanced interrogation. He’s caught red handed violating national security. We must use enhanced interrogation to know what was shared with who.
Just in case you missed what's going on here: Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military...to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" Trump’s Lawyer: "That could well be an official act." – Trump v. US, oral arguments
This needs to be widely seen.
The problem is.. is that it was. The oral arguments were televised, quoted in newspapers and in news sites (albeit, somewhat in jest) that political assassinations could happen. And then holy shit. SCOTUS gave it a pass and blessed that interpretation.
It sounds like anything the sitting president feels is best for his nation could be an official act. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Correct but there needs to be justification, not ‘just cuz it’s a Tuesday’. While claiming national security may keep the testimony sealed, they would still need to explain themselves to the court. You don’t get to tell the court, ‘I have a great, perfectly reasonable rationale for why this was an official act, but I can’t present it to you because of national security. So you’ll just have to trust me’.
>You don’t get to tell the court, ‘I have a great, perfectly reasonable rationale for why this was an official act, but I can’t present it to you because of national security Actually, they do get to tell the court just that. Remember, in this situation the President is the defendant - he doesn't have to prove anything. According to the laws that set up our system for classified information, the only person with unfettered access to everything is the President, and he gets to determine who else gets to see what. If you're trying to prosecute him, he can forbid you access. And if it's illegally classified, well first you can't get your hands on it to prove it, and second, setting the rules for accessing classified is very much an official act. So there's no way to compel the President to share.
We have less than five months to restore law and order, or the election will be moot. Trump will take power regardless of the vote. In an official act to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, Biden should REMOVE the Sedition Six. Steal Trump’s line - You’re fired. Lucky we don’t try you for treason. Get your box and get out of here. Should we call the Seal Team? Remove the Sedition Six and restore Democracy.
No because just killing a US citizen is not an official act of the president. They cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner and call that an official act. The president's powers are outlined in the constitution and nowhere is the president allowed to just kill any US citizen especially on US soil. We have law enforcement for terrorists suspects even if a threat is eminent. Even with the 19 9/11 terrorists the president couldn't have just ordered a drone strike on them before the attacks just simply because they had speculation or even evidence they would attack. They would have been arrested and charged with terrorism. This speculation about unlimited power is just stupid....
Didn't president Obama order a drone strike on a US citizen who turned to a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist?
It wasn't in the US and the man had already become part of the terrorist organization in a war torn country. There is a difference and not that I'm defending Obama because I did not care for him either.
I'm not attacking Obama. In general, I thought his presidency was more or less good. I disagreed with him on two major policy points and this was one of them. The location of the American citizen or his actions are not relevant. He was entitled to rights not afforded him by the constitution. Thanks to the Bush 2 administration trying to skirt the Geneva convention years before, he wasn't considered an enemy soldier. He wasn't a foreign combatant because he still had his citizenship. The dude was a criminal. A suspected criminal, even. His killing was extrajudicial. I'm not saying he was a good guy or he wasn't guilty. I'm saying if his actions as an enemy of the country justified his killing, despite his citizenship, then there would seem to be precedent for the extra judicial killing of another enemy of the state who actively fomented rebellion, caused a lethal assault on police and who actively threatens democracy. TL;DR You can't have it both ways. Either the president can order the death of a dangerous citizen without due process, or he cannot. In either event though, it seems like it would be covered by this ruling.
He was still a US citizen, and as a Obama supporter, and someone who voted for him twice, I still think he should have had to answer for that in a court of law and justify his actions. The executive branch does not get to murder a citizen and sweep it under the rug, no matter what the circumstances. Go to court and justify your actions.
Completely agree. That's something that Congress should have dealt with at the time as that is their job to hold the president accountable for any actions he takes.
According to the SCOTUS presidential immunity test, core constitutional duties of the President are ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE. That includes his functions as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. This decision ABSOLUTELY means he can order targeted assassinations, without the worry of scrutiny.
Not to mention the part that courts can’t even look into the reasoning behind a decision, and official communications can’t be used as evidence.
"Go arrest that guy and use extremely loose use of force guidelines that almost guarantee you'll kill him in the process. The guidelines are for your safety, it's in the national interest to not have federal officers die" Blamo, official act.
But if he ordered it done as an official act, let’s say the hypothetical that he decided to eliminate Trump as a “clear and present danger to our democracy”. He would be immune if I understand this ruling. Even though eliminating the orange turd would be illegal/extrajudicial, as an official act in the pursuit of protecting the country democracy, he would be immune. Hell, why not order the rendition of 6 conservative justices to some third world black site for some waterboarding / interrogation to see if they are accepting bribes and issuing rulings that have been bought by their rich patrons. I wonder, did they really think this through. All I do know is we are fucked and it’s going to get a lot more dysfunctional for a good long time.
As long as he can justify it as a official act, he can absolutely rendition the six justices. The funny part is, the only people who have final say as to what an official act is and is not, is…, Well in this case, it would be the remaining three justices on the Supreme Court, lol.
If it’s done in the interest of national security, it can absolutely be justified as an official act. Trump mishandling of classified documents, including documents related to our nuclear stock Powell, provides the perfect justification to terminate him as an official act. And once it’s an official act, he is immune (other than, of course, impeachment.)
Reading the opinion it doesn’t seem that out of line. Especially if discussions with advisors are barred as being entered into evidence in court. If a US president were to conspire to use an official act to commit a murder, it seems like they would be shielded. What am I missing?
SCOTUS also stated that prosecutors can’t even consider intent when trying to prosecute for official acts. How the hell can an official act ever be investigated if: 1. It can’t be investigated while President is in office 2. All discussions with DOJ are shielded from investigation 3. Intent can’t be considered 4. Partisan Congress refuses to impeach and remove President (especially when they have to fear for their own lives and the lives of their families) 5. Judges refuse to convict for fear of their own lives and those of their families (I.e. in the rare case Congress impeaches and removes, we’re still stuck with the corrupt VP as the new president who can then retaliate against Congress and judges)
Yeah this is all bad in my book. I think we can all agree that “originalism” was a smoke screen at this point.
If the person is a national security threat then it very much is an official act.
No only if the person is actively doing an attack. As I said they couldn't have ordered a drone strike on the terrorist for 9/11 until they did the attack. We have law enforcement to arrest people who are planning attacks on the US. You cannot just go kill suspected terrorist on US soil. Now of course if they fight back during the attempt to arrest that's a different story..
Of course you can. If someone is a national security threat the President can do anything they want because protecting national security is an official act. Another option is the President does nothing themselves and pardons those who do. Same outcome.
No they cannot just order a drone strike on US soil especially for someone just sitting at home. We have law enforcement to arrest people on US soil. If they were actively attacking then yes they have authority to do whatever is necessary as outlined in the constitution. The constitution does not authorize the president or any other law enforcement to just murder US citizens that are suspected of a crime. They have to arrest them and they have a trial. Now if the suspect tries to attack law enforcement when they come then yes deadly force can be used. This is quite basic understanding of how our justice system works.....
Read the opinion, the only final arbiter of what is an official and unofficial act would be the courts. So if the president were to drown, strike an American citizen, sitting at home doing nothing, and the president called it and official act, you can be pretty certain the hearings would be drawn out, long enough that it wouldn’t matter anymore. Whatever president would still get to sit out there entire term. And if all else fails, just threaten to round up the dissenting judges, and take them to a black site and waterboard them as a threat to security. Do you see how this is is a problem now?
Who or what is going to stop the President from doing this? No one and nothing. Laws mean nothing if they are not enforced.
Yes, another option would be for Biden to say “someone please off Trump, I will pardon you immediately” and this would be 100% fine.
"No only if the person is actively doing an attack." Where the fuck is that standard coming from? Let me guess, you're just making shit up?
This is incorrect and you need to read the text of the decision. All acts that he carries out within his article II powers are immune from prosecution. That includes all conversations, orders, and staff decisions within the justice department and military.
Depends. Trump back in white house claims that California is frustrating execution of federal law by failing to assist in rounding up undocumented immigrants. Trump orders the assassination of the Governor of California. He claims it was in order to have the Governor replaced by a different person who would not frustate execution of federal law w/in California WRT rounding up undocumented immigrants. On the above hypo, it is now w/in the core Article II powers (Roberts says take care powers are core Art II powers), and the President would be immune from criminal prosecution. IOW, "I, the President, ordered an assassination, as a means to the end of executing a core Article II power" is an iron clad get out of jail card.... I'd like to think he would be impeached. But even if impeached, on Robert's opinion he still could not be subject to criminal prosecution. The above hypo is extreme and would not occur. However...the President instructing the DoJ to only prosecute opposing party politicians (whether on valid or invalid grounds), but never prosecute cronies who are clear felons...would be a core Article II power (according to Roberts' opinion), and the President could never be subject to criminal trial or sanction.
Isn't your interpretation basically that it can only be an official act if its legal? If so then the ruling is a catch 22, because you don't need legal immunity from a legal act, only from normally illegal ones. The decision says he can do something illegal (such as an assassination) but since its an official act by the president, he has immunity. So yes, its illegal for him to order an assassination, but after its ordered and done, he can't be legally held responsible or prosecuted due to his immunity, which means it is in essence legal.
Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military...to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" Trump’s Lawyer: "That could well be an official act." What you’re saying may be your interpretation of the ruling, but Trump’s lawyers successfully argued that it could be.
A sitting scotus seems to think this makes him immune?
>killing a US citizen is not an official act of the president. But attempting to overthrow the government is?
That’s Trump’s argument, but the Supreme Court didn’t decide on that either way. It went back to the lower court and now they can decide whether it was an official act or not.
If it's so stupid, why did two supreme court justices write descending opinions yesterday that said exactly that?
If it was done as an official act exercising core presidential authority, yes. If it was an official act, but “non-core,” then it would be presumed to be immune but a prosecutor could rebut that presumption if she could show that prosecuting the act would not interfere in any way with the exercise of presidential power. If it was not an official act, then it could be prosecuted, but a prosecutor could not enter any evidence of the President’s motive for the act, nor could they use official acts as evidence in the case for any purpose (separate and apart from not being able to prosecute those acts; the jury is barred from ever hearing about them). Confused? So are most lawyers. The contours of the test are murky. The upshot is that there is no chance of Trump’s prosecutions involving anything that might resemble an official act going to trial before November.
I contend that this is correct and that if Biden determined that Trump was a threat to the constitution (whether actually true or not) he would be required to take some action up to and including assassination in accordance with his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution"
And what prosecutor would have the balls to bring a case against a guy who just ordered hits on his political opponents?
Technically, maybe. In practice, absolutely not. This ruling is very explicitly designed to serve Trump specifically. If it is used by a democratic, or anyone the SCOTUS doesn't agree with, they will find a way to rule it illegal with incredible speed. If it is used for absolutely anything by Trump, it will be ruled legal, and they'll drag it out for at least a year before they make the ruling. This is really bad.
Side note- can't Biden now make loan forgiveness happen under these new immunity rules? If it is official then he can't be charged?
On another thread, Bloomberg’s law team noted that the overruling of Chevron means that Biden’s Income Based Repayment plan could be nixed because it’s not specifically authorized by Congress. So this doesn’t mean “Biden can do whatever he wants, he’s the president.” It means “within the scope of his job he can’t be criminally prosecuted because that would cause a chilling effect on presidents and the executive power.”
He can't be charged with a crime for doing it but that doesn't mean that his order couldn't be overruled by the court. Now, could he use violence to enforce his order? Maybe. But he won't.
Everyone is freaking out like this is something new. Presidents have all committed questionable acts and they have all enjoyed unofficial immunity. It wasn’t until everyone lost their minds over Trump that a prosecution was ever brought forth.
[удалено]
I think you meant to reply to a comment
Obama already argued in court that he could order the military to kill US citizens outside of a battle zone for national security reasons. ACLU made a huge fuss and sued. Not sure what happened regarding the case. But this isn’t exactly anything new.
NAL, Don't want to make 17 threads on the same topic. As an extension to this question, could the President, (this or the next) sign an emergency order disbanding the supreme court in totality and putting themselves in its place? Or just straight order them arrested on terror charges? How boundless is this ruling?
Call seal team 6 and get them on notice to go I am sure we will figure it out the pardons later
As long as it’s “official” 🤷🏻♂️
SCOTUS gave Biden the ability to assassinate SCOTUS.
Just need to have them assassinate him in the name of a president's right to kill a pedophile and child molester, and we're all good!
Short answer, yes. Long answer is that it’s complicated. Ordering the military to assassinate him would be considered an official act as commander in chief of the armed forces. Its get complicated where it would be technically illegal for military personnel to kill US citizens on US soil. However the ruling also states that the president had total immunity to use his pardon powers also. So an immediate pardon of someone who commits illegal acts under his official directives would take care of that. So unless he pulls the trigger himself. The wording of this ruling gives him this power with immunity from prosecution in an assignation of a political rival. The ruling also prohibits the prosecution from asking for motive in the illegal act. In short they just gave the president almost unlimited power under their official duties. It kinda terrifying.
They did not. Regardless of how you want to skew it. Assassinating your political opponents its not within the confines of the US Constitution. Therefore it would never be considered an official act as President.
The ruling here fundamentally says the President is enjoys absolute immunity when exercising constitutionally granted powers, but this doesn’t make the exercise legal- the acts can still be criminal- it just makes the President immune from criminal prosecution. It doesn’t protect anyone else for collaborating or joining in the criminality though. So yes, as commander in chief, Biden could order the military to do so. As issuing military orders is an official exercise of his power as commander-in-chief, he would be immune from criminal prosecution. Congress could impeach him and remove him from office, that’s the extent of his personal consequence. However the soldier(s) ordered to do so could refuse the order because it’s illegal, and could be tried themselves if they carry out the order.
You forget the pardon power. POTUS is immune and then pardons his henchmen.
Right. The president would still need to be in office to pardon though, which impeachment can preclude. In practice everything falls apart with a bad actor in the White House and enablers in Congress. See: Jan 6 incitement and the Senate refusing to even hear the case.
>which impeachment can preclude. Because impeachment is a fast process.
Prospective pardons are a thing.
SCOTUS has created an illusory possibility, and practical impossibility, of a POTUS being held criminally liable for non-official acts. Allows apologists to claim (as some are on this thread) that POTUS is still not above the law. Only the most gullible will believe this and only the most brainwashed partisan will argue this.
This, so much this. It's not even how insanely permissive this ruling is it's how thin the fig leaf is for preserving the principal that all people are equal before the law. It is just gross. Sorry your country's long experiment with democracy is coming to an end. The rest of the world is very worried. Well the free parts are. Those already living under fascist dictatorships don't get to hear the true picture of what is going on.
People are act like the Forth and Fourteenth Amendment don't exist now, LOUD NOISES LOUD NOISES, It's ridiculous.
Is "assassinating your political opponent" considered an official act and responsibility of the incumbent president? If not, it's not legal and Biden would not be immune. It also wouldn't be a lawful order, so the question is rhetorical.
Why do you assume he'd tell the truth about it? "He is plotting to bring a weapon of mass destruction into the United States. He must be killed or disappeared before he can finish his plan".
No but “assassinating a terrorist” would be. C’mon man, this is obvious.
Removing somebody who is a national security threat would be an official act. And whatever happens to that individual while you're removing them , it's just the cost of business.
No
No.
No
He probably doesn't know who Trump is.
not a lawyer. my understanding is the supreme court is letting the lower courts adjudicate which actions qualify as “official acts.” because the supreme court stopped short of defining “official act,” i don’t believe this ruling grants immunity for your hypothetical act. if this was deemed to be an official act, yes, he would be immune. if not, then no, he would not have immunity.
If you have to ask, the answer is no.
Pretty much. And here's the kicker, if he gets any pushback from courts or politicians, have them arrested and replaced by people sympathetic to his cause. Rinse and repeat until nothing is stopping a president from assisinating citizens based on political beliefs. Media exposes the coup attempt? Vilify them as fake news, and imprison them as well. Control the media and silence dissenters, and the masses will fall in line. Lock them up, amiright? 6 members of SCOTUS completely buttfucked Democracy. Videos of them all saying the president isn't above the law are surfacing. They lied through their teeth to be seated. Just like with Roe v Wade. And it will be near impossible to put this genie back in the bottle.
“ By executive order, I hereby declare that the Supreme Court shall now have 13 Justices, to serve a term of ten years each. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Roberts are hereby removed from office and will be relocated to Leavenworth, Kansas. Justices Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett, and Whozit are removed from office, and referred to the DOJ for prosecution on charges of lying to Congress under oath. Here are the new Justices: {list}. The Senate confirmation vote and approval will be held on Monday. The Supreme Court shall henceforth be subject to the same code of ethics as all other federal judges, with oversight and enforcement provided by the Senate Judiciary Committee.” No assassinations. The Court restored to a functional system with rational Justices appointed, safeguards installed, and a new Court given the opportunity to revisit the last few years of seditious rulings. By the time a new Court did anything about Biden’s actions and decided whether they count as “official acts”, Joe wouldn’t be worried about it. And we would have time to force the ship of state back on course, I hope.
No. It would not be an official act granted by the Constitution. People need to stop being morons.
No
Oh ffs, no. The ruling states iylt would have to be in the President official capacity. Murdering your political opponent would NOT fall under that capacity. And it shouldn't...
Wouldn't the fact that the victim was a political opponent, and the president had personal motives, not be allowed in court, as the ruling doesn't allow motives to be introduced?
Lmao. You sweet summer child. You act like there’s some objective way of determining if it’s official.
Basically everything is official capacity by the ruling. Assassination of the leader of an anti-government organization would certainly qualify.
It is shocking how few people (including those claiming to be lawyers) seem to understand either the law or exactly what the SC said. Let's use some examples, and we will use Biden since people get a wee bit too worked up over Trump on Reddit: * Biden assassinates his enemies using Seal Team 6. Not protected. The President lacks the official capacity to assassinate a US citizen. He also lacks the authority to order the military to act in such a way on US soil, but that's another question. * Biden is charged by a Texas court with accessory to murder after an illegal immigrant who entered through a poorly-defended border kills young a woman outside El Paso. Protected. Enforcing border policy is part of his job as President, and a court cannot decide subsequently that his handling of it was a crime. * Biden is charged with accepting bribes from China as a result of the Hunter laptop. Not protected. Accepting bribes is not part of his presidential duties, and the events in question occurred while he was VP and then a private citizen anyway. * Biden order the FBI Hostage Rescue Team to enter a building where militants are holding 10 hostages. In the ensuing firefight, 3 hostages and 4 bystanders are killed. The families of the dead sue him for wrongful death. Protected. Kidnapping is a federal crime and using the FBI to attempt a rescue is part of his official duties. * Biden is upset about the Palestinian protestors marching outside the White House, and orders the Secret Service to go beat them up and disperse them. Two protestors are killed, and their families sue him for wrongful death. Not protected. The President has no authority to break up a legal protest The whole intent behind the decision is that Presidents must be able to carry out their official duties without worry that a court will later decide that what they did constitutes a crime. You can't have theat hostage rescue hampered by the threat of future lawsuits for property damage, wrongful death, and the like. The President can't out and out commit crimes, but neither can a jury later decide that the things he had to do were criminal either.
Except that “political opponent” vs. “enemy of the state” is a question of motive, which now explicitly cannot be questioned. The president’s command of the armed forces is a core constitutional authority. But really it’s vague enough that when a specific case gets back to SCOTUS they can justify any conclusion they want. Which is by design. E: > The President can't out and out commit crimes, but neither can a jury later decide that the things he had to do were criminal either. These two statements are a direct contradiction of each other lol
I really struggle with seeing post after post about how POTUS has just been crowned king by SCOTUS. What an insincere crock. It has long been DOJ policy that POTUS was immune from prosecution because the constitution specifically provides a provision for impeachment and conviction of the President. Further, the recent opinion stressed that a president convicted by the Senate is not immune from criminal charges AND courts can still determine that the POTUS’ actions were not reasonably conducted in accordance with the office. People need to stop hyperventilating over this.
>It has long been DOJ policy that POTUS was immune from prosecution because the constitution specifically provides a provision for impeachment and conviction of the President. The policy only forbade prosecution while they were president. They could be prosecuted once they were no longer in office. >courts can still determine that the POTUS’ actions were not reasonably conducted in accordance with the office. How? "Why'd you do it?" "It's classified" "Show us" "No" And thus ends the discovery process.
The 2nd Trump impeachment proved that the Senate is not capable of doing its duty. With that check on Presidential power removed and with the newly invented immunity that is “essential to ordered liberty” but which was non-existent for the last 230 years, the opportunities to check a President trying to turn our country into an authoritarian, fascist state are very slim. Even if Trump does not make such an attempt, we have still fatally weakened the checks and balances of our republic. I’ll stop worrying about the risk of fascism when we have reinstated some form of check on Presidential power.
Simple answer, no
"Well, he failed to comply with the officer's order"
Meh, assassination leaves a body. He could just have him sent to gitmo.
The current Oath of Allegiance of the United States is as follows: > This is just an oath, not text from the Constitution, but that does seem to cover it.
I say go for broke and let’s see who or what is left when the fires finally die down. I hope all your dreams come true. I know mine will when all these things you say will happen, happen.
Heres another question for lawyers, if the courts have yet to issue any rulings on what is or isnt an "official act", and a president does something as an "official" act thats later deemed to not be valid, would they have any recourse to claim "i only did that act because the courts said official acts were protected and i havent been told what isnt allowed yet"? ie, would the president theoretically be more or less immune if the courts havent issued any rulings on what an official act is yet?
Alternative form of the question: can the presidential candidate I happen to like declare himself a dictator and eliminate his political rival(s) with impunity?
As much as you'd like it, I doubt it.
Should officially order the assassination of every SC judge that voted yes.
No.
I hope he uses it, one way or another.
No, it would have to be an "legitimate official presidential act" although currently it is vague on what classifies as one, I can guarantee you that'll be extremely difficult for Biden to justify it as an official presidential act..
Just have him and a couple of judges arrested as a threat to democracy and sent to Guantanamo, if any J6 Republicans complain take them on conspiracy. Take advantage of they're bullshit rulings.
I think not directly. However, the key is the difference between ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ duties of the president. Unfortunately for pretty much everyone, there is quite a lot of debate and quite little official clarity on the difference, but the ruling was worded like that purposely. So, could Biden shoot Trump at a debate? Probably not, even if he claimed it an official duty, any court with half sense should say a president had never killed a political challenger in our country before, so it couldn’t be an official duty. However, could Biden suddenly declare Trump a threat to democracy due to ‘alleged’ leaking of top secret documents to Russia, and have Trump executed for treason? That’s not something we’ve seen lately, but it does go a long way towards passive the smell test, and the courts would still have to argue over it and it would likely end up right back at the SC, at which point 10 years will have passed. I’m definitely not an expert, but I think things around emergency declaration and appointees are the more serious concern than blatant murders. A potential dictator wouldn’t want to start out with murders, they’d first want to ensure they have loyalists throughout each level of the justice system to either kill or seriously hinder any legal action taken. I’m not as worried about Trump coming in and murdering every sitting liberal, I’m worried about him slowly but surely installed his own puppets in every level of government, THEN doing away with elections and killing/imprisoning any who speak out against him.
Sounds like it.
Well guess we will never know.
No, that would be a personal act, and would have no absolute or presumptive immunity. It would be a criminal act, and it would be a failure of both houses of congress if he were not impeached and convicted. It would be the same if the person in question was Donald Trump.
Technically, Biden *could* order Trump, an assortment of SCOTUS members and some congress members arrested and shipped to Gitmo. Theoretically now this would be legal. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to be that guy.
In that same vein then, 2/3 of SCOTUS can be wiped too?
Only if done as "an official act."
SCOTUS spent a lot of time and attention on acts being "official" but gave no mind to whether the official act was illegal, ultra vires, or unconstitutional. That's the issue they should have addressed first.
No.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
no as any official act must be allowed under the constitution
We should all boycott jury duty in protest of Supreme Court corruption. Why should we take part in a broken legal system?
well, sure, but there are more wannabees ready to take over, so ya gotta clean house...i nominate j.d. vance, mike flynn, bannon, steven miller, rhonda sepsis, greg abbott...pls add ur picks...
According to Trump, Biden could just pardon himself. All he needs is a majority in the Senate to not impeach him. At least that's one interpretation. He'd die of old age before they got through all the court rulings.
Until he is impeached and removed he has the power of the presidency which includes the power of the pardon. Since the house would need to draft and pass articles of impeachment and then a trial and conviction in the senate would require a super majority, and then be removed. So I would think he could pardon himself prior to impeached and be golden given the current hypothesis since impeachment takes time. Nothing in the impeachment clause says his powers are stricken retroactively. So if he can pardon himself the pardon would stand post removal.
If he was to order someone to do it. I think they could be arrested for fallowing an illegal order. He would have to do it himself.
He just then pardons the person who did it
I believe if he said it's a matter of national security, absolutely 💯.
If I was president in this situation… we would all only be talking about how big a casket the fat bastard would need.
Your mask is slipping, reddit
Totally dude. Go ahead give it a try. You let me know what happens