| > The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. Yes, this is true. However, the ruling very explicitly separates "core constitutional powers" from the rest of the president's constitutional responsibilities. There's basically 3 categories of action here. 1. "Core constitutional powers"
2. "His remaining official actions"
3. "unofficial acts" OK, so I separated it out to 3 categories where the Court recognizes 2: official and unofficial. But I did so to point out that the Court ruled that "core constitutional powers" are always official acts, and it's up to the prosecution to prove that the act was unofficial, which thus means proving it wasn't a "core constitutional power." And commanding the army to do something is a core constitutional power. The constitution is silent on what the president may not order the army to do. This is how I read it, and I could be mistaken, but it's also how Sotomayor reads it, and she's a much sharper legal mind than I. Even if I'm wrong, it's frightening to be in a situation where top legal minds can interpret it this way. It means it's far from explicit, or safe. As for the Guardian article, I'm not seeing where this has been tested in court. The article even mentions that the SC doesn't consider killing non-US citizens by the government to be forbidden by the constitution. Fair enough. Couldn't fight wars otherwise. But even if we assume they would rule extra-judicial killings of US citizens illegal, we're left with. 1. It's illegal for the president to kill a US citizen
2. But it's not illegal for them to order the military to do it (core constitutional power)
3. It's illegal for the military to carry it out
4. But the president can pardon them
5. And it's not illegal for the president to pardon them (core constitutional power)
6. Only federal laws apply if it's done in D.C. As I read it, simply ordering the military to do something makes it an official act. But should it come to trial, Biden could argue that he was doing it to defend the constitution from those trying to undermine it. That he wasn't merely justified, but required to do so, and thus, it was a legitimate order to give, and thus a core constitutional power. Trump could claim the same: He was doing it to protect the constitution from the deep state which is illegally changing the vote totals. |