TLDR: there are no qualifying limitations on presidential immunity

Not only does any US president now have complete immunity from “official” actions(with zero qualifying restrictions or definitions), but if those actions are deemed “unofiicial”, no jury is legally allowed to witness the evidence in any way since that would interfere with the now infinitely broad “official” presidential prerogatives.

Furthermore, if an unofficial atrocity is decided on during an official act, like the president during the daily presidential briefing ordering the army to execute the US transexual population, the subsequent ordered executions will be considered legally official presidential acts since the recorded decision occurred during a presidential duty.

There are probably other horrors I haven’t considered yet.

Then again, absolute immunity is absolute immunity, so I don’t know how much threat recognition matters here.

If the US president can order an action, that action can be legally and officially carried out.

Not constitutionally, since the Constitution specifically holds any elected politician subject to the law, but legally and officially according to the supreme court, who has assumed higher power then the US Constitution to unconstitutionally allege that the US President is absolutely immune from all legal restrictions and consequences.

  • Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    6 months ago

    Will there be a fight to reign in those powers legally in any way? Because it feels awfully convenient and lucrative for someone to win the presidency at all costs now.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      There can be a fight, but it can be stopped at any point by the executive branch for any reason without restriction or consequence.

      Plus, now there is a legal precedent for presidential immunity, so even if the best situation occurs and executive balance is restored, the next team of bandits can point to 2024 and say well look, the highest court in the land said their ruling supersedes the Constitution.

      Fixing this will require some sort of comprehensive rewrite of either the Constitution to make its powers inviolate or better yet, to make the limitations on the branches inviolate.

      Maybe increase the amendments by tenfold to elucidate exactly what is allowed and not allowed, because right now “reasonable judgment” is often invoked as a limitation on important legal rulings, but if you have a conservative majority refusing to honestly engage with “reasonable judgment” and willing to pwrjure themselvesto irritate harmful and unreasonable judgment, as the conservatives on the court are and have been willing to do for decades, then they can do things like violate or invalidate the Constitution.

      The problem with all of these solutions is that the limitations on executive power are already very clear, and the supreme Court is objectively violating them.

      I don’t see a clear resolution at this point, although I’m so shocked by the end of the US government that I’m still working through the consequences and considering hopeful solutions.

      Right now, the most hopeful solution I see is like when dumps asked pence to violate the Constitution and declare him president, pence refused.

      So if another atrocity is now ordered, right now the only hope is that the person being ordered to do it will risk being executed for treason and not follow that order.

      Relying on many someones like pence to all do the right thing is not exactly comforting.