"... al-Awlaki ... was an American-Yemeni lecturer, and jihadist who was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a U.S. government drone strike ordered by President Barack Obama. Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a drone strike from the U.S. government."
this act is still in effect.
Explain the difference.
The court opinion literally says pressuring the vice president to try to not certify the election was an official act related to talking about the limits of his roles and responsibilities.
We are already well into stupid word games territory.
What is your counter argument, from the actual opinion?
I think the problem is that the section regarding evidence, c3 iirc, says that any evidence implicating a criminal unofficial act must itself be unofficial, and not related to presidential acts.
Who said?
SCOTUS disagrees with you. People can be stripped of their constitutional rights and they are official acts.
For the most recent case: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-upholds-bar...
2nd Amendment versus the executive branch's right to enforce that law.
The president now has immunity to corrupt elections as he wishes. I honestly don't understand how any American can be happy about this.
I could see the argument being made that yes, that's an official act. You'd have to argue why it's okay for a President to abandon their oath of office.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Par...
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pressed-...
