In theory, some prosector could have decided to charge Obama with a crime, and maybe even achieved a conviction in a jurisdiction where he's unpopular.
This decision says that shouldn't happen because it was an official act as president.
Of course, if congress doesn't like something a president is doing, they can change the laws and remove his or her legal authority to do something.
Yep. The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if they'll later be prosecuted for it.
That seems fine on its face, but the problem people keep raising is that we live in a world where the President is legally empowered to do things that are seriously problematic. That's a very real concern, and it's been a concern at the very least since Bush and 9/11.
So the obvious answer to this ruling is to fix that. The President shouldn't have to wonder if they'll end up prosecuted for doing things that are within the scope of their official duties, so what we need to do is more clearly define and limit those official duties so that the President doesn't have to guess what will be seen as crossing an imaginary line when the administration changes.
The other big problem is how do you resolve a question of whether the president is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties? If there is a presumption of immunity and precluded from examining motive, it may be nearly impossible to establish the facts in cases where the president is acting improperly.
Well yeah that's true. But uh, you are talking lawyer talk with a set of opinions, insincerely held, because they are most concerned with "owning the libs" above everything else.
A giant part of the issue of commonlaw systems is that so much of the "law" is not laws but rulings and those are a lot easier to change/ignore/overrule.
The US couldn't pass the ERA, which just enshrines women's rights in the Constitution. Anything more controversial like "the President can't do extrajudicial murders" would be an endless partisan battle
I agree with you - it's not like Bush has been held accountable in any way. Neither has Cheney, and we know Rumsfeld never will. Congress needs to get off its' duff and regulate. That requires people to organize to make them. I'm not seeing it happen.
Congress granted the Bush administration broad powers. The problem is not inaction.
You mean because he has been dead for 3 years?
Another topic that hasn't come up quite as much is the fact that this is an immunity proposition, not a defense. What SCOTUS is saying is that we aren't permitted to even ask if the president is reasonable in his beliefs; any trial on the merits is completely and totally foreclosed--that's what immunity means. Just a few days ago, SCOTUS decided that it's absolutely important that administrative law procedures need to go through the step of being heard by a jury trial, and now here it's saying that it's absolutely important that the president never be burdened by the prospect of having to have a jury weigh their actions.
It's just... really galling that SCOTUS would decide that the constitution requires that the president be a king above the law, exactly the sort of thing that England fought a few civil wars over before the US even sought its independence.
Nevermind that the order was given by a US official, presumably on US soil.
You're underestimating the creativity of prosecutors. :)
For example, they could have charged him with conspiracy to commit murder in any location where Obama met with others to discuss killing al-Awlaki.
Or a future president, like Trump, could have pressured a federal prosecutors to bring charges in Federal Court, since they can bring charges for crimes committed against Americans globally.
No, the supreme court just gave the president immunity for exactly this. This exact scenario is quoted upthread:
> Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.
It's curious because this would also seem to legalize the Watergate scandal and Nixon's famous line "if the president does it, its not illegal".
Maybe.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Judic...
And of course, if it's something that the Supreme Court wants a president to face consequences for for partisan reasons, they can simply use their majority to say that whatever they didn't like was not an official act.
People get very judgemental when Putin assassinates defectors, but when Obama does it it's ok?
Relatedly, when the question is "is this person protected by the Constitution," imagine a Venn diagram where one circle is "US citizens" and the other circle is "human being physically present within the United States." Debate over the 100-mile "border zone" notwithstanding, the entire thing is filled in. If you are a US citizen anywhere, or a person inside the US, you have all the Constitutional rights.
