And going forward, who decides what's an official vs. unofficial Presidential act?
The courts
Which means every case about presidential actions is appealed up to the supreme Court from now on
Why that's easy. It's the top elected official, of course.
It's actually the Court, which is a convenient aspect since it means only Republicans get immunity.
Pretty much everything the president does while in office is official. So the more important question is what is within the president's powers.
The problem with immunity rather than changing the law is that all he has to do is prove that in some circumstance he has that power and that he believes that circumstance existed at the time and he used that authority to do it.
For example, he has the power to order the military to assassinate, so the specifics of whether it was legal to assassinate a certain person can't be questioned in court, only whether he has the power to issue that type of order. Because once it's established that it is within his power and he states that he used his authority as president to issue the order, he is immune to any further prosecution. Also, it doesn't matter if he ordered the CIA to do it and they don't have that legal authority to act inside the US. In that case the president is breaking the law, he just can't be prosecuted for it, only the CIA agents involved could be. It's not presidential authority that is being violated in that case so it's off the table for prosecution regardless of how illegal it is.
And going forward, who decides what's an official vs. unofficial Presidential act?
The courts
Which means every case about presidential actions is appealed up to the supreme Court from now on
Why that's easy. It's the top elected official, of course.
It's actually the Court, which is a convenient aspect since it means only Republicans get immunity.
Pretty much everything the president does while in office is official. So the more important question is what is within the president's powers.
The problem with immunity rather than changing the law is that all he has to do is prove that in some circumstance he has that power and that he believes that circumstance existed at the time and he used that authority to do it.
For example, he has the power to order the military to assassinate, so the specifics of whether it was legal to assassinate a certain person can't be questioned in court, only whether he has the power to issue that type of order. Because once it's established that it is within his power and he states that he used his authority as president to issue the order, he is immune to any further prosecution. Also, it doesn't matter if he ordered the CIA to do it and they don't have that legal authority to act inside the US. In that case the president is breaking the law, he just can't be prosecuted for it, only the CIA agents involved could be. It's not presidential authority that is being violated in that case so it's off the table for prosecution regardless of how illegal it is.