Exactly, that’s what’s so scary about this. The courts now explicitly can’t consider things like motive to determine any of this. Just the action in a general sense. And since of course restricting the ability of a president to speak publicly to supporters in the general sense could infringe on the power of the executive, immune.
And even if by some miracle some act was declared unofficial, he could either pardon the person or himself (automatically an official act), or fire the prosecutors bringing the case (automatically an official act). Or in the extreme case, order an assassination (automatically official act). Those core powers in article 2 mean even when the president uses some power not described in article 2, even when a court overcomes the extremely high hurdle placed to declare something not an official act and without immunity, it will still all be for naught. There’s effectively no limits.
Well a pardon would be something he could have done even before this ruling. That is a power the President has always had.
But generally someone that’s been pardoned can’t take the 5th, since you can’t incriminate yourself for an action you’ve gotten a pardon for. So a pardon would usually come with the risks that those he pardons could be compelled against him. But now evidence about a Presidential act is no longer admissible.
I feel like the probability of another Trump presidency leading to a civil war has gone up a few notches. Yes, he can order Seal Team Six to assassinate someone, but it would be an illegal order. Trump would have immunity, but people in the military swear an oath to defend the constitution. So some in the military might refuse to follow the illegal order. But not everyone in the military is a constitutional scholar so they’d feel compelled to follow the order. What happens if part of the military feels duty bound to follow Trump’s orders and another part of the military feels duty bound to not follow certain orders?
Exactly, that’s what’s so scary about this. The courts now explicitly can’t consider things like motive to determine any of this. Just the action in a general sense. And since of course restricting the ability of a president to speak publicly to supporters in the general sense could infringe on the power of the executive, immune.
And even if by some miracle some act was declared unofficial, he could either pardon the person or himself (automatically an official act), or fire the prosecutors bringing the case (automatically an official act). Or in the extreme case, order an assassination (automatically official act). Those core powers in article 2 mean even when the president uses some power not described in article 2, even when a court overcomes the extremely high hurdle placed to declare something not an official act and without immunity, it will still all be for naught. There’s effectively no limits.
Well a pardon would be something he could have done even before this ruling. That is a power the President has always had.
But generally someone that’s been pardoned can’t take the 5th, since you can’t incriminate yourself for an action you’ve gotten a pardon for. So a pardon would usually come with the risks that those he pardons could be compelled against him. But now evidence about a Presidential act is no longer admissible.
I feel like the probability of another Trump presidency leading to a civil war has gone up a few notches. Yes, he can order Seal Team Six to assassinate someone, but it would be an illegal order. Trump would have immunity, but people in the military swear an oath to defend the constitution. So some in the military might refuse to follow the illegal order. But not everyone in the military is a constitutional scholar so they’d feel compelled to follow the order. What happens if part of the military feels duty bound to follow Trump’s orders and another part of the military feels duty bound to not follow certain orders?