So, would official acts as president be legal by definition? Would there be such a thing as an official act as president that may otherwise be criminal?
And how does the ruling protect against treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (specifically, the past part)? How is this ruling not in direct contrast to the constitution?
This is the Supreme Court more or less officially agreeing with the nixonian logic of “if the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. I honestly don’t see another way to describe it.
Biden should by all means act accordingly. But I sincerely doubt he will.
The job of President throughout the 20th century has involved committing crimes. If they gave that away, then all of these ghouls could potentially be prosecuted.
In the future, the former President could go to jail for the next version of Iran-Contra… and we couldn’t possibly allow that to happen.
Because no one else gave you an actual explanation I will. The highest law in the US legal system is the Constitution. In it the president’s official duties are described. Congress could not pass a law blocking him from doing his official duties as Constitution>Enacted Bill. To override the Constitution they would need to pass an amendment. Because of this any law enacted that may be otherwise lawful is unlawful as applied to the president if they were doing the act as part of their official duties.
If Congress could pass a law saying no one can issue pardons and arrest the president for doing so they’d have effectively stripped text out of the constitution.
As for protecting against treason and bribery, those don’t sound like official acts. But they did cite an earlier case about Nixon that had previously set restrictions on how prosecutors may obtain information, that may benefit in any trial.
So, would official acts as president be legal by definition? Would there be such a thing as an official act as president that may otherwise be criminal?
And how does the ruling protect against treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (specifically, the past part)? How is this ruling not in direct contrast to the constitution?
This is the Supreme Court more or less officially agreeing with the nixonian logic of “if the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. I honestly don’t see another way to describe it.
Biden should by all means act accordingly. But I sincerely doubt he will.
I would encourage you to read the first couple paragraphs of this article so you are informed of your misunderstanding.
I understand what the “official” position is, but I can also read between the lines.
The job of President throughout the 20th century has involved committing crimes. If they gave that away, then all of these ghouls could potentially be prosecuted.
In the future, the former President could go to jail for the next version of Iran-Contra… and we couldn’t possibly allow that to happen.
I wonder what the US would’ve been like if leaders were actually held accountable…
We wouldn’t exist as the US.
Because no one else gave you an actual explanation I will. The highest law in the US legal system is the Constitution. In it the president’s official duties are described. Congress could not pass a law blocking him from doing his official duties as Constitution>Enacted Bill. To override the Constitution they would need to pass an amendment. Because of this any law enacted that may be otherwise lawful is unlawful as applied to the president if they were doing the act as part of their official duties.
If Congress could pass a law saying no one can issue pardons and arrest the president for doing so they’d have effectively stripped text out of the constitution.
As for protecting against treason and bribery, those don’t sound like official acts. But they did cite an earlier case about Nixon that had previously set restrictions on how prosecutors may obtain information, that may benefit in any trial.