Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

9
  • The layman explanation I took away was basically "criminal prohibition can't prevent the executive branch from functioning", which... makes sense? So, for example, you can't criminalize the president murdering the president of a country Congress has declared war on, because once we're at war, he has the authority to wage it. But (contrary to the other justices) it seems to me that you can criminalize the president killing his political rival, because that wouldn't get in the way of his ability to (no pun intended) execute the duties of his office.
    – user541686
    Commented Jul 5 at 11:43
  • @user541686 See this other Q&A.
    – kaya3
    Commented Jul 5 at 12:46
  • I'll leave a comment there; I don't think the logic follows.
    – user541686
    Commented Jul 5 at 13:14
  • @user541686 Core powers delimited in the constitution of the president, such as commanding the military, are absolutely immune from scrutiny and criminal liability. The legality or motivation of the orders has no bearing on the immunity by this ruling. So no, you cannot criminalize the president killing his political rival by ordering a member of the military to kill them under this ruling. It is very, very clear on this subject.
    – Yakk
    Commented Jul 5 at 14:17
  • @Yakk: The motivation does have a bearing, as far as I can see. There's a different example in the same ruling where it does: "Presiding over the January 6 certification [...] is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President" too, but despite that, the opinion actually looks at the goal of that duty, and says "presiding over the Senate is not an 'executive branch' function", and thus avoids making it immune for vote counting. Assassinating your political opponent isn't an executive branch function either, so naturally it wouldn't be immune, even if he uses the army to do it.
    – user541686
    Commented Jul 5 at 14:33