For reference: Article 48 Wikipedia I’m trying to understand how anyone with any knowledge of the history of dictators could possibly justify granting a president unchecked “official” power so if anyone has any actual theories I am ALL ears.

    • xenomor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why should anyone believe either of those processes are possible anymore, now that the president has been granted the power to coerce members of both branches through threat of force?

      • breckenedge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        These actions were already possible. Nothing has been granted that wasn’t already there, but now we know a president can’t be sued/charged for official acts after they leave office. And it appears the burden of proof is, as always, up to the prosecutors to prove. So, once again, the courts will have to establish precedence over what they consider to be official and unofficial.

        • memfree@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          This looks new to me. It becomes hard for prosecutors to prove anything when we can’t ask about motives and the witnesses are ‘privileged advisors’. From the officical court opinion – note it is in paper-format with hyphens. (page 18: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf):

          In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of of- ficial conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II in- terests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” if “[i]n exercising the functions of his office,” the President was “under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry.”

          (page 31)

          The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification pro- ceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presump- tively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

          • breckenedge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            This sounds like the status quo that existed before this ruling. Any president could plead the 5th to avoid answering questions about their motive.

            • memfree@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              No. You plead the 5th once you are in court. This says that when Nixon wanted the FBI to stop investigating the Watergate break-in, we couldn’t ask why because the prez is supposed to talk to the FBI and we can’t question his motives. It says that when Trump asked Pence to hold the vote and bring in fake electors, it was official communication and therefore legal – because we can’t ask why. It says that when Trump wanted false charges of fraud brought up for elections, saying his lawyers would figure out the reasons later, that was OK because he’s officially supposed to investigate fraud. Prior to this, any potential overlap between the Office of President and potential Candidate for Presidency (and/or candidate for future jail term) could be investigated as if it was not Presidential until there was a solid defense as to why it was official. The ruling turns that on its head and says prosecution must first find proof that actions were unofficial – and do so without the ability to ask about motivations – before filing charges. We want the official/unofficial decision to be made with the weight of context and done in court rather than putting prosecutors in the position of ‘illegally’ investigating a President before they can figure out what actually went down.

        • xenomor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Please. Of course any president could always do anything, and of course it’s always up to the prosecutor to make a case. Are you really claiming that the Supreme Court setting the precedent that presidents are exempt from criminal liability is not a change? Does the weight of that precedent not make prosecuting presidents vastly more difficult and, apparently, impossible in many important ways? Does that fact not make it much more likely that presidents will commit crimes? You may want that change, but there is no merit to the argument that this decision doesn’t change anything.

      • breckenedge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        I didn’t say it wasn’t a terrible situation. I truthfully answered the OPs question that it’s not Article 48 as there are still opportunities for review by the other branches of government.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      5 months ago

      If a POTUS is immune can they be impeached? Or maybe impeached but not removed? As typically if one is immune it means they cannot be charged. If one cannot be charged how can they be impeached/removed?

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        5 months ago

        The republicans have officially made impeachment a purely political performance, just like they’ve treated it for decades.

      • oxjox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        POTUS is not absolutely immune from acts outside their official core duties as outlined in Article II. They can still be impeached. Impeachment is little more than a review of actions to determine an indictment. Only upon conviction may a president be removed.

        • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yes, under the constitution, which the Court just put the President above. If the President might be immune then anything the President did is not admissible in court now. So how does the Senate even hold a trial, let alone convict a President when they cannot enter any evidence now?

          This decision is written in a bad faith way to get Trump out of being tried, and with the knowledge that Biden will not exploit it and the hope that Trump wins and becomes our new king. The “conservative” Justices can get their “gratuity” and retire living out the rest of their lives taken care of.

          • valaramech@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Impeachment proceedings are not judicial proceedings; they’re political ones. Both processes use similar language because the process is similar, but they are not connected. Commission of a crime is not required for impeachment proceedings and being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate conveys no criminal punishment.

          • oxjox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            the constitution, which the Court just put the President above.

            Are you joking?

            The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.

            Also,

            The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Because the legislatures power to impeach and convict isn’t dependent on the judiciary.

        Criminal and civil charges are a judicial branch thing. Impeachment is a legislative branch thing. The legislature does not answer to the judiciary, and the judiciary doesn’t have the power to tell the legislature how or when they execute their constitutional authority. Basically the only restriction is that the need some manner of “due process”, or to be basically fair.

        There’s the office of the president and the individual who is the president. Both are often called “the president”.

        In this case, it was ruled that the individual cannot be criminally charged for doing actions defined as a role of the office in the constitution: constitution says the president can veto bills, so a law saying it’s criminal to do so is unconstitutional.
        There are other activities listed, the “official acts” bit, that are to be presumed to be immune unless you can prove otherwise, like the president communicating with the justice department.

        The ruling didn’t change the ability of the office of the president to be sued or constrained, only delineated when you can legally go after the individual. “Delineated” because this has never been relevant before, so it didn’t matter that we hadn’t answered the question.

        It’s a bad ruling not because it makes the president unremovable, but because those “other official acts” are given way too much slack.

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Let’s be clear, though: judicial review has no enforcement. Compliance is voluntarily, and it can’t undo assassinations and coups.

      And impeachment functionally doesn’t exist. It’s been demonstrated that senators will not impeach a president of their party, regardless of whether they agree with the charges.