Immunity for official acts – The Vine of Liberty

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR has thoroughly addressed the Court’s flawed reasoning and conclusion as a matter of history, tradition, law, and logic. I agree with every word of her powerful dissent. I write separately to explain, as succinctly as I can, the theoretical nuts and bolts of what, exactly, the majority has done today to alter the paradigm of accountability for Presidents of the United States. I also address what that paradigm shift means for our Nation moving forward.
—Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ____ (2024) Justice Jackson, dissenting.

I remember taking some classes back in the olden times, where they described the Republican form of government that was created for these United States. I seem to remember that the federal government was made up of three branches, the legislative branch tasked with creating laws, the executive branch, tasked with implementing those laws and has veto powers over laws passed by the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, tasked with resolving disputes about the meaning of the laws.

If the President decides that a bill that has passed congress is unacceptable, he can veto that bill. If congress strongly disagrees with his opinion, they can override that veto.

Once the bill has become law, the President, as head of the executive branch, implements the law.

If there are any disputes about the law, that goes before the judiciary for their opinion.

What are disputes? Someone could say that the new law conflicts with an older law and that the older law should control. The state could have a dispute over whether a person has broken the new law. There are more than a few different types of disputes.

The legislative branch is supposed to look to this Nation’s future, to create laws that will better our country. They are tasked with looking at paradigm shifts. They are responsible for looking at how their proposed laws will change our country.

They answer to The People, representing The People’s wishes.

The courts are tasked with resolving disputes.

Justice Jackson thinks she is an arbitrator of what the law should. She is constantly concerned about the results, not the process.

The libs often appear to be more concerned about what the right could do to them, than they are about what they are currently doing. Their goals are so lofty and well-meaning, their intentions so high and moral, they can’t be doing anything wrong.

In a change from her norm, Jackson has cites, to explain what “immunity from criminal prosecution” means.

But this is a straw man argument. The President isn’t immune from criminal prosecution. He is immune from criminal prosecution of official acts.

For the libs, melting down because of the Supreme Court opinion, “official acts” has limits. In addition, the congress can impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Ordering the military to kill a political enemy is not an “official act”. The majority opinion stated that the definition of “official act” is open, but it is still clear that murder is murder.

Using the disparity of power to force an intern to perform fellatio in the Oval Office is not an “official act”.

For the record, I don’t care if Bill was having sex with other women than his wife. I care that he appears to have a history of using power discrepancies to coerce/force women to have sex with him. This, with the coverups that followed, are certainly unacceptable.

We know that in the corporate world, this is not tolerated. McDonald’s fired their CEO, Steve Easterbrook, for having a consensual relationship with an employee.

A corollary to that principle sets the terms for this case: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, 220 (1882). We have long lived with the collective understanding that “[d]ecency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen,” for “[i]n a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
—id.

Justice Jackson, what did the law say? Remember your social studies lessons where they told you that the Constitution is the basis of all laws in these United States. You appear to believe that the law should be whatever is easiest for the state, not The People.

As the majority said:

No matter the context, the President’s authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, he may act even when the measures he takes are “incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.” Id., at 637. The exclusive constitutional authority of the President “disabl[es] the Congress from acting upon the subject.” Id., at 637–638. And the courts have “no power to control [the President’s] discretion” when he acts pursuant to the powers invested exclusively in him by the Constitution. Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 166.
—id. at 7

I’m snickering to myself, and now to you. I read “Jackson, J.” as Justice Jackson. This is correct, Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson. Who seems to have been a learned justice.

The snicker is because it looks like the court is citing to Justice KB Jackson.

What the majority is telling us, is that when the President is performing his duties, as authorized by the Constitution or Congress, he has immunity. Even if he is exercising an authority granted by the Constitution that the congress disagrees with.

The Constitution has no requirement that the President be polite or use “acceptable speech”.

There are so many times the people got upset about what they thought Trump said, failing to understand just how much his words were twisted. And, having become upset about what he said, they believe he has done what they think he said.

One famous example of this, is the famous Sarah Palin quote, “I can see Russia from my house!” She never said this, she did say that Russia is visible from an Alaskan island, not from her home.

Tina Fey, of SNL, as Palin, said, “And I can see Russia from my house!”

The entire “Seal Team Six will kill you” is from Justice Sotomayor’s dissent. The dissent that Justice Jackson agrees completely with.

Comments

One response to “Immunity for official acts”

CBMTTek

2024-07-03

Leftists have no problem distorting the law as long as they get the outcome they desire. I need look no further than the “hush money” case against Trump as proof.

The claims of this granting absolute immunity are laughable.

The only thing this decision does is place the burden on the prosecution to prove the actions take where by a private citizen, not by the President. And, then to demonstrate the actions (if taken within the official duties of President) were illegal.

Apparently that is too high of a standard when it comes to Trump. (He who must be destroyed at all costs).

Just imagine Jack Smith trying to convince a judge that a.) Trump intended to cause an “insurrection.” and b.) addressing the public as President is somehow outside the duties of President, and c.)..

Seriously, the left is losing it because baseless accusations are no longer good enough to get Trump indicted and in front of a jury. It actually requires a preponderance of evidence, which, frankly does not seem to exist.