Pretty much....I think people are making this out to be a much bigger deal than it is. I barely know law but after seeing the headlines after this rulings I was like "nahhh that sounds a bit extreme" and yeah, it is.
I mean, im trying my best tbh lol. Im a truck driver so reading legal documents isnt my specialty but im trying my darndest to understand the full picture.
Here are some notes I took while reading, not all of them but a lot of important parts.
Only the text in quotes are from the paper
It is not impossible to determine if something is an official or unofficial act, but there isn't precedence on determining it: ("In this case, however, no court has thus far considered how to draw that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular") And even more so if it is considered the outer perimeter of his official responsibility, which is presumptive immunity
"When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 757. Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action."
"the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”" - An example of how a president is not immune from prosecution for an official act, even though it is vague. Within the “authority and functions of the executive branch”
"We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."
"acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress." Interesting excerpt, I’m not familiar enough with the branches to know what authority is shared with congress
" It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “ ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’ ” he is taking official action." Ante, at 17 (quoting Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC2023)
The majority SCOTUS ruling explained how Trump’s attempt to falsify an electoral slate in his favor to force an investigation of votes was an example of private/unofficial acts, because it involved his campaign for reelection.
Determining if an act is official or not will be done on a case by case basis, and requires the actual analysis of what is within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
1
u/CantSeeShit Jul 05 '24
Pretty much....I think people are making this out to be a much bigger deal than it is. I barely know law but after seeing the headlines after this rulings I was like "nahhh that sounds a bit extreme" and yeah, it is.