The claim: Left-wing extremists are essentially arguing that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling means the president can now order the assassination of Americans and political opponents.
Ruling: False. The Supreme Court’s ruling does not give the president the power to commit crimes, and precedent dates back to former President Barack Obama.
As Breitbart News reported, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump on Monday in a 6-3 decision that found “the president has limited immunity from criminal prosecution for acts conducted while in office.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court’s conservative majority, said, “Under our constitutional separation of powers structure, the nature of presidential power entitles former presidents to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of their categorical and exclusive constitutional authority.”
“And he is entitled to at least constructive immunity for all official conduct; he has no immunity for non-official conduct,” he added.
Under this framework, far-left activists charge that the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that the president has the power to kill anyone while in office if it is within the scope of “official duties.” The NationElie Meistal argued that “a president could commit crimes over a period of four to eight years and then retire from office without ever being held accountable.”
The president can murder, rape, steal, and do whatever he wants, so long as he claims that murder, rape, and stealing are part of the official duties of the President of the United States. No crime pierces the veil of absolute immunity.
And there is essentially nothing we can do to change that. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but they can revoke it if state or federal legislatures pass laws that take away that protection. Presidential absolute immunity is not. Here the courts are saying that absolute immunity is necessary because of the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, and Congress cannot take it away. According to the Supreme Court, Congress does not have the power to pass a law that says, “The president may be indicted for a crime.” Impeachment, and impeachment alone, is the only way to punish a president, and impeachment is, of course, the only way to punish a president. there is nothing To a president who has already left office.
Mike Berry, executive director of the America First Institute’s Litigation Center, told Breitbart News that none of these arguments hold water, citing the precedent of former President Barack Obama.
Here’s what Justices Eli Meistal, Marc Elias and Sotomayor likely don’t know or ignore: In 2011, the Obama administration ordered the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American and suspected terrorist living in Yemen. The drone strike also killed two other Americans, including a 16-year-old boy who was not suspected of any crime or hostile acts. The boy’s grandfather sued the Obama administration, Claimed Authorities defended their actions as entirely legal because they determined that Anwar Awlaki posed a serious threat to national security. No one suggested that President Obama should be charged with assassinating/murdering an American citizen.
And I think we know what the immunity argument would have been if he had been indicted.
In response to claims raised during oral argument at the Supreme Court that a president can now order SEAL Team Six to execute political opponents, Mike Berry pointed out in a co-authored brief that a president cannot order military personnel to kill.
“The President of the United States has broad powers to command the military with few limitations. However, one such limitation is that his orders must not violate the U.S. Constitution or U.S. law. Thus, the President does not have the authority to order the military to assassinate a political opponent,” the report states. “Furthermore, the military is obligated not to carry out such illegal non-military orders, even if they are issued. Indeed, any military member who carries out or issues such an order is committing the most serious crime, murder.”
“Whether the President enjoys the immunity asserted by petitioners in this case is a question not addressed by amici in this brief, but a president cannot order the military to assassinate a political opponent and have that order carried out,” the court added.
This incident Trump vs. the United StatesCase No. 23-939, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Directed by Paul Laurent Bois An award-winning Christian technology thriller, example,this is Rotten Tomatoes critic rating: 100% Free to watch Youtube or Tubi“Better than Murderer of the Flower Moon.” Mark Judge wrote:“You’ve never seen a story like this before.” Christian Toth wrote:High quality, ad-free rentals Google Play, Vimeo On Demand, or YouTube MovieFollow him on .X Proland Films Or Instagram Proland Films.
