Democrats fill social media with hyperbole about the President having the ability to assassinate rivals with immunity.
Monday, the US Supreme Court confirmed an unwritten rule that was already known to be true. That the President has immunity from prosecution for any official act they perform in Office. This is the reason President Obama wouldn’t be prosecuted for using drones to kill American citizens operating with terrorist groups overseas. Killing US citizens without due process is a major violation of the Constitution, but because of the danger to national security, such acts could be carried out. While never explicitly stated, this was always an understanding that the Chief Executive may have to make decisions during the course of his duties that could potentially be considered questionable.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on civil immunity for the President in the past and the current decision just clarifies the criminal immunity. Under Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that the President had absolute immunity from all civil liability for actions taken within the scope of his official duties. Under Trump v. United States, the court ruled the same in regards to immunity from criminal liability for official acts. We already knew this. The court affirmed it.
But it changes nothing. The Presidents officials acts do not include criminal acts. The President is confined to the restrictions of the law and the Constitution. And the Constitution has a remedy specifically outlined in Article II, Section 4: Impeachment. The President may not commit criminal acts and he is liable for any unoffical acts he commits while in Office. Should the President be impeached in the House, it moves on to a trial in the Senate. If the Senate finds him guilty, they will remove the President from Office. This is when Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution kicks in. “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.“
What this means is that the President cannot just act without consequence. The example the Democrats and their talking heads bring up about the President sending SEAL Team 6 to assassinate political rivals is illegal. It would violate the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. The President is not immune. The President cannot just change laws as he sees fit or create executive orders beyond the scope of his authority under the Constitution. He cannot give unlawful orders and US Troops are obligated to ignore unlawful orders,
It’s important to understand why such immunity exists. Because the lack of immunity breaks the system of checks and balances and can easily be weaponized by rival political parties. The political persecution of Trump by extremist Democrats clearly demonstrates the will of the parties to go that far. And then the other side would retaliate. This is why the court recognized the importance of immunity. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the majority stated: “…qualified immunity would not adequately protect the President, because judicial inquiry into a functional analysis of his actions would bring with it the evil immunity was to prevent; absolute immunity was required.” The point was to prevent politically motivated harassment and frivolous lawsuits.
So, no. There is no authority to use SEAL Team 6 to randomly kill people. No, the President cannot order the military to perform a coup to keep his power. These are Democrat scare-mongering propaganda. The checks and balances are still in place. The President is not a king. And no one in camouflage BDUs with M-4s and NVGs will be pounding down your door.