Daily Nous (RSS Feed) on Nostr: Official & Unofficial Action The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United ...
Official & Unofficial Action
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, issued yesterday, concerns the extent to which the president is immune from criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court’s majority judgment relies on a distinction between a president’s official and unofficial conduct, holding that: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. The whole decision is here. I encourage anyone interested in discussing the decision to read at least the first eight pages of it (the summary, or “syllabus”). Of particular concern to the Court is the extent to which prosecution and the threat of prosecution would inhibit or prevent presidents from acting in ways that, they say, the framers of the Constitution envisioned: The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472… They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.”… Appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.” Previously, in protecting the President from civil lawsuits The Court’s “dominant concern” was to avoid “diversion of the President’s attention during the decisionmaking process caused by needless worry as to the possibility of damages actions stemming from any particular official decision.” But when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, the Court has consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity. Turning to the matter of criminal prosecution, the Court’s majority says: Criminally prosecuting a President for official conduct undoubtedly poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession. The danger is greater than what led the Court to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from civil damages liability—that the President would be chilled from taking the “bold and..
The post https://dailynous.com/2024/07/02/official-unofficial-action/
.
https://dailynous.com/2024/07/02/official-unofficial-action/
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, issued yesterday, concerns the extent to which the president is immune from criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court’s majority judgment relies on a distinction between a president’s official and unofficial conduct, holding that: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. The whole decision is here. I encourage anyone interested in discussing the decision to read at least the first eight pages of it (the summary, or “syllabus”). Of particular concern to the Court is the extent to which prosecution and the threat of prosecution would inhibit or prevent presidents from acting in ways that, they say, the framers of the Constitution envisioned: The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472… They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.”… Appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.” Previously, in protecting the President from civil lawsuits The Court’s “dominant concern” was to avoid “diversion of the President’s attention during the decisionmaking process caused by needless worry as to the possibility of damages actions stemming from any particular official decision.” But when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, the Court has consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity. Turning to the matter of criminal prosecution, the Court’s majority says: Criminally prosecuting a President for official conduct undoubtedly poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession. The danger is greater than what led the Court to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from civil damages liability—that the President would be chilled from taking the “bold and..
The post https://dailynous.com/2024/07/02/official-unofficial-action/
.
https://dailynous.com/2024/07/02/official-unofficial-action/