|
Posted by: thepinetree on 07/01/2024 09:30 AM
Updated by: thepinetree on 07/01/2024 09:31 AM
Expires: 01/01/2029 12:00 AM
:
Court Splits the Baby on Immunity & Sends Back to Lower Court
Washington, DC...Court Splits the Baby on Immunity & Sends Back to Lower Court. Now the lower court has to make adjustments to potential charges if any after the Supreme Courts ruling on using the Enron Rule. From the opinion..."A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts.
Held: 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. Pp. 5–43.
(a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitledto at least presumptive immunity. Pp. 5–15.
(1)
Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem either from anact of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 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, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6–9.
(2)
Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, precedent on Presidential immunity in the civil context, and criminal cases where a President resisted prosecutorial demands for documents. P. 9. (i)
The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750. 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 separationof powers and supported by our history.” Id., at 749, 751, 752, n. 32. In Fitzgerald, for instance, the Court concluded that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from “damages liability for actswithin the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” Id., at 756. The Court’s “dominant concern” was to avoid “diversion of the President’s attention during the decision making process caused by needless
worry as to the possibility of damages actions stemming from any particular official decision.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 694, n. 19.
By contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, the Court has consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity. During the treason trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr, for instance, Chief Justice Marshall rejected President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that the President could not be subjected toa subpoena. Marshall simultaneously recognized, however, the existence of a “privilege” to withhold certain “official paper.” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (No. 14,694) (CC Va.). And when a subpoena issued to President Richard Nixon, the Court rejected his claim of “absolute privilege.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683,
703. But recognizing “the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision making,” it held that a “presumptive privilege” protects Presidential communications. Id., at
708. Because that privilege “relates to the effective discharge of a President’s powers,” id., at 711, the Court deemed it “fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.” Id., at 708. Pp. 9–12.
(ii) 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 unhesitating action” required of an independent Executive. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at
745.
Although the President might be exposed to fewer criminal prosecutions than civil damages suits, the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment is a far greater deterrent and plainly more likely to distort Presidential decision making than the potential payment of civil damages. The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President is making decisions under “a pall of potential prosecution,” McDonnell v. United States, 579" Full details 23-939_e2pg
|
| Comments - Make a comment |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content. We value free speech but remember this is a public forum and we hope that people would use common sense and decency. If you see an offensive comment please email us at news@thepinetree.net
Possible Putin Here
Posted on: 2024-07-01 09:59:37
By: Anonymous
|
|
Trump in the White House would be very much like a U.S. Putin: Do what you want for yourself with impunity. Let's not worry about the American people.
[Reply
]
|
Re: Possible Putin Here
Posted on: 2024-07-01 11:34:30
By: Anonymous
|
|
Trump knows how to make his life click bait. If you recall however he governed as a moderate. You will have more actual freedom under Trump and not less.
The legal system will return closer to fair than now
[Reply
]
|
Re: Possible Putin Here
Posted on: 2024-07-01 13:24:06
By: Anonymous
|
|
Sure, that’s why he says all that stuff about retribution and revenge
Have you read Project 2025 (trumps plan for a second term)? There’s nothing moderate about it.
[Reply
]
|
No Subject
Posted on: 2024-07-01 10:00:13
By: Anonymous
|
|
I'm still voting for TRUMP!
[Reply
]
|
Re:
Posted on: 2024-07-01 10:39:35
By: Anonymous
|
|
Vote trump out. Make him face the legal consequences that still exist. After his Supreme Court gutted the American legal system.
[Reply
]
|
Re:
Posted on: 2024-07-01 10:41:42
By: Anonymous
|
|
That is the Same thing. They did to Roe vs Wade. Vote out every republican…. Or lose more of our rights
[Reply
]
|
Re:
Posted on: 2024-07-01 11:04:59
By: Anonymous
|
|
I'm still voting for TRUMP! Quit your crying, cry baby zero more years for joe.
[Reply
]
|
Re:
Posted on: 2024-07-01 11:11:03
By: Anonymous
|
|
So the new kangaroo courts are what you want? If you will remember Trump bad mouthed Hillary but he didn't actually go after her.
What the Biden DOJ has done is destroy our legal system
[Reply
]
|
Re:
Posted on: 2024-07-01 11:41:19
By: Anonymous
|
|
If that was true, trump would have faced a single consequence. Nope, only his son prosecuted.
[Reply
]
|
Re: Do you remember Jen Psaki and others saying Biden has so much energy his aides tire before him?
Posted on: 2024-07-01 11:46:58
By: Anonymous
|
|
After multiple questions about President Biden's cognitive state the White House has hit back at these characterizations of Biden’s mental acuity.
“Not only does the President perform around the clock, but he maintains a schedule that tires younger aides, including foreign trips into active war zones, and he proves he has that capacity by delivering tangible results that pundits had declared impossible,” White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said in a statement.
"So yes, we stand by what we say. Just imagine having to constantly clean up Joe's suits when he has diarrhea, bathing him, dressing him and always having to check him to make sure his diaper doesn't leak, or have that, who stepped in doggy doo smell?" According to Andrew "It's a constant job with no error of missing anything, and sometimes after an accident, the president is washed, diapered, dressed and looks great he has another accident and your back to square one all over" According to one of President Biden's closest aide.
[Reply
]
|
SICKENING!
Posted on: 2024-07-01 10:43:56
By: Anonymous
|
|
He's above the law as no one else is and will now be free to destroy the country. The US Supreme Court is corrupt, as he is.
[Reply
]
|
Re: SICKENING!
Posted on: 2024-07-01 11:07:04
By: Anonymous
|
|
Let me unzip my pants I have a titty for you :-)
[Reply
]
|
No Subject
Posted on: 2024-07-01 11:12:14
By: Anonymous
|
|
Mr. President how did the debate go for you? FHDTWOSMMCHSGFPWNXZLSYENXLDWVK, Thank You Mr. President
[Reply
]
|
No Subject
Posted on: 2024-07-01 11:13:25
By: Anonymous
|
|
I guess Biden's debate was a Cheap Fake!
[Reply
]
|
Corrupt
Posted on: 2024-07-01 11:40:15
By: Anonymous
|
|
Corrupt GOP justices - want the destroyer in so they can get their taxes reduced to zero and anything else he can give them. They have made a laughing stock of the US and opened the way for it to become a dictatorship, trump's goal. The rich will have everything and more and the middle and lower classes will be reduced to ashes.
[Reply
]
|
Re: Corrupt
Posted on: 2024-07-01 11:44:11
By: Anonymous
|
|
AHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 75% OF ALL AMERICAN VOTERS NOW SAY BIDEN IS TOO OLD AFTER HIS HUGE FAILURE AT THE DEBATE!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THESE LOSER DUMBACRAPS SOUND LIKE THE COWS ON THE VIEW.... 🤣🤣AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[Reply
]
|
No Subject
Posted on: 2024-07-01 12:28:21
By: Anonymous
|
|
Guess Nixon was right when he said “if the president does it, its not illegal.”
[Reply
]
|
Re:
Posted on: 2024-07-01 12:45:07
By: Anonymous
|
|
Time for President Biden to call Seal Team Six …
[Reply
]
|
Lot of crying from the Biden Family at Camp Big Loser
Posted on: 2024-07-01 13:03:08
By: Anonymous
|
|
HEADLINE NEWS
JILL BI-DONE AND HUNTER BI- DONE CRYING AND POINTING FINGERS AT AIDES, NOT AT DEMENTIA JOE!!!
Biden family blame staff for debate performance as he lays low again at Camp David: reports
Biden's relatives, huddled at Camp David, reportedly blamed campaign staffers for the Democrat's debate flop.
But why, Jill Bi-Done keeps telling everyone who will listen that Diaper Joe has boundless energy, running his poor aides into the ground with all his super energy, yet he looked just the opposite of what Jill described as well as all the left leaning legacy media, I mean what's going on? The media couldn't cut to commercials? The media couldn't cut out the complete failures like they do all the time? Was it because Joe didn't have the answered questions before hand? Was it because he couldn't have all his notes? Was it because he didn't have his masters words on his teleprompter? Or was it because he's a life long career politician who has rode the coattails of others and now he's an old, pathetically weak, mean, corrupt politician with Dementia?
At Camp Loser, both Jill and Hunter Biden are the ones telling Joe to keep going on the road for reelection, why? For Jill it's her being the First Lady because of her greed and the limelight. For Hunter it's because if Dad loses his reelection, Hunter just might be in prison for decades, since the Republicans now have more evidence of Hunter and James Biden both lied multiple times under oath to Congress.
Ever notice Trump's five kids are all well adjusted and Joe's last two are both Alcoholics, Drug Addicts and both of them lied to the IRS and were caught not paying their taxes. AND Hunter even got his dead brothers wife that he was banging, addicted to drugs.
Now that's a normal Democrat family, isn't it? Ones who break many laws, madeillions from their countries enemies, lied under oath, tax evasion, drug addicts, traitors, buying illegal firearms and ammo. Yes sir, quite the Democrat family they are.
And that's something to think about
[Reply
]
|
SCOTUS bush V Gore 2.0
Posted on: 2024-07-01 13:10:32
By: Anonymous
|
|
If Joe stays in, the GOP plan is to throw the election to the SCOTUS, a bush V Gore 2.0 decision. The millions of votes against don the con mean nothing.
Result- Democracy lost.
The recent SCOTUS decisions are so clear- no regulations, no consumers protections, living beings protections, all hail polluters, and death $ wins!
This is an illegitimate SCOTUS. History shows that.
[Reply
]
|
No Subject
Posted on: 2024-07-01 14:39:36
By: Anonymous
|
|
I don’t believe republicans are winning over to many Americans. With a lop sided Supreme Court trying to cover for the criminal insurrectionist trump
[Reply
]
|
Re:
Posted on: 2024-07-01 14:43:43
By: Anonymous
|
|
Funny thing, Americans women are not that good with old criminal insurrectionists tying to take their rights away.
[Reply
]
|
No Subject
Posted on: 2024-07-01 14:45:53
By: Anonymous
|
|
King Trump will destroy this country as we know it - he and his band of thugs. He has been given the green light to change and eliminate the very structure it was founded on and do whatever he pleases - unfortunately dictatorship is in the future.
[Reply
]
|
Re:
Posted on: 2024-07-01 15:16:43
By: Anonymous
|
|
One thing for sure Jack Shi* (smith) doesn't know Shi*.
[Reply
]
|
No Subject
Posted on: 2024-07-01 20:03:53
By: Anonymous
|
|
SCOTUS just gave a psychopath a free pass to literally destroy the country and all those in it.
[Reply
]
|
|
| What's Related |
| These might interest you as well
Local News
Photo Albums
phpws Business Directory
Web Pages
|
|
|
