Presidents may not be able to pardon themselves, but they ARE immune from prosecution through the regular legal system for any actions taken as part of the office as president.
The only way to go after them (given the current SCOTUS, who made the ruling above), is impeachment. And for that, the president has to do something so bad that 67 senators are willing to find the president guilty.
> would rather let his home country pay for that. The US have too many incarcerated as is. We should be focusing on dealing with our citizens.
Then you're empowering the President to detain someone solely on suspicion of being a noncitizen. Which will be mighty convenient for a future President when someone says or does something they don't like. (Irrespective of whether they are or are not a citizen.)
Also, these Marines are being deployed against American citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble and speak. Whenever the bill comes in, it will easily have costed many orders of magnitude more than the cost of even a death-row inmate.
That is not my understanding. If a person is a known illegal immigrant they can be deported without ever stepping foot in a courtroom. That has been the case for as long as I can remember.
> If a person is a known illegal immigrant they can be deported without ever stepping foot in a courtroom. That has been the case for as long as I can remember.
You're describing expedited removal, a power enacted by the IIRIRA of 1996 [1].
It only applies to those who "make no claim to lawful permanent resident status, and do not seek asylum or express a fear of persecution." It requires specific procedures be followed that are absolutely not being followed by ICE right now.
Didn't the supreme court determine that presidents have 'broad immunity' for 'official acts'? Of course, they gave future justices some wriggle room with the somewhat vague wording, but the current court seems very sympathetic to the unitary executive theory.
> But the kicker is that the president has an effective Carte Blanche to determine what is an official act.
I think this is where the interpretation of the ruling is wrong: common reading is that it gave the president more power.
Textually, whether it does or doesn't entirely turns on the definition of an "official act" which the Supreme Court very notably left for lower courts to determine on a case by case basis.
>> The immunity [for official acts] the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC).
Including in Trump v United States, which was still ongoing at the time Trump won reelection.
>> On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct [of contacting state and other election officials] qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.
>> Whether the communications alleged in the indictment involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. [...] Unlike Trump’s
alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis
is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials
and private persons.
Since it was dismissed without prejudice, it's entirely possible a subsequent Department of Justice reopens it and proceeds with the District Court fact finding the Supreme Court directed.
> Which makes sense or else every DA in the country would have effective veto power over the president
Trump v. United States was decided with respect to "a federal case that was ultimately dismissed by federal district court judge" [1]. It was about the limits of U.S. executive power. Not "every DA in the country."
