Comments by "Federalist Papers" (@federalistpapers4523) on "The impact of the SCOTUS immunity ruling on the New York v. Trump case" video.

  1. 9
  2. 7
  3. 5
  4. 5
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 2
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13.  @rob3539  *In regards to the recent USSC ruling in Trump vs Vance, again the USSC upheld the Constitution, and are not doing Trump's bidding as you erroneously suggest. The US Supreme Court 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 preclu- sive 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. (a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Deter- mining 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 entitled to at least presumptive immunity. (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[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the Presi- dent’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such author- ity, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the Presi- dent’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not crim- inalize 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 con- duct 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 ab- solute 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 Presi- dent’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Fram- ers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, precedent on Presidential immunity.*
    1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1