fyi - for anyone - the infant won't grasp it, but, no matter...

fyi - for anyone - the infant won't grasp it, but, no matter

Based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. United States, the legal opinion on presidential immunity can be summarized as follows:
The Court established a three-tiered standard for evaluating immunity claims in criminal prosecutions of former presidents:
1. Absolute immunity: A former president enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution "for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority"[1][5]. This means that for actions that fall squarely within the president's core constitutional powers, such as pardoning or removing executive officers, the president cannot be prosecuted[5].
2. Presumptive immunity: For actions "within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility," a former president has "at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution"[1][5]. This presumptive immunity can only be overcome if the government can demonstrate that prosecuting the act would pose no "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch"[1].
3. No immunity: A former president has no immunity for "unofficial" acts[1][5].
The Court's majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasizes that this immunity is necessary to enable presidents to execute their duties without the looming threat of prosecution hindering their decision-making[2]. The ruling aims to safeguard the president's ability to act boldly and independently in the best interest of the nation[2].
However, it's important to note that this decision has been met with criticism. Dissenting justices and legal scholars have expressed concerns that this broad immunity could potentially shield presidents from criminal prosecution for a wide range of official actions, potentially undermining accountability and the rule of law[2][4].
The ruling also specifies that courts cannot explore a president's motives when assessing whether a president had broken the law in carrying out official acts[4]. This aspect of the decision has been particularly controversial, with critics arguing that it could allow presidents to commit crimes under the guise of official action[4].
In conclusion, while the Court's ruling provides significant protection for presidential actions within the scope of official duties, it also raises complex questions about the balance between presidential power and accountability in the American system of government.

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/presidents-immunity-supreme-court-what-matters/index.html
[3] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-su...mps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/
[4] https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/07/0...nity-threatens-the-rule-of-law-scholars-warn/
[5] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-supreme-court-s-presidential-immunity-decision