Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion holds—for the first time in U.S. history—that presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution that ordinary citizens do not. Roberts then divides presidential conduct into three, wholly new classes: exercises of “core constitutional powers,” “official act,” and “unofficial acts.” Exercises of “core” presidential powers garner “absolute immunity” from prosecution. “Official acts” are “presumptively” immune. “Unofficial acts” enjoy no immunity.
But even exercises in unprincipled judicial power sometimes produce sensible results. This one does not. But his understanding of the pardon power is just wrong. It is true that presidents can grant pardons to whomever they wish. And, as I, the exercise of the president’s power is irrevocable and absolute.
National Guardsmen, ordered by the president to peaceful demonstrations against administration policies and told to “rough ’em up,” maim, and kill protesters. Pardoned.In every such case, the president who ordered, sanctioned, or benefited from the crime would enjoy at least presumptive immunity under the court’s new rules for any official acts taken in conjunction with the criminal act.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »