Presidential Immunity From the Founding to Today

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down its 6-3 ruling in the landmark case Trump v. United States, finding that the president is entitled to presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts, but not for unofficial acts. In this episode, Sai Prakash of the University of Virginia Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to delve into the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and explore the history of presidential power and immunity from the founding to present day, and whether the Court’s decision comports with the original understanding of the Constitution.
Register for upcoming programs: constitutioncenter.org/news-d...
Visit our media library to discover more online classes, podcasts, and Town Hall conversations: constitutioncenter.org/news-d...
Subscribe to the National Constitution Center on RUclips: ruclips.net/user/Constitu...
Follow the National Constitution Center on social media!
Facebook: / constitutionctr
Twitter: / constitutionctr
Instagram: / constitutionctr
Sign up for our newsletter: visitor.r20.constantcontact.c...

[@oldschool8292]

Great conversation.

[@michaelhartmcgough4418]

Great 🎶 Listen ☆☆☆☆☆

[@davidwilkie9551]

In the fundamental logarithmic process of actually "writing" law, the constants of Math-Phys-Chem and Geometry, only probabilistic uncertainty is "final" in this past-future presence of Time.
Immunity is the inside-outside illusion of separation, delusion of applicable certainty without the voice of "the people" in reference.

[@justwinfelipe6495]

Hi, would you agree that this is a correct interpretation of your comment?
The statement combines ideas from law, physics, and philosophy in a metaphorical way. Let's break it down:
* Math-Phys-Chem and Geometry constants: These are fundamental principles in their respective fields that are considered constant or unchanging.
* Probabilistic "final" in past-future: This seems to suggest that legal outcomes, unlike scientific laws, are not deterministic (fixed) but rather probabilistic (uncertain) and evolve over time based on interpretations and societal changes.
* Immunity as inside-outside illusion: This refers to the concept of legal immunity, which can create an illusion of separation between those protected and those not.
* Delusion of certainty without voice of the people: This criticizes the idea of legal certainty without considering public opinion or participation in the law-making process.
In simpler terms, the statement argues that unlike scientific laws, legal principles are not absolute and can change based on interpretations and societal needs. It also criticizes the concept of legal immunity and the potential disconnect between law and public opinion.
I didn't understand your comment, so I ran it through Gemini A.I. for understanding.
Thanks

[@nfpnone8248]

The question of immunity comes from Article 5 of the Articles of Confederation based upon the following clause:
[Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any Court, or place out of Congress, and the members of congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.]
But even this clause does not protect against treason, felony, or a breach of the peace, which is a misdemeanor in the impeachment clause. But if we look at the duties and responsibilities of the President, you will not find any acts that the President would need immunity for, as the President actually doesn’t have any official acts themselves, not even as the Commander in Chief, as they are always under the control of a branch of the legislature as Hamilton expresses in his conclusion of the Executive Departments in Federalist #77:
[We have now completed a survey of the structure and powers of the executive department, which, I have endeavored to show, combines, as far as republican principles will admit, all the requisites to energy. The remaining inquiry is: Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility? The answer to this question has been anticipated in the investigation of its other characteristics, and is satisfactorily deducible from these circumstances; from the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that purpose; and from his being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law. But these precautions, great as they are, are not the only ones which the plan of the convention has provided in favor of the public security. In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. What more could be desired by an enlightened and reasonable people?
Publius.]
For example; if the President is instructed by the States as they are assembled in the Senate to have the military carry out an act that was later determined to be a war crime, which is also impossible as the United States cannot be a party to international law thus does not have to comply with international laws, then the President individually would have immunity from prosecution due to the fact that they were instructed to carry out that act by the Union which is the Established Government Authority in the United States.
We have a twisted view of the Presidency and the Supreme Court today, President’s preside, they do not participate. What that means is the President has absolutely no powers that are not conditional on decisions made by the States as the Union assembled in Congress, and if the President does any act outside that narrow responsibility of the Presidency, then that President would be immediately impeached by the States as the Union for insubordination, as impeachment is a “rein” in the hands of the States as the Union for all executive officers up to and including the President of the United States.
Most also don’t understand the impeachment process, as it establishes two conditions for removal, the first is upon impeachment for, which creates an absence because the impeached person must be taken into the custody of the Senate, there must be a custody hearing to determine the manner of custody while awaiting and during the trial in the Senate where conviction will de determined; the second condition is conviction of, which creates a vacancy in the office, if the impeached person is acquitted, then that removes the reason for the absence and that government official returns to their duties in that office.
The problem we have with the Supreme Court making these types of constitution interpretation questions, is that it constitutes amending the constitution by interpretation, and the Constitution of the United States may only be amended, including amendment by interpretation, according to Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States, meaning only the States as the Union can amend or interpret their Constitution. And let’s remember what a constitution is; “to constitute” means to form or assemble, and the only thing formed and assembled by the Constitution of the United States is congress as a legislative assembly of the States governed by legislative processes to reach a majority consensus of all the States as the Union and Established Government Authority. Therefore the Constitution of the United States, the document, is the Blueprints and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to assemble and operate congress as a legislative assembly, and the Constitution of the united States, in congress assembled, is the Union of the States assembled in Congress, which is empowered as the Established Government Authority.
The Supreme Court may only hear and decide a very narrow category of matters in question which relate to conflicts and disputes between the States and petitions for redress of grievances when laws which are properly made by a properly assembled and operated legislature disproportionately affect or disenfranchise a State or States, and all these decisions are final and the States have already agreed to abide by these decisions, which is why the States must always participate in assembling the Supreme Court, and why every State must have at least 1 judge in the pool of justices which can be chosen to hear and decide any matter in question.
The States as they are assembled in the Senate are responsible for establishing the Supreme and Inferior Courts, which includes the process for creating the pool of justices and the initial assembly of the Court, appointments for vacancies which occur in that pool of judges is a separate process, where the President must make a list of qualified and suitable candidates for the States as they are assembled in the Senate to consider, a number of nominees and the required qualifications each nominee must possess as determined through the “advice” of the States as they are assembled in the Senate, for the States to determine their choice by vote, 1 vote per State, and a majority of All the States is necessary to the Choice, once the choice is made that person is appointed to fill the vacancy in the pool.
This process of “Consensus Choice” is also used to fill vacancies as they occur in the executive departments, and it is used to choose the President and Vice President of the United States, as well as all Senators in the Federal Senate. This is a two phase process where one assembly identifies and vets the candidates that a second assembly must consider to determine a choice by vote, 1 vote per Member, a State or a county of a State, and a Majority of All the Members is necessary to the Choice.
The Moral of this diatribe; the President presides, the President does not Participate, therefore there is no reason for Presidential immunity, for any reason what ever, in or out of office!

[@jamesdouthat3999]

really? official duties include making sure laws are uphelp including election laws.jack smith conceeded that even if every step trump took looking into the election were deemed legal. he still could of been charged, are you going to sit there and say that a president shouldnt be protected from that

[@nfpnone8248]

@@jamesdouthat3999
Where is that in the Constitution of the United States? Don’t be shy, copy the entire clause you are citing!
I’ll help you, Presidents president over the executive departments, they do not participate in the duties of the executive departments. The most the President can do is to require in writing the subjects and duties of the principal officers in the executive departments, and an opinion is not the details. All the executive departments are directed by the States as they are assembled in the Senate as the Union, not the President, and by the way, the States as they are assembled in the Senate as the Union also establish the administration to manage the general affairs of the government under their direction. The president brings information to Congress that’s is necessary and expedient for their consideration, the president doesn’t consider that information themselves, nor do they make any decisions based upon that information.
You need to retake civics 101!
By the way, we cannot make any federal election laws, because they are otherwise established by the Constitution of the United States!