OpinionPolitics

Supreme Court: Presidential Immunity is Absolute for Official Acts

Presumptive immunity for other official acts

Jack Smith’s head must be exploding at this point, as the 6-3 decision on Presidential immunity was handed down Monday morning at the Supreme Court. The ruling stated that presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts, and “presumptive” immunity for other official acts during their term as president. It’s a win for Donald Trump.

“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 preclusive 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.

This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining 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.” Trump v United States

The court ruled that the prosecution may NOT engage in assumption of the motive of such acts. Jack just might have to down a stiff drink or four on that one. But Trump’s actions were kicked back to the court for review based on the SCOTUS ruling. Were they official or unofficial is the question the lower court will have to answer.  Since he was still in office when he made them, it may come down to presumptive immunity. Of course, with biased left-wing judges, all bets are off.

“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.” Supreme Court

There are many other issues involved in this mess, one of which is the constitutionality of Jack Smith’s position entirely. If it were me, I’d immediately dismiss all counts against Donald Trump and leave the country. But that’s me.

*****

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

Related:

Turn your back on Big Tech oligarchs and join the New Resistance NOW!  Facebook, Google, and other members of the Silicon Valley Axis of Evil are now doing everything they can to deliberately silence conservative content online, so please be sure to check out our MeWe page here, check us out at ProAmerica Only and follow us at Parler, Social Cross and Gab.  You can also follow us on Twitter at @co_firing_line, and at the new social media site set up by members of Team Trump, GETTR.

While you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!And be sure to check out our friends at Trending Views:Trending Views

 

Faye Higbee

Faye Higbee is the columnist manager for Uncle Sam's Misguided Children. She has been writing at Conservative Firing Line since 2013 as well. She is also a published author.

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×