Whether the goal is to dispatch private paramilitary teams to the southern border with "shoot to kill" orders to prevent illegal crossings; use private hires to hack political opponents; or provide armed support to prevent the counting of electoral votes under the guise of "election integrity," ordering any of these illegal activities would constitute an "official act." They are all closely related to core executive branch functions that the court says are necessary for an "energetic executive" (i.e., protecting against foreign attacks, protection of property and securing of liberty). Prosecuting the president for these activities would almost certainly be barred, because any prosecution would present a danger of intruding on the "authority and functions of the Executive Branch." Engaging the CIA would add a layer of secrecy, and using private paramilitary groups would protect any illegal operation from exposure through such laws as the Freedom of Information Act, which applies only to government agencies.
The court's decision further states that in distinguishing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into a president's motives. If a president should choose to declare a political rival guilty of treason, deploy a paramilitary group to assassinate that rival and direct the attorney general to sign a document saying that said rival's death is necessary for the "securing of liberty," these would be official acts for which the president is immune. Unlike England's King Henry II — who gave himself plausible deniability by wondering aloud, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" — the newly immune president would have no need to speak obliquely...
No comments:
Post a Comment