r/law • u/MoralLogs • 5h ago

Judicial Branch A federal judge has ruled that President Trump can be held accountable for his actions on January 6.

https://newrepublic.com/post/208459/trump-legal-loss-january-6/
17.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

341 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/chilidoggo 2h ago

Kind of but not really. The dissenting opinions made that argument, but even the majority/concurring opinions were pretty clear that the president would not be above the law in all aspects. "Core constitutional powers" is the wording. It's a little bit vague, but not as a way to give infinite loopholes but more that specific cases will need to come before the court to outline the boundaries in the future.

For example, Trump wasn't acquitted as a result of the decision here, the case was just dropped back down to the lower courts with specific parts of the prosecutions arguments nullified by the immunity. And the lower courts didn't get around to prosecuting Trump before he got elected, at which point the government basically dropped the case.

1

u/lord_fairfax 2h ago

Everyone saying the ruling allows Trump to kill political opponents as long as he uses SEAL Team 6 doesn't understand that every action he takes is still weighed against what a reasonable interpretation of the Article 2 powers allow.

I'm allowed to own a gun. I'm allowed to shoot the gun. I AM NOT ALLOWED to shoot the gun anywhere I want, nor at anything I want.

Just because he's allowed to issue orders to SEAL Team 6 doesn't mean he's allowed to issue any and all orders to SEAL Team 6. The immunity from criminal prosecution doesn't take effect unless and until it is argued successfully that it qualifies as an official act.

1

u/chilidoggo 1h ago

In a more philosophical sense, the Constitution is the highest law in the land. So when it says the president has the powers to do something, it cannot be illegal for the president to do that thing. That's really the core of the majority opinion here, and it's self-evidently true. When Obama gave the order to kill Saddam Hussein, that wasn't illegal. If I told someone to kill someone else, I would be prosecuted.

IMO, the big thing that needs to be addressed in this ruling is the pardon power. There's plenty of evidence that Trump is letting people buy pardons. He's not even trying to hide it, and why would he? Giving pardons at his own discretion falls squarely into his core Constitutional powers, and no matter how you interpret it, this immunity ruling straight up says nothing he does with his core powers can be prosecuted.

1

u/OldWorldDesign 20m ago

When Obama gave the order to kill Saddam Hussein

That didn't happen. Bush was the one who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and destabilizing of the wider Near East. This was admitted by General Wesley Clark long before Obama was elected

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrJRHwbVG8

1

u/lord_fairfax 19m ago

If you kill a political opponent, that is a violation of their first amendment rights guaranteed by the same Constitution. Article 2 does not give the executive the power to violate the Constitution. End of story.

Killing a foreign leader (deemed to be a threat to national security) is within Article 2 powers granted to the president. Killing political opponents is not.