Best analysis I have read thus far. That said, I am confused and troubled by the notion that a president could engage in a core presidential act of communicating with the Secretary of Defense (by way of example), order the SecDef to have SEAL TEAM 6 take out his rival, and this not be an unlawful act. Murder is prohibited in the UCMJ, in certain federal situations, and all states. In other words, the president would be engaging in a lawful act for an unlawful purpose. How could the president be immune from criminal charges in this instance?
The POTUS now has the authority to invoke the Insurrection Act, deploy US troops into American cites, and order them to fire into a crowd of protesters. And he would be absolutely immune.
Best analysis I have read thus far. That said, I am confused and troubled by the notion that a president could engage in a core presidential act of communicating with the Secretary of Defense (by way of example), order the SecDef to have SEAL TEAM 6 take out his rival, and this not be an unlawful act. Murder is prohibited in the UCMJ, in certain federal situations, and all states. In other words, the president would be engaging in a lawful act for an unlawful purpose. How could the president be immune from criminal charges in this instance?
I agree - it makes no sense. But that's how I (and others) read the opinion.
The POTUS now has the authority to invoke the Insurrection Act, deploy US troops into American cites, and order them to fire into a crowd of protesters. And he would be absolutely immune.