US Presidential immunity - An Outsider's Analysis

[@kathrynmichaelsen4687]

A president who (apparently) with criminal immunity, can order a department to act illegally; who also has the power to pardon anyone for acts in the commission of that order - is a very dangerous person indeed.

[@johnp2001]

Agreed. Of course, many would argue that the legislature still has the ultimate sanction here in that it can remove a president that it considers to be acting improperly. I think the biggest failure with regard Trump isn't the Supreme Court but rather the failure of the Senate to reach the 2/3 majority.

[@beauzo9965]

Yep Joe shouldn't have that power seeing that he is also to senile to stand trial anyway

[@scottn2046]

I'll throw in the irony that the US Constitutional system has been functioning totally fine for 250 years without the presumption of Presidential immunity. Thus the idea at the heart of the decision that it's urgently, critically necessary rings a little hollow.

[@RodWilliams-m7r]

nearly 250 years

[@chitchensisgod]

It was needed because of the absurd case brought against Trump which sought to have him removed from the ballot. But it wouldn't be convenient to talk about that.

[@Gotoooooo]

​@chitchensisgod Nor about Hillary Clintons involvement in weaponising a willing FBI and U.S Justice Department. With the infamous Steele Dossier supplied from a date at the Kensington Wine Rooms, London, by our favourite secret agent Alexander Downer. In the face of this subversive onslaught(Russians bad) the Supreme court saw fit to protect the Presidentcy, it had to.

[@RodWilliams-m7r]

@@chitchensisgod Explain how it was absurd.

[@chitchensisgod]

@@RodWilliams-m7r Smith's main claims were 1. Trump knew he'd lost the election 2. He pressured state officials, 3. His pressure on Pence 4. Various false claims about voting machines and 5. His efforts on Jan 6. 1 is a question of intent and in the ordinary course impossible to prove but particularly so in Trump's case as all evidence pointed to Trump believing he'd won. Smith's evidence that advisors told Trump he couldn't / didn't win is laughable. 2., 3. and 4. are not crimes (in fact violate Trump's freedom of speech) and for 5. no specific claim was made, certainly not insurrection. Probably because SCOTUS earlier ruled 9-0 against Colorado's attempt to throw Trump off the ballot because he was an insurrectionist and ineligible under the 14th amendment. Trump never attempted to overturn the results of the election. He believed there was sufficient evidence to question the result and demanded Pence send it back to the states so the evidence could be presented. Instead, what we got was a complete clown show. The Democrats not only rejected the results of the 2016 election they refused to acknowledge Trump as the legitimate POTUS. As is their constitutional right.

[@qwertyTRiG]

It's pretty clear, I think, that the justices were reasoning backwards from their desired conclusion.

[@johnp2001]

That may very well be true, but that's hardly a conclusive argument. The one thing this decision gets right was to boot some of it back to the Circuit Court due to the belief that in many instances the individual circumstances would need to be argued.

[@seanlander9321]

I reckon that this shows how much more mature Australia’s constitution is than the American, which seems to be stuck in the age of Kings.

[@anthonywatts2033]

True. In 1776 electing a "king" was seen as revolutionary. Today..... we have all moved on, the US....nah.

[@malcolmfletcher7295]

Any Constitution is only as good as the will and means to apply it. Scholars may analyse Constitutions in the context of the times in which they were drafted, but Constitutional Courts are obliged to interpret them as they are written. If the Constitution is found to be out-of-step with contemporary mores, it is then up to the Legislature (i.e. Government) to organise a valid means of amending or redrafting the Constitution -- or modifying prevailing attitudes. Australia's Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, does not incorporate a Bill of Rights, retains as Head of State a citizen and resident of a foreign country, and is almost -- but not quite -- impossible to amend. It was debated and drafted at a time when most State representatives were parochially preoccupied with 'State rights' and the nation was suffused with a colonial mindset that is, even now, only partially dissipated. Under the circumstances, I find it difficult to argue for our Constitutional 'maturity'.

[@anthonywatts2033]

​@@malcolmfletcher7295 interesting comment, but I have to disagree on a couple of points. Insisting that a constitution has to be interpreted as was written is "originalism", and an utterly stupid way of running a country. Constitution must be interpreted in light of Contemporary norms (think the US "right to bear arms"; allows some weapons unthinkable in 1776 but allows others). Second, your suggestion the lack of a bill of rights suggest the Australian constitution is "not mature". Such documents cement rights, privileges and responsibilities in the age and times it was written. Yes the Australian constitution should be slightly easier to amend, but that we can achieve so much change and progress without constantly updating is to me speaks in its favour. Even the whole point about the Monarch; given its complete lack of impact on anything to do with our daily lives, it remains a weird ineffective anachronism. The only people who get passionate about such trivia usually base their views on jingoism, one of the more appalling "isms".

[@seanlander9321]

@ Unfortunately your argument is for the inclusion of redundant facets, particularly a Bill of Rights as our constitution and consequent laws make such an addendum unnecessary and cumbersome. The test of our constitution is its longevity, and continuity, particularly during two world wars which only a handful of countries managed to maintain. Therefore it must have more going for it than not going for it.

[@scottguy5452]

This decision basically accepts as correct the arguments King Charles I ran at his trial without success.

[@davidc7002]

The rulings show the fallability of having members of the highest court in the land elected by political process

[@DeGuerre]

To be fair, it's a lot better all those judges in the United States who are elected in popular elections. That gives them an incentive to be seen to be "tough on crime" or whatever the electorate wants at any given moment, even if it contradicts the principles of justice, judicial independence, and the rule of law. There is a school of thought (that I'd like to see Prof Twomey's take on) that Australian high court justices aren't exactly free from systemic bias, either. Because they are chosen by the Federal government, those chosen may have a bias towards federalism vs the interests of states and territories.

[@mizzyroro]

@@davidc7002 the justices on the SCOTUS are not elected. They are nominated by the executive and confirmed by the legislature.

[@garyholtzman5155]

Wonderful precis and analysis, Professor. As I suspect you know, the ruling was greeted with a great deal of shock by much of the legal establishment and constitutional scholars in the USA, as well. Many constitutional experts serving as commentators for US news outlets expressed surprise that the Court was even taking up such a case, which most of them - outside of the Federalist Society and related bastions of Unitary Executive theory - considered without merit, especially given how firm and emphatic the Circuit Court's ruling was. One of the best explanations I have heard for the Majority's eagerness to stake out such a radical new doctrine of presidential immunity, which would seem to fly in the face of the founding fathers' decision to establish a republic rather than a monarchy in the first place (ironic in itself, of course, given the way the powers of the British monarch and his viceregal representatives evolved compared to their republican chief magistrate, even before this ruling) is that four of the justices in the majority: Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, all worked as lawyers in the executive branch under Republican presidents. All of these men found it frustrating that the courts constrained Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush from taking the "bold" action they desired. These junior members of Republican-led justice departments have now had their revenge. The Chief Executive need not worry about the interference of those pesky courts and their "rule of law" nonsense anymore!

[@chitchensisgod]

This decision merely established case law for the long established position that the POTUS cannot be charged with a crime for discharging his official duties. That's why Obama won't ever be charged with murdering US citizens. It's actually not that difficult.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I have worked for the highest court in Australia, for the federal Parliament and for the Cabinet Office of New South Wales - so in all three branches of government, and at both State and federal level. One thing I have learned is that everyone thinks they are in the right and that they are being constantly frustrated by another branch or level of government, and that everything would be wonderful if the limits on their powers disappeared. Another thing I have learnt is that having restrictions on powers is absolutely essential, even though it is frustrating.

[@chitchensisgod]

How would the POTUS be able to overturn an election ?

[@beauzo9965]

​@@chitchensisgodnumerous ways firstly they could get an order from a State court to do a signature match on postal votes

[@daleford8411]

Thank you It definitely gave me a better idea of what's going on. Might give me nightmares about the future but that's the cost of confronting reality. You'd think a person would not be elected in any case after those actions, and even more so knowing the judiciary would offer no protection those actions in future.

[@jimgraham6722]

Thanks, when I see this stuff going down overseas, the morei precious I think the Australian constitution and electoral system is. I think they play a large part in keeping the oligarchs and wannabe dictators at bay. This and three year terms gives us regular opportunities to ditch any government that underperforms or gets out of line.

[@jerryplayz101]

No one should be absolutely immune for any action. It is not reasonable. It places a person above the law - which should not occur in a democracy of EQUALS.

[@leightonolsson4846]

It's not a great suprise (the majority ruling) that the highest court in the US came to such a banal conclusion considering they are the only justices in the land who are not subject to independent ethical scrutiny. Self regulation for the ultimate interpreters of the constitution! Ridiculous.

[@johnn4842]

It is logically impossible to say that the most powerful and consequential member of society is immune from prosecution while everybody else must answer for crimes committed.

[@ThomasLouttit]

Your logic is flawed. The President of the USA is a "position," not an "individual person." Presidents are called upon to do things that normal people are not, hence the need to legally differentiate between the two; it makes perfect sense and is completely logical.

[@peterslocomb152]

King Charles III has immunity.

[@ZoeBrain]

​@@peterslocomb152Immunity? No. That was settled in 1645, when his ancestor and predecessor as king, Charles I, had his head chopped off by Parliament.

[@ThomasLouttit]

@@peterslocomb152 King Charles III has immunity from criminal prosecution in the United Kingdom. This is because the common law principle of "sovereign immunity" states that the monarch cannot be held criminally responsible. As the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, King Charles III is immune from criminal and civil prosecution, known as crown immunity or sovereign immunity, even if he killed someone. This is a long-standing constitutional convention that the monarch can do no wrong.

[@tonybarry5101]

Thank you Prof. Twomey. It's a bizarre situation and any light is good light.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. I find it hard to fathom how things are turning out, but all we can do is watch and hope for the best.

[@Gotoooooo]

​​@@constitutionalclarion1901 The best is already happening. But not from inside the bubble you can't see it from there.

[@prevsaudi9858]

​@constitutionalclarion1901 I understand that in your opinion it's a good thing that the potus has hanging over their head the threat of a (subordinate) prosecutor indicting him for official acts. Wow. You clearly haven't been following the lawfare waged against Trump by the Biden administration. How about you do a video breaking down the 34 felony hush money trial and try and specify the felony Trump was alleged to have committed..? Also are you aware of any instances where Biden violated the constitution..? I can think of at least 5. Trump ? Not one.

[@robertnoonan4953]

I find it incredible that neither the U.S. electoral system nor the individual political parties do not have a proviso that any candidate for public office, especially such high offices as POTUS, should be a "fit and proper person". One could reasonably assume that the authors of the constitution never envisaged that the country would allow a convicted criminal to run for the presidency.

[@tazzygeoff621]

Rubbish.

[@haroldbridges515]

In fact, the Framers of the Constitution, for all their faults and abiding self-interest, did indeed foresee the possibility of a corrupt or ill-intentioned person getting elected president. The electors of the Electoral College who cast the ballots that actually decide the election could not be themselves elected officials the better to exercise independent judgment to prevent the election of just such an unworthy candidate. This goal implies that the electors are endowed with the power to overturn the will of the voters. Many states have laws against what they term as "faithless" electors. These laws are inherently unconstitutional, but no court has ever made such a determination.

[@johnp2001]

I'm afraid you're wrong on that front. Whilst it is true that many public offices do have this criminal exception [so much so, that many ex-confederate soldiers/politicians had to be pardoned following the civil war in order for them to run for public office] that is not the case for the president. The US constitution only sets out that they must be natural-born, be 35 or over and have been a permanent resident in the US for the past 14 years. If a president is determined to be unfit, then the legislature has the power to impeach and then remove the president.

[@haroldbridges515]

@@johnp2001 The 14th Amendment also disqualified any candidate for president who aided insurrection against the Constitution after having sworn allegiance to it. Under any normal interpretation of the English language that provision would have rendered Trump unelectable but for the radical and corrupt Supreme Court put in place by the billionaire class.

[@alvanrigby6361]

@@haroldbridges515 Trump has been impeached for insurrection and the indictment failed did it not? This means that he is innocent of insurrection. End of story.

[@nrspeed1407]

Just say it plainly: US President = PRC President. They both have the same level of immunity! 😂

[@JohnCran]

Highlights how law is perceived from different traditions/societies. Which raises the fear of Australia being infected with this sort of rulings etc. Given that our constitution is partially based upon the US it would be very interesting to see the areas of both that have shifted/changed since Federation.

[@seanlander9321]

@@JohnCran Wot?

[@locutorest]

What a sordid mess our Presidency has become. Thank you for your analysis of these complex issues.

[@jackrussell4437]

It seems to me the US system is designed for deadlock. Where the Congress passes a law , the President can veto it, the Congress can overturn that veto(as I understand it.), with a 2/3rds majority. Supply (using our terminology.), can be blocked and no one has power to end it, unlike the GG here or State Governor in a state. It just seems a weird system to me .

[@keanusolan2844]

What a nice little treat for the Clarionettes!

[@jestingrabbit]

Incredibly incoherent opinion from the court imo, and just a terrible precedent. Hopefully there will be some sort of reform of institution that makes such terribly bad law much much harder, but one wonders how that could come about in their current political climate.

[@thisisnootnoots]

Remember recalling the quote "the Constitution says what 5 of 9 Judges say it does" in regards to the US - cannot recall the source. Whilst a generally applicable one, by Jove it seems to hit much harder with regard to the US Supreme Court than, say, our High Court

[@ravipeter-andrew1603]

Spot on Prof … unlikely the founders originally contemplated the way the current Supreme Court rules. Carte Blanche for a person who who likely will engage in treason or harm political opponents. Huge lessons for Australia given all mega trends.

[@geordannicholson2854]

I'd love to see a video on immunity in australia, particularly on laws which don't express that they "Bind the crown" and how that works

[@lazyfrogonalog]

My understanding is that the Supreme Court has been stacked with political hacks over many years and doesn't really function independently of political pressure. I believe this is due to the political process the US has for selecting Justices. I would love to hear more about the likelihood of a similar thing happening to our High Court here and if the way our Justices are chosen could also be manipulated, if a political party decided, to cause similar stacking.

[@almango873]

I agree with you about the US courts. I'm not a lawyer and just a casual observer but I've noticed over the years that despite attempts at "political" appointments the vast majority of our Justices tend to concentrate on what the law is and how it applies rather than make political judgements. I hope that's the way it remains and our compulsory retirement age seems to help with that.

[@Gotoooooo]

Your understanding ?

[@lazyfrogonalog]

@@almango873 Good point about the retirement age. I have noticed the same thing about the High Court decisions but I don't understand why they are not political.

[@watleythewizard2381]

Wow, it’s no wonder america gets itself onto the messes it does.

[@AlexBaz143]

Another great video Starting constitutional law at uni this semester, glad I have a head start from these videos!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Terrific. Good luck with your course. The more you pay attention to the political/constitutional controversies that are occurring around you, the more sense your studies will make to you.

[@AlexBaz143]

@ thanks for the kind words! Looking forward to it

[@geordannicholson2854]

How can you possibly be immune from scrutiny from the judicial branch if the judicial branch is the only thing which can decide what that immunity applies to, via scrutiny

[@prevsaudi9858]

The issue is whether it's (part of) an official act or not. If it is (eg. Obama drone striking US citizens who were terrorists) then you're immune, if it's not (eg. Biden raping Tara Reid) then you're not.

[@benmuller6103]

I suppose this is not an area where you plan to spend too much time but I'd be interested to hear your speculation about how the Supreme Court would interpret this if the target/victim of alleged criminal action was the judicial system itself. Of course the courts are very interested in preserving their own independence and rely on the cooperation of the executive to achieve this. For example does this decision give immunity to acts taken by the president to influence, reward, punish etc a justice that is not supporting their policy/wishes? The executive manages the court buildings and provides marshals and additional security to allow the functioning of the judiciary, I suspect this sweeping immunity would narrow quite quickly if the president interfered with these functions.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I'm afraid I'm not qualified to speculate on that. I'd need to have a deeper knowledge of how the US Supreme Court treats the separation of powers and the extent to which it tends to qualify or depart from precedents. Even then, it would depend very much on the circumstances and how the case was argued.

[@john_g_harris]

The comments make it obvious that a lot of Americans follow this channel.

[@andrewduffin9216]

I think an important part of the puzzle to include is that presidents can be impeached by the Senate. It's not up to the courts per se. I'm no expert by any stretch but my understanding is impeachment is the primary remedy for bad behaviour, not the courts.

[@chitchensisgod]

Yes, you've demonstrated more knowledge on the topic in one sentence than one of Australia's supposedly leading constitutional law "experts".

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I addressed the main arguments in the case concerning immunity, and did not digress onto the separate issue of impeachment. But here is the summary of how the majority dealt with the impeachment argument, as set out in the syllabus: "Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government. Pp. 32-34."

[@kappa7]

@@chitchensisgod Although what is the penalty that can be imposed by the Senate? Removal from office and, potentially, exclusion from future office... not quite the same as the consequence for a criminal conviction. It also requires a 2/3rds majority to convict, making it extremely unlikely to succeed. What did Mitch McConnell say upon not impeaching...: “We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen." ..." impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice"... “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one."

[@prevsaudi9858]

​@@kappa7 I think you'll find McConnell's comments were in relation to the impeachment of Trump after he left office. An outrageous abuse of law and unconstitutional. Hence Chief Justice Robert's not presiding over the trial. If the potus murdered someone they'd be impeached and once removed from office they would be criminally charged.

[@chitchensisgod]

@@kappa7 the Senate removes and then the ex POTUS faces criminal prosecution as a private citizen.

[@Shalott63]

Oh dear, from what you say about their decision it seems that the Supreme Court thinks the President should be immune from prosecution not so much because he is head of state but because he is head of government, and that the executive branch should be independent in the sense of completely unnaccountable. In the Westminster system on the other hand it could almost be said that the primary purpose of our constitutional arrangements is to ensure that the executive is accountable (to both the legislature and the judiciary, in different ways) for its actions. It seems strange to think that both systems originated in the struggle against the unaccountable autocratic power of the monarchy. Surely this SC decision is taking the principle of separation of powers to an extreme conclusion (and at the expense of the principle of checks and balances). You can't even say that the President is accountable to the people (at the next election) if he is legally within his rights to tamper with the result of an election.

[@prevsaudi9858]

The executive branch (the potus) is answerable to the judiciary who can rule the executive branch's actions are unlawful. The executive branch is also answerable to congress (legislature) who may disallow laws passed by the executive.

[@bigbrotheriswatching8709]

Let's all ignore the constitutional purpose of a presidential impeachment trial.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The majority judgment did address Trump's argument in relation to impeachment and rejected it. Following is the summary of its argument, as expressed in the syllabus: "Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government. Pp. 32-34."

[@geoffj54]

There are surely some important aspects of the very recently published Jack Smith report volume one which could usefully supplement this treatment?

[@LukeXMV]

The head of Australia the English king Charles lives outside the justice system and can never be prosecuted. I think the judges and GGs in Australia who work for him are similarly protected. It is kind of weird in so-called 'democracy'.

[@radman8321]

The monarch doesn't wield executive power, so the scope of any crime is very small in comparison to a president that has executive power. Also the monarch is not above the law, they just have to be tried in Parliament rather than a court. I would assume the Australian Parliament would have the power to put on trial a governor-general.

[@LukeXMV]

@radman8321 interesting. I reckon before the Aus government could do anything about GG - the GG would dissolve the Aus government as he has more powers vested in by the English monarch than the Aus government. The GG has executive powers plus the whole Aus armed forces are at his disposal as a commander in chief.

[@waikanaebeach]

Clearly, you don’t understand that the monarchy has NO executive power and cannot interfere in government. Their duties concerning parliament are prescribed and bounded with no real discretion. They cannot refuse to sign acts of parliament, orders etc. at the end of an election, they ask the leader of the party with most MP’s if they can form a government, if they cannot then they ask the second party’s leader and so on. If there is no government formed, then parliament is dissolved and new elections.

[@LukeXMV]

@waikanaebeach it looks as it is you not familiar with your governing body or you pretend the English king and GGs have no say.

[@stevepatching8107]

​@LukeXMV. that sounds like a USA assumption. I've never heard that the monarchy or the GG is a "commander in chief" of our military. Our monarchy is a ceremonial one. Can you expand on your statement?

[@mizzyroro]

What gives the president exclusively this kind of immunity to discharge his duties? Could not other federal officers claim the need for this kind of immunity in order to discharge their duties unobstructed?

[@chitchensisgod]

The POTUS is the executive branch responsible for executing the laws of the land (law enforcement). If the threat of criminal prosecution hangs over every official act he makes (making him vulnerable to political lawfare) means he won't be able to execute his duties properly. Cops also hold immunity if they injure / kill someone while performing an official act, unless there's evidence they've committed a crime.

[@paulbowler2760]

There is a logical disconnect in respect of the Supreme Court's "opinion" on Presidential immunity against prosecution for criminality during execution of his official duties and the requirements of the Presidential Oath (or Affirmation) at Section 1 of Article II, and the provisions of Section 4 of Article II of the US Constitution. It has been suggested by eminent commentators in the US that the Supreme Court's opinion was "made out of whole cloth" - that the Justices were making it up as they went along, secure in the knowledge that they were the ultimate authority on what the US Constitution did or did not mean! As with the Australian Constitution, the US Constitution needs a complete re-write, to reflect the current situation and the way forward, rather than the situation one (or 2 1/2) centuries ago! I shall not hold my breath waiting for either to occur!!

[@prevsaudi9858]

There's no disconnect. The question is whether the act is official or not. Trump's defence themselves said, as an example, that the potus staging a coup to retain power is clearly not an official act. Yet ordering the assassination of a terrorist leader and / or the killing of innocents during that operation may bring indictments from a nefarious and politically motivated subordinate. Should Obama be indicted for ordering drone strikes which murdered US citizens..?

[@paulbowler2760]

@@prevsaudi9858 Section 4 of Article II states that the President, amongst others, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of ..high crimes and misdemeanors. SCOTUS says no, the President has absolute immunity. Both cannot be correct! In his Oath (or Affirmation) POTUS swears (affirms) to faithfully execute the Office of POTUS and ...will preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution. How does being immune from all criminal prosecution square with that? I believe the SCOTUS opinion is "ultra vires" - but how is it to be corrected?

[@prevsaudi9858]

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that because of this decision, the potus can't be impeached ?

[@chitchensisgod]

​@@paulbowler2760 you didn't answer the earlier question about Obama killing US citizens (terrorists) with drone strikes. I take it he should be indicted? How about Biden's criminally negligent withdrawal from Afghanistan killing 13 soldiers and hundreds of Afghans. Should Biden be indicted?

[@chitchensisgod]

​@@prevsaudi9858 I think that's what he's saying - criminal immunity for official acts means he can't be impeached. He clearly has no idea what this case is about, what the impeachment clause is about and he doesn't understand the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors.

[@noelleggett5368]

The USA might (have to) take a lesson from South Korea, where half of all living presidents are now in prison.

[@Don.Challenger]

But are his agents and servants in those broadly construed acts also immune in some way after performing their portion of or any subsidiary acts advancing the overall scheme? Is the President's intents thwarted by the full effect of the law still applying to his agents and servants or do the various immunities cascade along? Does his immunity invade the sovereign states' powers? Do these immunities apply to the state governors at their level as well?

[@JohnHayes-d8b]

Too complicated for me. Glad I am an Australian

[@norbetjagamara5536]

My goodness and here I thought the Commonwealth/Whitlam video had a lot of cookers in the comments.

[@saimoncole]

I can't pretend to understand the intricacies of all this, but if you're worried, I'm worried. This will embolden Trump, which is the opposite of what is needed in his second term. However, I don't see him getting away with the extraordinary power grab of banning other parties like the Germans allowed Hitler to do. A lot of state officials ignored his demands to overturn the 2020 election results.

[@hazchemel]

Thank you. Even though I came to a different conclusion nevertheless, your points are entirely valid.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Much appreciated.

[@chitchensisgod]

How would the POTUS be able to overturn an election?

[@RhythmicEye]

No disrespect but you live in a bubble if you can't see that the courts are politically expedient and have scant regard for irrefutable facts and truth.

[@hazchemel]

That is where I landed also. With a much greater perspective of their judgement, its effects, and possible tangents, the bench decided that the number one priority was the preservation of presidential immunity in a context of treachery, insubordination and malfeasance. By surrounding it with opulent promise of even further implications of its reach, it is a frowning shake of the head to those whose aim is the incapacitation of the president through legislative and judicial assault.

[@anthonywatts2033]

Missing the point. The video is about the decision, not the make up of the court. No SCOTUS decision is predicated by "but the court was made up of...."

[@johnoconnell846]

Doesn’t Australia give its head state - the King - absolute immunity, even for purely private acts? Surely the extent of the President’s immunity has to be judged in that light?

[@stevepatching8107]

Is that a rhetorical question or a genuine question wanting clarification?

[@stevenmulvay3292]

The founding fathers didn't want a king, they wanted a president who is bound by the rule of law.

[@andieslandies]

I'm guessing the answer is a hard no. However, the King (long may he reign!) and Parliament are probably both acutely aware of the events of 1649, 1688, and all that followed. So, if the King is considered immune it's because he and Parliament both know that if Parliament enacted a new Act of Succession there would be a different monarch, and that is why the King tends to act more reasonably than the president of the USA.

[@keithdrower9120]

He wasnt following orders....! No one asked him to break those laws, or to subvert the constitution.....he did it deliberately, on his own volution......!

[@prevsaudi9858]

Which law did he break ?

[@DerykRobosson]

12:30 the reason us that the impeachment power is delegated to Congress. 12:48 The advice he received from a lawyer was an option mentioned, albeit unlikely, despite Thomas Jefferson having done that precise thing. That is why Congress later amended the law to prohibit the action. 15:10 What he did isn't what you mention. He did what was required by his office as mentioned by the Court.

[@tigertiger1699]

🙏🙏🙏 basis. The scotus decision is load o 💩 🎉

[@GNARGNARHEAD]

I want to see the blooper reel for this one 😆.. last day for BIden to legally order a drone strike on his opponent 😥I don't think he's gonna do it.. long live the king 👑

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

He's their "Commander in Chief?" He wants to protect their Constitution. 🌏🇦🇺

[@stevencollins3699]

The problem with the U.S supreme court is that it is politically neutral. At the moment it is loaded up with Republican appointed judges. With most of them being picked by Trump, plus these it is a life time appointment.

[@anthonywatts2033]

True, but the make-up of the Court is not the subject of this video.....

[@peterslocomb152]

I think Trump appointed three out of the nine current Supreme Court justices. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. Nowhere near most. Biden appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson, so as far as I know there is only on justice of the Supreme Court who does not know what a woman is.

[@prevsaudi9858]

Supreme Crt justices are appointed by the senate.

[@kappa7]

@@prevsaudi9858 According to uscourts.gov: "Article III judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate."

[@prevsaudi9858]

​@@kappa7 so if the senate doesn't give consent the person cannot be appointed. In practical terms it's up to the senate whether a nominee is appointed or not. The reason why this distinction is important is nominees are not guaranteed appointment (eg. Bork).