The Fallacy of Presidential Immunity and Constitutional Duties: An Analysis

The recent discussions surrounding potential presidential immunity and its implications have sparked intense debate. This article aims to clarify the legal and constitutional intricacies involved, focusing on the case of President Biden and whether such immunity could legitimize actions like ordering the assassination of former President Trump.

Understanding Presidential Immunity

Presidential immunity is a well-established concept within the American legal framework. It refers to a protection afforded to the President of the United States that shields them from certain legal actions, particularly civil suits, while they are in office. This immunity ensures that the President can perform their duties without fear of legal repercussions.

Implications of Supreme Court Rulings

It is important to clarify that any Supreme Court ruling that affirms the President’s immunity would not grant them carte blanche to commit illegal acts, such as murder. Legal scholars and constitutional experts emphasize that while the President may be immune from civil suits, their actions must still adhere to the laws of the land.

Even if a Supreme Court ruling affirms such immunity, the military and law enforcement would still be subject to legal constraints. For instance, the Navy SEALs who carried out the mission would be subject to prosecution if they committed murder on direct orders from the President. Similarly, anyone involved in passing such an order could face legal consequences.

Military Oath and Legal Refusal

The United States military personnel have a solemn oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” This oath places a legal duty on every military member to refuse any illegal orders, even if they come from a superior officer. Military personnel cannot invoke the President’s immunity as a defense for refusing to follow an illegal command.

Biden’s Alleged Intentions and Constitutional Responsibilities

There have been persistent assertions that President Biden could, under the guise of presidential immunity, order the assassination of Trump. However, such claims are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both the legal and constitutional framework.

Firstly, murder is a criminal act and remains illegal, regardless of who orders it. Ordering the assassination of a citizen, even with presidential immunity, would still be illegal and subject to criminal prosecution. The President’s immunity, if granted, would not extend to instructing such illegal actions.

Secondly, the Constitution of the United States outlines specific duties and responsibilities for the President. These include ensuring a stable government, fostering good relations with other nations, and protecting the nation against internal and external threats. The Constitution does not include the role of eliminating political adversaries through illegal means, such as assassination.

Legal and Constitutional Constraints

There is a considerable body of legal and constitutional precedent that refutes the notion of presidential immunity as a licence for killing former presidents or their associates. Historical cases, such as those involving President Nixon, demonstrate that even in the face of potential impeachment or criminal charges, the President is still subject to legal processes and constraints.

It is crucial to recognize that those involved in such illegal activities, including the President, would still be held accountable. Nixon’s Watergate scandal is an example where, despite the immunities afforded, legal actions brought about his resignation.

Republican vs. Democratic Standards of Accountability

There has been discussion about the differing standards of accountability applied to politicians of different parties. While it is true that Republicans often hold Democrats to a higher standard, it is important to note that the President must adhere to the same legal and constitutional standards, regardless of party affiliation.

President Biden has publicly stated that he would not take advantage of any ruling that grants such immunity. This stance underscores his commitment to upholding the rule of law and does not undermine the importance of legal and constitutional constraints.

Conclusion

The assertion that a President with immunity could order the assassination of a former president is a misinterpretation of both the legal framework and the Constitution. The President, even with immunity, cannot instruct illegal activities, and military personnel have an obligation to refuse such illegal orders.

Any discussions surrounding such matters should take into account the established principles of the U.S. legal system and the Constitution, which prioritize the rule of law and protect citizens from unlawful actions, regardless of the order they come from.