“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”
Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.
No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter. The ruling says that the Constitution itself grants the President immunity, so it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it.
Sure they can. They can pass legislation that says “The President of the United States of America does not have criminal immunity from official acts taken as President.”
Once that’s done, a case would have to be identified and charged. The President would need to do something that would be considered a crime, and would be considered an official act, then be charged with that crime. Then it would follow its way through the legal process - district court, appeals court, en banc, eventually landing at the Supreme Court, who would decide whether that legislation was constitutional.
There are plenty of unconstitutional laws still on the books, especially at the state level, “atheists cannot hold public office” is a great example. Of course, those laws are “unenforceable” under normal circumstances; these are not normal circumstances. We’ve seen how the fascists abuse the legal system. It would not surprise me one bit for them to latch on to one of those “still on the books” unconstitutional laws and attempt to enforce it, because throwing wrenches into the machinery is the point.
Using the “atheists cannot hold public office” example, it would be elementary to cause harm to someone’s campaign for elected office just by seeking to enforce an unconstitutional law. Drawing attention to the lack of religious belief in a candidate, forcing said candidate to defend themselves, getting the unwashed masses to go “Yeah! That’s what the law says!” because they’re too fucking stupid to understand that other court rulings have nullified that law.
Yes, technically they could, but any suit under that law would be vulnerable to getting thrown out on summary judgement. Would you agree that it’s more accurate to say that Congress can’t fix the system by reverting to the old law?
I’m not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?
They can’t take us back to the way things were on June 30th, 2024, to make this ruling like it didn’t happen. It doesn’t have the power. The best the that Congress can do is pass an unconstitutional law that may, at some future date, through a highly-fraught process in the courts, reverse it.
That’s the “right” way, yes. I believe constitutional amendments also begin in Congress.
Constitutional amendment