[blue_dragon]

My naive assumption is that ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival is not an official nor constitutionally authorized power, and thus would be prosecutable.

[saucetenuto]

Guess again! Roberts explicitly calls out orders to the military as covered by absolute immunity. EDIT: and motive is explicitly barred from review too.

[rpdillon]

An important point here is that there are both legal and illegal orders. Military personnel are instructed obey every legal order, and disobey every illegal order (at least I was).

In the military, we have the UCMJ that allows us to prosecute those military personnel that issue illegal orders. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but he is a civilian, so the UCMJ doesn't apply. I always thought he would be charged under criminal law in that case, but it seems that this ruling precludes that.

[fragmede]

How does that interact with the Posse Comitatus Act?

[thih9]

Do you have a source? I didn’t find this in the article, could you add a quote - or link if it’s from elsewhere?

[fallingknife]

In the military chain of command an order is only an order when it is a lawful order. The president does not have any power to issue an unlawful order. That would be outside of his constitutional powers and not an official act.

[ceejayoz]

The President is the Commander in Chief; issuing orders to the military is very much an official act.

"But not for this! This would be clearly corrupt!" you may say, but the decision addresses that as well; the President's motive for the "official act" cannot be introduced as evidence!

> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.

[goodluckchuck]

Not intent, but the location and nature of the order. If it’s not in a war zone, not targeting an enemy combatant, etc. that’s not an order that falls within the scope of the core actions of a commander in chief.

[fallingknife]

It can't be used to distinguish between an official act and an unofficial act. That wouldn't make sense anyway.

Motive can be used to defeat the presumptive immunity for an official act.

[MOARDONGZPLZ]

Article II of the constitution specifically gives the POTUS the authority to command the armed forces. The limit is declaring war, which is vested in Congress. So it seems reasonable that commanding Seal Team 6 is specifically a constitutionally authorized power and within an official duty.

[sf_rob]

And every war since Vietnam has been a police action or military operation.

[treeFall]

Being killed by the government without due process of law (ie: death penalty for convicted criminals) is a clear violation of your constitutional rights though, and violating someone's constitutional rights (read: going against the constitution) can't be an official act by definition.

[InTheArena]

commanding seal team 6 to assassinate a sitting head of state is a act of war, and only congress can declare war.

[lenerdenator]

Maybe, maybe not.

What does the judge who reviews the case think?

That's literally the only thing preventing that scenario from playing out.

[powersnail]

My naive assumption would be that giving that order must fall into the realm of official act. How can POTUS command the military, unless acting in the capacity of their Commander in Chief?