• WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I mean, they have to sign some paperwork to make it an official act, but otherwise what’s the difference? They don’t have to arrest anyone according to this ruling, if I’m reading this correctly. Sure, us normal citizens probably do, but according to the court, presidents don’t have to follow the law if it’s an official act. That’s kind of the basis of the dissent. It separates the rules we follow and our leaders have to follow.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can’t. About halfway down pg 4.

      The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If it explicitly says the president can do something any law stopping him from doing that would be unconditional and voided, at least as applied.

      Otherwise it would be like they amended the Constitution without going through the correct process.