Comment by DiggyJohnson 2 days ago
The president is in charge of executing the law. It’s in our system of checks and balances. I’m choosing to speak at an extremely general level, of course, but that is the answer to your question.
From your second line, the answer is mostly no. Why are you assuming otherwise? Who is paying what to who?
Edit for anyone confused:
GP comment changed significantly (for the better).
The logic behind such a ruling is nonsensical. Imagine if a president, in his/her official capacity, started murdering political rivals. In other countries, that's considered a dictatorship and should be stopped. But in America, that's completely legal according to SCOTUS. In fact, that was one of the questions asked by the justices!
Apparently, committing crimes with absolute immunity is a necessary part of the presidential office. Without such protections, they'd be afraid to do things like extrajudicial drone strikes (Obama) and internment camps (FDR). Oh, wait.
I hate to "Poe's Law" this tangent, but most people forget that Hitler's rise to power was also completely legal. Just change the constitution and get the judiciary to side with you, and you can do anything. It's terrifying.
Specifically, I think it's "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Art. II, §3).
Does that mean "If foreign companies don't like our laws, they can pay to have them adjusted"? Seems not very faithful, but I hardly understand that word anymore it feels like.