“(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.

    • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ok, fair enough.

      I’m not from the US so my understanding of your system is surface level.

      Could he give himself the power to do this?

      • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        The president can’t actually make law, as far as I understand it. He, and the various offices managed by the executive branch, apply and enforce the law which Congress has written (give or take some interpretation by the courts).

        Sometimes of those laws specifically give the executive broad enough authority over something that it’s very similar to the president being able to write laws about it, but it’s not quite the same and it cant overrule actual laws

      • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        The US government is based on the idea of separation of powers, and making the President as weak as possible while still being able to do his job. The President can’t just decide he has a new authority, Congress has to sign legislation that delegates a specific authority to the President. That authority is typically organized in the from of a Cabinet office, which is filled with the advise and consent or Congress.

        America was made to abolish kings, that’s why this ruling is so ludicrous, so antithetical to the very Constitution the court is supposed to uphold, and why people are so up in arms about it.

      • Joncash2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Only in times of war. It’s literally one of the checks and balances to specifically prevent a president from stopping an election. Now, if we start a full blown war with Russia…

        • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I hear those checks and balances are starting to look a little unreliable.

    • shottymcb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      He’s the commander in chief of the US military. If there aren’t repercussions for exceeding his authority, it’s essentially unlimited.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If there aren’t repercussions for exceeding his authority,

        There still are repercussions, all that has changed is that personal criminal prosecution is no longer among those.