a king is sovereign and thus cannot in his own body be subject to the law; he has subjects, is not a subject. in a republic or democracy, the people are sovereign, and thus no one is above the law, all are subject to it. calling him a king is an effective shorthand for where the SC put him.
Really, tho? It was already Department of Justice policy that a president could not be prosecuted while in office. Every cop in the country enjoys qualified immunity, which amounts to more or less the same protection.
read the dissents! the immunity granted to the president is categorical in a way that qualified immunity is, well, qualified. If a president orders the military to go out and shoot people, he's immune from prosecution because "giving orders to the military" is his duty.
OK. But 1) presidents already do order the military to go out and shoot people, this is not something new. 2) in practice the binding legal constraints on the president are not the possibility of criminal charges once they leave office.
I mean, the real reason he isn't a king is that he doesn't have a crown and isn't called a king. But the substantive difference in those terms, in political theory, which the analogy gestures at, is the *categorical* deference given to him
Obama could drone strike an American, after all, but he had to say "here is why that was legal" and, in theory, prove it. Roberts is saying he didn't have to prove it, that anything the executive uses his military for is, by definition, immune from prosecution.
I think the idea that *the threat of criminal prosecution of the president personally* is what has limited abuse of federal power in the US historically needs a bit more evidence to back it up.
I think that is just totally wrong, and in a politically destructive way. I guarantee you, if Trump comes into office and says "I declare that the minimum wage in all US states is abolished, by decree" that will not happen.
