> things that are on the extreme periphery of the duties of the Presidency are exempt from criminal prosecution
This is wrong, and your ability to make an argument suggests you know it is. And the most extreme acts being mentioned as risks are the exact ones where "presumptive" matters.
> This is wrong, and your ability to make an argument suggests you know it is.
citationneeded.jpg
> And the most extreme acts being mentioned as risks are the exact ones where "presumptive" matters.
Are they? Can you count on humans to not abuse power? I don't trust the SCOTUS to provide a real counterweight. These are the same people who knew that 12-year-olds would be giving birth with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and did it anyways. The same institution that ignored votes in 2000 and appointed a President. The same institution who had no power to stop Andrew Jackson from committing genocidal acts against the Cherokee. Either ineffective or complicit in severe violations of constitutional rights.
Roe v Wade was an easy overturn from a legal perspective. Pro choice folks with half a brain knew it stood on nonsense. Obama said in 2007 he wanted to codify it because he knew it was standing on shaky logic.
This is wrong, and your ability to make an argument suggests you know it is. And the most extreme acts being mentioned as risks are the exact ones where "presumptive" matters.