How? Your question doesn't really make any sense. How does having immunity from criminal prosecution allow him to perform any legislative function?
The uh… President doesn’t have any legislative powers besides the veto of legislation. And… I don’t think you understand the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the striking down of Chevron.
I know the President doesn't have legislative power. That's what I said in response to this comment about using presidential immunity to "get rid of presidential immunity".
What does the striking of Chevron have to do with anything here?
the last panel?
Or is this not understanding Presidential immunity?
I think you are confused. The Chevron Deference was a completely different case (Loper Bright v Sec. of Commerce). That was about federal agencies having the authority to apply their own interpretation to ambiguous law. SCOTUS ruled that they can't, and that the courts have to instead.
The Presidential Immunity opinion came as part of Trump v U.S. It says a President has absolute immunity for exclusive presidential acts and presumptive immunity for official acts. Immunity from prosecution and criminal punishment.
The last panel is implying that the President can order an assassination as an official act, without threat of prosecution and no interrogation of motivation, per the ruling.
No I’m not confused. I thought the bit was the president making an ambiguous comment. And then an agency acting on it.
I thought the comic was more nuanced than it is.
Illegal acts aren’t official official acts. Tons of precedent in that regard.
Ah. Still not Chevron related as those agencies are created through the legislative branch which establishes their domain. I guess technically you are correct in that the DOD is an agency established by law, but I guess I've never heard anyone discuss them in that same context.
The issue is that SCOTUS declined to define what "official acts" are. There are a huge number of legal scholars and firms raising the alarm on this. The general interpretation is "official acts" are things that the President does through the official processes of his role. So, a President could order a criminal action through the official chain of command and process, and per Trump v U.S., his motivations are irrelevant. We would hope that those receiving the order would refuse, but that is entirely based on their level of loyalty to the President and personal ethics. In any case now, the President cannot be punished for it.