Expert Analysis of Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity & Trump | EWTN News Nightly

Notre Dame Law Professor and Legal Expert, Derek Muller, joins to share what happens next in the landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court that presidents are entitled to some immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office. Muller discusses in what ways this is a victory for President Trump and how this impacts special counsel Jack Smith's case against him. Muller explains how Smith might go about proving what an "official" act and an "unofficial" act is. Some analysts are saying the biggest victory in this ruling is the delay of the trial. Muller tells us whether he agrees.

------------
EWTN News Nightly provides the latest news and analysis from a Catholic perspective. Join host Tracy Sabol, our Capitol Hill, White House and Rome Correspondents, as well as many other diverse guests daily, to get the latest from the U.S. and the Vatican on topics regarding our Catholic faith and interests.
-------------
EWTN News Nightly airs on EWTN weekdays at 6pm & 9pm ET.
------------
Don't miss an episode of EWTN New Nightly. Get updates here:
-------------
Sign up today to receive the EWTN News Nightly newsletter:
-------------
Follow EWTN News Nightly on Social Media:
-------------
Subscribe to EWTN YouTube channel here:
-------------
You can support the EWTN News mission:

[MarkABE]

The doctrine of “Act of State” has long been recognised by most legal systems. Any politician who is acting within the remit of his duties under the Constitution cannot be subject to any legal sanction, provided that he has acted at all times within the limits of the Constitution. So, for example, declaring war in circumstances which, later, turn out to have been most unwise (for example, the Vietnam War) cannot lead to any sanctions. Politicians are able to act unwisely in the course of their political careers without being subject to any sanction. So, for example, under the British Constitution, the King in Parliament is sovereign. Therefore, no action taken by His Majesty’s Government can be challenged as being “unwise”. By Act of Parliament, the Government may change any Law, even retrospectively. In the USA, of course, there is no similar concept of “The President in Congress” being sovereign. Nevertheless, both Houses of Congress could introduce legislation to validate any action taken by a President. In the case of President Trump, the charges relate to “false accounting” and the consequent spending of more than the permitted limit on electoral expenses. These offences were not in relation to the performance of his duties as President. They were offences committed in his private capacity. So, if a President exceeds the speed limit, while in office as President, he may still be prosecuted for the offence of speeding. There is one exemption under the British Constitution - the Sovereign cannot be prosecuted in his own Courts. So, if the King is caught speeding, there will be no case brought under the title R v R. The Sovereign cannot sue himself. However, in the USA, it is not the President who brings legal proceedings, but either the State or the Federal Government, which are institutions which exist quite apart from the office of President. So, a serving President is not automatically immune from prosecution.

[AustereEchadh]

Really don't need experts to figure this out
Anyone with a little biblical knowledge can tell you why