The syllabus only says that SCOTUS can’t decide the line between official and unofficial acts because it’s a court of final review, and they offered a list of guidance to lower courts who they charged with making the distinction. They point to pp 16-32 for more detail on that guidance.

The guidance says:

1. Courts cannot consider motive

2. An act is not unofficial simply because it violates a law

3. Courts cannot consider negotiations with DoJ

4. Courts cannot consider negotiations with or influence of the VP if the VP is serving an executive branch function, but may consider influence of the VP if the VP is serving a legislative branch function (i.e. supervising the Senate)

5. Engagement with private parties is not an official act

6. Public communication of the person serving in the role of President is official, but public communication of the President serving in another role is not

7. Prosecutors cannot use a jury to indirectly infringe on immunity unless a judge has already ruled that immunity does not exist

So again, if a President sends a branch of the military to a) assassinate a terrorist or b) recover national security secrets, none of the allowable court considerations above come into play. Nor do they if the assassinated individual is a SCOTUS justice or a political rival. The executive branch and military are the only entities involved, no public communication happens, murder is OK if it’s done in an official capacity, and planning records are inadmissible. A prosecutor would have no authority to bring a case, and a court would have no precedent to allow consideration of the charge even if they were brought.

That’s a loophole the size of the Hoover Dam.

You ignored a lot of other information in my comment.

But national security is. All they would need is a flimsy justification that the person was stealing state secrets (like Trump) or organizing a terrorist attack, which could include any contact with an armed or paramilitary group that’s planning a protest. They could use state influence to coerce that group to take action, and the records of that planning process would be inadmissible per this ruling. It’s not hard to come up with superficial reasons that do align with Constitutional obligations.

Edit to add: Hell, just look at the McCarthy era, or the Iraq war. It’s not hard at all for a sufficiently shameless group of politicians to gin up a moral panic about national security. They don’t even need evidence, they just need motive. We’re real fucking close to the government being able to legally assassinate purported communists for subversion.

So then nothing a President ever does can be considered premeditated. This timeline is fucking insane.

I mean, that’s what this comes to, right? If he ordered Seal Team Six to storm Mar-A-Lago to recover classified materials with deadly force, then he’s operating in order to maintain national security via his authority as Commander in Chief. That would be legal under this ruling, correct?

I get that would lead to an actual civil war, and I get that their argument is important to shield the office from neverending frivolous lawsuits, but in being forced to rule so explicitly on this it seems like they’ve opened the door to political assassinations. All a President would need is a willing wing of the military and a superficial rationalization and there’d be nothing a court in this country could do about it.

Please, someone tell me I’m missing something.

Imagine how powerful leftist grassroots organizations would be if folks like you would dedicate the same amount of time and energy to voter engagement and activism that you devote to ranting and raving on political message boards. This country would be completely transformed in a matter of months.

Edit: Seriously, 6,800 comments over a 12 month period is almost 19 comments every single day of the year. That’s borderline obsession, and it can’t possibly be good for your mental health.

You’ve offered no proof that it is, despite my asking several times. From what I can tell that’s just your opinion, which is fine but carries significantly less weight.

So his delegates are not pledged to Harris, they aren’t required to support Harris, her name isn’t on a single ballot in the country, Biden’s name isn’t on a single ballot in the country, and no one has officially been nominated. You’ve offered no proof to the contrary.

Whether you think a change is likely before ballots are finalized was not my question, merely whether or not you had proof that it’s impossible.

As you suggest it’s a regulatory problem. There was a recent kerfuffle involving the Ohio ballot, which was solved by putting Biden/Harris on the ballot before they are officially nominated. So any changes made at the Democratic convention will come too late to change the Ohio ballot.

…nnnnno. That’s not what’s happening in Ohio. From your article:

President Joe Biden will be formally nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee through a virtual roll call ahead of the party’s official convention in Chicago in August

The Democratic National Convention, where the president would otherwise be formally nominated, comes after Ohio’s ballot deadline of Aug. 7. The party’s convention is scheduled for Aug. 19-22.

I really hate to repeat myself because it seems like you’re engaging sincerely and at least trying to support your argument, but there are currently no ballots that have been formalized in the entire country. Biden and Harris have not been put on the ballot before they’re nominated, they’re being nominated before the ballot access deadline in Ohio. So quite simply, as long as the Democrats nominate any US-born person older than 35, that person’s name will appear on the Ohio ballot. You have it quite literally backwards.

partly because her name can’t be taken off the general ballot in multiple states

Again, where is your proof of this? Ballots haven’t been finalized anywhere in the country, as Biden isn’t even officially the nominee yet. You keep saying these things as if they’re set in stone, but from what I can tell they’re not. Do you have proof that ballots have been printed before the convention, or that states have closed the registration window for running mates before closing the registration window for candidates?

Note: I agree with the rest of what you said, for the most part.