Originally Posted by Richard Davis
It is called the US Constitution and the Separation of Powers implied.
You might want to read the US Constitution sometime before you become more senile, and then maybe some history about it.
I realize this will definitely collide with your Communist/Marxist political philosophy but then at least you wouldn't be so uneducated and ignorant about the situation.

Yet another profound example of our resident supporter of the Trump "JD" Putin-commie team specific to his stupidity in citing the constitution in his post.
As noted here, there are three major flaws in the Roberts opinion, noting the constitutional argument:
"The three flaws are: the majority’s reliance on separation of powers to justify finding criminal immunity for all official presidential action (even outside the areas of exclusive presidential authority) despite its absence from the text or history of the constitution, its seeming preclusion of reliance on the criminal law to differentiate official from unofficial presidential conduct (again even outside of areas of exclusive presidential authority), and its similar preclusion of the president’s motives in making the determination as to whether conduct is official or not."
"To justify this new-found presidential immunity, Chief Justice Roberts could not draw on the text of the constitution or even any history around the time of its adoption. Instead, Roberts justified the criminal immunity protection by resort to the Court’s role in protecting the executive branch from encroachment by the legislative branch – what is termed in the law as “separation of powers” principles that prevent one branch of government from impermissibly encroaching on the constitutional functions delegated to another branch."
"The Court’s cloak of separation of powers to justify its ruling is threadbare. The criminal case before the Court in Trump v. United States is one instituted by the executive branch against a former head of the executive branch. The Court’s decision operates not to restrict any branch of government from intruding on another, but the current executive branch from prosecuting a former executive branch member."
https://www.justsecurity.org/97781/three-flaws-supreme-court-immunity/
The above citation is a terrific read that exposes how and why the immunity decision is as flawed as it truly is...