Well, in an
indirect way the ruling interprets the Constitution as having more limited executive power.
While lawyers for the President were, in a way, trying to prevent future administrations from
being slapped with frivolous lawsuits by political opponents, the Supreme Court responded by
only protecting those acts committed during a President's term, thus addressing some of their
legal concerns while still protecting the rights of plaintiffs.
So the case
is really quite specific in terms of dealing with a modern issue, and only refers to the
Constitution in an indirect way.
No comments:
Post a Comment