Search

President Donald Trump’s use of Twitter portends a turning point in presidential communication. His Tweets animate his base and enrage his opponents. Tweets, however, like any form of communication, can ruin reputations. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court determined that a president retains absolute immunity for all actions that fall within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties. This Article explores the “outer perimeter” of presidential immunity. It suggests the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments inform the demarcation of the “outer perimeter,” and that when a president engages in malicious defamation, his speech falls outside this perimeter and is not protected by presidential immunity. The Article begins by examining Twitter as a social media platform and how it facilitates and affects the way we communicate. It then focuses on how Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump incorporated the use of Twitter into their presidencies. I then explore four distinct lines of jurisprudence that I argue inform how to identify the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties: (1) presidential immunity; (2) immunity for executive branch officials; (3) the constitutional implications of defamation; and (4) the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibition on government action motivated by animus. I posit that considering these four doctrines, along with the method and manner of communication facilitated by Twitter, malicious defamation falls outside the “outer perimeter” of official presidential duties, and thus, presidential immunity is inapplicable.

V Franciji s v tem obdobju spremenili ustavo. Vanjo so bili vnešeni popolna prepoved smrtne kazni ter nekaj popravkov, ki jih je zahtevala ratifikacija Lizbonske pogodbe. Spremenjena je bila tudi ureditev odgovornosti predsednika republike. Poleg tega je francoski ustavni svet v postopku (predhodne) presoje ustavnosti zakonov podal nekaj opaznih odločitev. V njih je z uporabo tehnike ciljev ustavne veljave večinoma omogočil takšne razlage ustave in zakonov, ki ... Preprečevanje kriminalitete. Varnostno pridržanje. Nadzor imigracije. Povratništvo. Mladoletniška kriminaliteta. In the period from January 2007 to March 2008 French constitutional law has witnessed noticeable changes to the Constitution of the Fifth Republic. Not only was the capital punishment abolished on the constitutional level, the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty also called for revision of the Constitution, as did the provisions relating to the responsibility of the President of the Republic. However, even more far-reaching consequences have aroused from the decisions that the Constitutional Council (Conseil Constitutionnel) adopted in the given era. The Council based these decisions upon the objectives of the constitutional value (les objectifs à valeur constitutionnelle), above all the pursuit of those who commit a criminal offence and the protection of public safety, legitimizing greater restrictions to the fundamental rights and liberties (right to personal freedom, presumption of innocence, protection from the arbitrary deprivation of liberty, etc.). Thus, the article reexamines the decisions Delinquency Prevention, Recidivism, Immigration Control, Security Retention and Lisbon Treaty. The evaluation made by the Constitutional Council of the opposing interests in each individual decision cannot but give the impression that the range of principles allowing restrictions of the fundamental rights will endlessly expand. Or as Pierre de Montalivet observed, the principle of the objectives of constitutional value “reveals a functionalist approach, connected to the general interest and the legitimization of the actions of the State”. In other words, the state would limit the rights and liberties for a better protection thereof…