"We have to let you do bad things, because you will do very bad things if we do not" is a hell of an argument.

Framed another way, anyone crazy enough to run for a position in which your opponents will comb through all of your actions with a fine tooth comb to imprison you after the position term is over likely won't plan on their term ever being over.

It is still a valid strategy of risk-aversion, sadly.

That logic is so twisted though.

"The President might ignore laws on term limits, so we need to make laws that say he can't be held responsible for his actions".

That's clearly insane.

This would not fall under the official powers that he has?

Who cares? Now we have rulings that say it can't be enforced if it can be convinced that the action of avoiding your term limit can be an "official act" in times of unrest, urgency or doubt.

One must understand that the more safeguards we have to enact retribution in these cases, the better. You're not supposed to point to one after loss of another - you're supposed to point towards as many as possible. Before today, the courts were the one we pointed to the most, and they are no longer nearly as much at our disposal as they were before this morning.

how can the US president remain in power, aren't there checks and balances? Does he have absolute command of the army?