What is the functional difference between the President having immunity for “official acts” and the powers granted to the German President under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution?

As a German, well, I don't understand enough about the US side of things to answer to this, but I do always get spooked when I see nations pulling shit like that.

And, by the way, I do hope the USA finally get 9/11 under wraps this year: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/09/07/notice-on-the-continuation-of-the-national-emergency-with-respect-to-certain-terrorist-attacks-3/

The rationale is that the powers aren't unchecked, but that the check for official constitutionally listed acts of the president is Congress, not the courts.

Article 48 gave the presidentisl office the power to unilaterally bypass the legislature.
This supreme Court ruling delineates the line between the individual and the office with regards to the judicial system, not the relationship between the office and the other branches like article 48 did.
Rather than granting new powers or preventing restraint of the executive branch, it purely limits the consequences the individual can face out of office.
The concept of presidential immunity existed prior to this case.

The ruling essentially listed three categories and their immunity status with regards to the courts. In my opinion, two of them are reasonable and the third shouldn't exist.

It's reasonable to me to say you cannot sue the president for vetoing a bill, or criminally prosecute the president for commanding the military. The constitution says the president can do those things, and that the check on presidential power is congressional acts including impeachment. The office of the president or the government as a whole may be prosecuted, and Congress and the courts can hammer out the exact meaning of the core powers, but the individual is only liable if Congress uses their power to assert that something was definitely not a valid presidential act.

It's reasonable to me to say that being the president doesn't grant you broad immunity for non-president things. The president does not have the constitutional authority to drink and drive, so if they do they're just a person subject to criminal prosecution.

It's unreasonable to me to say that in areas where the president acts officially, but their authority is shared with Congress or an inherent power of the office that they might not have immunity depending on how it impacts the role of the president.
It's weird to say it, but in this case I agree more with Coney Barrett that the more appropriate test is to see if the law applies to the official act and then determine if in this case it would interfere with a delineated core power.

In her own separate concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the majority “that the Constitution prohibits Congress from criminalizing a President’s exercise” of his core constitutional powers and “closely related conduct.” But she would have courts approach the question of immunity for other official acts differently, by focusing first on whether the criminal law under which a former president is charged applies to his official acts and, if so, whether prosecuting the former president would interfere with his constitutional authority.

Applying that principle to the facts of this case, she suggested that at least some of the conduct that serves as the basis for the charges against Trump – such as his request that the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives hold a special session about election fraud claims – would not be immune. “The President,” she concluded, “has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution/

I ultimately think that it would have been better to say that the president (individual) cannot be criminally prosecuted for exercising specifically enumerated constitutional powers unless Congress has impeached and removed from office and send it back to the lower court. They're perfectly capable of deciding if a particular act was an executive overreach or not on a case by case basis, and the fact that this has never happened before is a pretty solid argument against needing to worry about a "chilling effect" on the exercise of presidential power. The president should be chilled, it's practically in the constitution. Any power not given to the government is reserved to the people, clearly implying that the constitution should be read as stingy with power to the government, and generous with rights to the people. The president, as a member of the government, should be encouraged to worry about wandering around in legal grey areas.

I'm pretty sure their actual justification is that turning the United States into a dictatorship will really own the libs.

As I understand it, POTUS has absolute immunity for core acts as specifically defined in the constitution. There are other official acts the president may conduct that are not strictly defined. There's a presumed immunity for these actions but that does not mean they can not be challenged or that a president can not be impeached. And then there are actions a person holding office as president of the US may conduct outside their role as president which are by no means immune from criminal prosecution.

So, from what I'm reading, this ruling hasn't really changed very much. It actually seems to me that it holds a president more accountable for their actions as it strengthens the guidelines they must follow as president.

Now, how congress goes about utilizing these guidelines in a bipartisan matter is 100% always going to be a concern. There's going to be a lot of back and forth and forth and back to more clearly define what "official acts" are. Because our politics are so toxic now, this is likely going to have a monumental impact on the momentum of the already agonizingly slow to do anything federal government.

So, it's up to voters to decide if they want Washington to work for them in a meaningful dinner table manner or perpetually act as a court to hold politicians accountable for their actions. We still, currently, have the choice to move forward or stay stuck in 2020.

In regard to the Reich Constitution, POTUS has always had most of these rights. In instances of political unrest or natural disaster, the president has power to declare an emergency. Funding still has to be agreed upon by Congress.

Also, FWIW, SCOTUS very clearly states in the middle of Page 8 "The President is not above the law."

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

The president’s power is still checked via judicial review and congressional impeachment.