Constitutional scholars and historians will note the irony of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Trump, on the eve of the Declaration of Independence anniversary, creating executive immunity from prosecution.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court granted the president absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in “core constitutional powers,” reviving monarchical power that prompted the American Revolution.
People are also reading…
The Court’s ruling on the 4th of July holiday disregards the principle that “no man is above the law” in favor of granting the president immunity from prosecution as determined by the courts.
The decision undermines the Constitution and leaves the nation uncertain about when the president is exempt from prosecution, blurring the lines between official and unofficial acts.
The Court’s decision weakens constitutional restraints on the Presidency, flying in the face of the founders’ commitment to the rule of law.
Delegates at the Constitutional Convention aimed to establish equality under the law, not grant the presidency immunity from prosecution.
The Court’s creation of presidential immunity contradicts the principles of democracy and lacks constitutional foundation.
David Adler, Ph.D., can be reached at david.adler@alturasinstitute.com.
The Court’s decision to engraft upon the Constitution presidential immunity from prosecution represents, not an originalist, but rather an activist approach to constitutional interpretation
