Currently, the United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether former president Donald Trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts he committed as president.
In Trump v United States, the four-times indicted and twice-impeached criminal defendant “contends that the clear-statement rule requires criminal laws to apply to the President only if explicitly stated by Congress”
If this were true a Republican congress could shield Trump from any criminal behavior, including murdering a political rival and selling top secret information.
What’s more, Trump argues that “absolute criminal immunity for presidential official duties” should be granted by the High Court to presidents to keep executive independence.
The former president is asserting he has absolute immunity regarding his mishandling of classified documents and his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Trump said, “a president has to have immunity, this has nothing to do with me, this has to do with a president in the future, for a hundred years from now; if you don’t have immunity you’re not going to do anything”.
I would argue that, on the contrary, this has everything to do with Trump. He is not concerned about anyone else but himself–much less another president a hundred years from now. Trump is under criminal indictments and desperately needs the Supreme Court to rule in his favor, or at least for his criminal cases to be delayed until after the 2024 presidential election.
In 1974, the High Court unanimously held in United States v Nixon, “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity”.
I would ask: is the power Trump desires that of an American president or a tyrant?
Paradoxically, we are witnessing in real time a former president with dictatorial aspirations now asking the highest court in the land–which holds the power of checks and balances on the executive branch of government specifically to stop a dictatorial president–to retroactively grant him the absolute power of a dictator.
Are the conservative Justices on the Court as anesthetized as the rest of America to the threat that Trump poses to democracy?
He himself has made his intention clear on multiple occasions. We all remember Trump’s infamous words declaring, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK”. Further, according to former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Trump suggested shooting protesters outside the White House asking, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something.” The most chilling of all came during a Jan. 11 Town Hall when Trump stated, “I’m gonna be a dictator for one day”.
Since the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1789 a president has had absolute pardon power, except in cases of impeachment related to federal crimes, in that they could forgive any federal crime or commute the sentence and release from custody any federal prisoner. This power already resembles that of a king– which I would argue has been abused by American presidents for over two hundred years.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Trump and decides that a president also has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts while president, American democracy will die and a totalitarian regime ruled by a dictator will be born.
