By Mireya Navarro
Apr 29, 2024, 10:47 AM EDT
The Supreme Court just heard arguments over whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal prosecution for acts he committed as president. He faces federal criminal charges (in addition to other state and federal cases pending against him) for attempting to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Trump argues that nothing should result in criminal charges because, as president, he is above the law. But he is wrong. Holding a president accountable to the law is a fundamental principle of American democracy and the constitutional order under which we live.
Our nation’s founders wanted to ensure that no president was entitled to the immunity enjoyed by monarchs or dictators. In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court by the Brennan Center for Justice, 15 eminent historians assert that Trump’s claim has no historical basis. Our nation’s founders wanted to ensure that every president was punishable by the laws of the land, and they crafted the Constitution to preserve that guarantee.
In other words, in the United States, the only king is the law.
The central issue in the case the Supreme Court is considering revolves around whether a former president can be immune from criminal prosecution when he attempted to block the peaceful transfer of power in our democracy. The answer, clearly, is no.
This attempt is unprecedented in the history of the United States. But during oral arguments last Thursday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed to indicate that some degree of immunity is needed.
Some of the justices appointed by Republican presidents worried about the consequences of leaving a former president susceptible to criminal prosecution for his official actions. Justices appointed by Democratic presidents asked questions that indicated they were more concerned about opening the door for a president to commit crimes with impunity.
Meanwhile, time passes. While the Court deliberates to decide what to do and present its ruling, Trump’s trial on subversion charges is being delayed, perhaps until after the November elections.
That delay would harm the electorate. Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center and author of the book The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, describes this immunity case as an example of a “tremendous intervention of the Supreme Court in matters of partisan presidential politics.”
“It is dishonest to pretend that this case is not deciding whether the electorate has the right to know if someone tried to overthrow the Constitution, before they run again.”
The Court must act immediately. And he should rule against Trump and in favor of accountability under the law and in defense of American history and identity.
More about Brennan in Spanish.
Keep reading:
· How to protect the 2024 elections from Artificial Intelligence threats
· Former President Trump faces justice, but the damage caused by The Big Lie continues to harm us
· Freedom to vote remains in danger