Presidents And Lawbreaking: Who Watches The Watchmen?

The question of whether or not presidents can break the law has been a topic of much discussion and debate in the United States, with some arguing that the president should be held accountable for their actions, while others claim that the president has immunity from prosecution due to their position of power. It is a well-known principle that everyone, including the president, must follow the law. However, in recent years, there have been instances where presidents have attempted to evade legal consequences, sparking concerns about the limits of presidential power and the potential for abuse. The ability to hold presidents accountable is crucial for maintaining a functioning democracy and preserving the rule of law.

Supreme Court grants Trump immunity from prosecution

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that former President Donald Trump has broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts. This historic ruling, made on July 1, 2024, placed a delay on the Washington criminal case against Trump, which charged him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election results.

The Supreme Court's decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated that immunity for former presidents is "absolute" with respect to their "core constitutional powers," and that a former president has "at least a presumptive immunity" for "acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility." This means that prosecutors will face a high legal bar to overcome this presumption of immunity.

The court's ruling specifically granted Trump absolute immunity for his use of the Justice Department for fraudulent purposes, including his attempts to obstruct the results of the 2020 election. For other allegations in the indictment, the court left it to the lower courts to determine whether the actions were official or personal acts and whether Trump is immune from prosecution for those acts.

This decision has been met with criticism from some, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued that the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent support the principle that nobody is above the law, not even the president. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court's two other liberal justices, dissented, stating that the majority opinion would have disastrous consequences for the presidency and the nation's democracy by creating a "law-free zone around the president."

The ruling has significant implications for presidential power and accountability, with critics arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent by giving presidents legal cover to break the law when using their formal powers.

Trump's claim to presidential immunity

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he is immune from prosecution, asserting that a president "has to have immunity". This claim has been disputed by federal appeals court judges, who have expressed deep skepticism of Trump's argument. The judges have questioned whether Trump's actions, which include plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, fall within his official duties as president. They have also noted that Trump is no longer in office, and that the Founding Fathers did not intend for presidents to have absolute immunity after leaving office.

Trump's lawyers have argued that Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts in office, claiming that prosecuting him would set a dangerous precedent and open the door to politically motivated cases. They have warned that without immunity, presidents would be hesitant to make controversial decisions, fearing prosecution by their political opponents. However, the judges have pushed back on this argument, noting that Trump's impeachment lawyer suggested he could face criminal prosecution after leaving office.

The question of presidential immunity is a legally untested area, as Trump is the first former president to be indicted. The outcome of this case will have enormous ramifications for the landmark criminal case against Trump and could set a precedent for future prosecutions of ex-presidents. Trump's attendance at the court proceedings underscores his effort to portray himself as a victim of a politicized justice system, a narrative that may resonate with Republican voters.

In a separate case, a judge ruled that Trump does not have presidential immunity in a hush money case involving payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. The judge concluded that the evidence presented was related to unofficial conduct and therefore did not fall under official actions as president. Trump's lawyers are likely to appeal this decision, potentially delaying the case for months or even years.

Presidents are not above the law

The US Constitution was designed to ensure that the president would not become an elected king. As Thomas Paine stated in his pamphlet, "Common Sense", which helped spark the American Revolution: "In America, the law is king." In other words, no one is above the law, not even royalty.

The idea that a president could be prosecuted for criminal acts was agreed upon by all sides since the literal beginning of the nation. This principle has been affirmed repeatedly throughout US history, including by presidents themselves. For example, President Gerald Ford pardoned President Richard Nixon in 1974, and President Bill Clinton accepted a plea bargain in 2001.

Despite this, former President Donald Trump has attempted to claim immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump's lawyers have argued that he cannot be investigated by Congress, nor can he be prosecuted by state or federal law enforcement officials. They have even claimed that he could shoot someone dead and escape all legal consequences while in office.

These arguments have been rejected by many, including a bipartisan group of 96 former members of Congress and executive branch officials, who understand that allowing such behaviour to go unchecked would gut Congress' ability to effectively check executive overreach and lawbreaking.

The Supreme Court's decision to grant Trump immunity sets a dangerous precedent for all future presidents, giving them a blank check to break the law without fear of criminal consequences. However, it's important to remember that criminal prosecution is not the only form of accountability. Civil lawsuits, the ballot box, and the powers of Congress and the courts can also be used to hold presidents accountable and ensure that they do not rule like kings.

Congress' ability to conduct legitimate oversight

Congress's ability to conduct legitimate oversight is an essential part of the American system of checks and balances. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to oversee the executive branch, this power is implied in the Constitution's grant of authority to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the president, vice president, and other civil officers.

Congress's oversight function includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress primarily exercises this power through its committee system, conducting investigations and holding hearings to gather information and ensure that executive policies reflect the public interest.

The Supreme Court has affirmed Congress's oversight powers, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties. For example, in 1927, the Court found that Congress had the authority to investigate the administration of the Justice Department as it could lead to new legislation or aid existing legislation.

Congress can also pass laws to overrule agency decisions, narrow an agency's jurisdiction or regulatory authority, or use its appropriations power to restrict an agency's funding if it believes an agency has drifted from its original mandate.

The underlying principle of Congress's oversight power is to ensure that the executive branch is accountable to the people's representatives and that the government operates efficiently, effectively, and within the bounds of the law.

Presidential wrongdoing investigations

The question of whether a president can break the law has been a subject of much debate in the United States, with some arguing that the president should be held accountable for their actions, while others claim that the president has immunity from prosecution. It is essential to understand that the president of the United States is not above the law and is subject to the same legal obligations as all Americans. This includes paying taxes, providing evidence when summoned by a court or Congress, and complying with the law.

Throughout history, there have been instances where presidential wrongdoing has been called into question, and investigations have been launched to ensure accountability. One notable example is the case of former President Donald Trump, who faced allegations of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump argued that he had immunity from prosecution and that the privileges of a "chief executive" before the American Revolution transferred to the president, granting them permanent immunity. However, this interpretation was not supported by historical facts or the principles of democracy.

The Supreme Court's decision to grant Trump immunity for a wide range of criminal conduct committed while in office set a dangerous precedent. This decision not only allowed Trump to evade accountability for his actions but also sent a message that future presidents could potentially escape criminal consequences for corrupt acts, even those that undermine democracy itself. The court's ruling emphasized that a president could be prosecuted for unofficial or private acts, but the definition of "official acts" was broad and made it challenging to indict a president for criminal conduct.

To address this, Congress and other branches of government must have the power to conduct legitimate oversight and checks and balances on the executive branch. The ability to enforce subpoenas and hold the president accountable for abuse of power is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the democratic system. James Madison, often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," recognized the potential for power accumulation and warned against the dangers of concentrating legislative, executive, and judiciary powers in a single person, stating that it "may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

In conclusion, presidential wrongdoing investigations are essential to uphold the principles of democracy and ensure that the president, as the most powerful person in the country, is subject to the same laws as all citizens. While the Supreme Court has granted immunity to presidents in certain cases, it is crucial to continue fighting presidential abuses of power through civil lawsuits, elections, and by empowering other branches of government to conduct oversight and enforce subpoenas.

Frequently asked questions