CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . . .” On July 1, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the “separation of powers” format of the Constitution entitles former Presidents of the United States to immunity from criminal prosecution for their “official acts” as President while serving in that office. [1]

The Court’s ruling has no basis whatsoever, either explicit or implied, in the United States Constitution. Article II, Section 1 provides that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article I, Section 1 provides that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United State . . . .’’ Article III, Section 1 provides that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” These three provisions establish the “separation of powers” purpose of the Constitution, and they say absolutely nothing about granting any “immunity” to former Presidents.

The Supreme Court has no authority to add substantive legal principles of its own choosing to the United States Constitution. That document explicitly leaves that prerogative up to the people of the United States acting through their elected representatives, via the Amendment process spelled out in Article V. The Court’s ill-perceived “immunity” doctrine for former Presidents threatens the integrity of the United States’ democratic republic, and if that republic is to survive intact, the Court’s ruling must be ignored, and overruled if necessary, by a subsequent Supreme Court case.

Dan D. Rhea  

[1] Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024).