On Absolute Immunity 04-29-24
NO MONARCHY
Hey gang,
I’m sitting in for Melissa. She’s in the hospital but hopefully on her way to recovery soon. Please say a prayer for her.
I am a computer illiterate, so I will apologize beforehand, if this all goes awry. Thank you all for your patience and support.
We’re doing a little catch up here, so let’s start with ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
I resurrected the image of Napoleon’s self-coronation declaring himself to be “Emperor of France” seizing the crown from Pope Pius VII, and placing it upon himself, because it fits so aptly into the idea of America resurrecting an all-powerful ruler….
Our Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of a Monarchy. They had enough experience living under the tyranny of an unaccountable monarch, the madness of King George III, to formulate a Republic lead by a president who was accountable to the people.
I placed George Washington in the cartoon because of his commitment to a Democratic Republic and his reluctance to first, accept the nomination for, and then, have the presence of mind to step down after just two terms to set the precedence that the presidency was not a lifetime appointment. It is the perfect foil to Napoleon’s consecration of imperial power.
It didn’t have to be that way.
Colonel Lewis Nicola, commander of the Invalid Corps of the Continental Army is now a little more than a footnote in history, but he sent the infamous “Newburg Letter” to General Washington on May 22, 1782. In the letter, Nicola protested the treatment of the army and the inadequate payment for their services, doubted the intentions of the Continental Congress, and proposed a constitutional monarchy with Washington as King.
Washington recoiled at the thought and immediately and decisively rejected the idea in a letter penned the same day, writing, “No incident in the course of the war in me triggers painful feelings as your message, that such ideas are circulating in the army, as you expressed it.”
Such was the power of Washington’s admonition, that Nicola was compelled to write two letters apologizing for his proposal.
Washington and our Founding Fathers conceived a government, a republic, of the people, by the people, and accountable to the people.
In America, no one is above the law.
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant. They understood that a president and the government would be subjected to the politics of the day, and built a mechanism to insulate both entities from legal diversions that might obstruct the proper governing of government. Those are built within our Constitution. It is the reason the president enjoys a measure of immunity for official duties while in office. Those are limited by a Congress that is bound by a constitutional role of oversight with the powers of impeachment and the Supreme Court to ensure they follow the parameters of the law.
But, those executive powers were never meant to insulate a president from the consequence of extraordinary actions beyond the scope of his official duties, that violate the law. It is part of the presidential duties to execute and follow the law. That is specifically stipulated in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
Clause 8 Presidential Oath of Office
“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
I don’t see anything in the Constitution that states a president is not subject to the consequence of unlawful actions, after he has left office.
It’s a fitting portrait of Napoleon crowning himself and ending the First French Republic. We should be very careful and consider the long-term consequences of decisions based on politics, rather than on their legal merits.
It is even more fitting to remind ourselves of Washington’s wisdom and prescience, and his absolute devotion to our democracy. Washington believed that for a Republic to survive, it must be built upon a foundation of morality.
I agree with that.
Thanks again for your patience and more later…
Have a great week.
-m
Further, don't the various protester groups believe they are above the law? In fact their acts are mostly in defiance of laws, whether it is the CHAZ, BLM, environmentalists, or Anti-Israel. they purposely defy laws to bring recognition to their ideology.
Before using the term "No one is above the law," one should ask what law they are referring to? Is it a fair law, a misconstrued law, one expanded without authority, etc. It's because the nature of humans to use laws to ones advantage that we have a full system of appealing the application of laws. Further, as Jeff Childers, an attorney, points out
...." Like me, you’ve probably heard the media’s vomitous, broken-record jargon until your ears were bleeding: “nobody is above the law.” Really? Is that true?
Let’s start with judges. Judges are immune. If a judge makes a mistake, and an innocent person goes to the electric chair, what happens? Nothing. Even if the judge intentionally railroaded the defendant because of racial bias or for any other reason, what happens? Nothing.
How about Congressmen? Congressmen are immune. If they start a war that gets thousands of Americans killed, for illegal reasons (Wag the Dog), what happens? Nothing. (Critics will yap about bribery. So what? How many successful prosecutions have there been? At best, which is a stretch, bribery prosecutions only show a limited exception to Congress’ broad, general immunity.)
How about City Commissioners? City Commissioners are immune. What if a city commissioner violates citizens’ constitutional rights in Florida by mandating vaccines, and an outraged lawyer (me) proves the constitutional violation in court? What happens to the Commissioners?
Nothing.
How about cops? Cops are immune. At least, they enjoy qualified immunity. What happens if a cop negligently mows down grandma while chasing a teenaged jaywalker at irrationally high speeds? Nothing. Immune.
For Heaven’s sake, the entire government is immune. It’s a concept called sovereign immunity. The only way ‘round sovereign immunity is when the government graciously de-immunizes itself by passing a law allowing certain types of claims against government officials. Otherwise, tough luck, starbuck.
Although his immunity produces extremely vexing results in many cases, it is just as necessary as other types of government immunity. The President is not even an ordinary government official. He’s an entire branch of government. Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the Executive Branch. Under the Constitution, the President enjoys powers exceeding those of any other government official, so it seems uncontroversial that he would also enjoy immunity exceeding that of any other government official.
I mean, through his pardon power, the President can even dish out immunity to anybody else, for any crime, no matter how horrible, even mislabeling checks. Why not himself?
Would I love to see Barack Hussein Obama tried for his crimes? A hundred percent. But that would open Pandora’s immunity box and start the political prosecution train going. Next stop, Banana Republic.
What to me was unaccountably absent from yesterday’s oral arguments was any discussion about the mountain of broad immunities already enjoyed by government and whether the President’s immunity should rest somewhere near, if not right at, the peak.
In other words, at minimum, a president should never have less immunity than every other government official. We put up with immunity so judges can rule without fearing personal consequences. We want Presidents to execute their duties boldly and decisively."