Frank's Musings

The arguments and jurists’ questions in the 4/26/2024 COTUS hearing on the appeal of the abuse of power trial that has been filed against Donald Trump addressed the proposal that a sitting president of the US is exempt from criminal liability for any of his/her official actions while in office.  In the opinion of constitutional scholars, such as Lawrence Tribe, it is a preposterous interpretation of the Constitution to hold that the individuals sworn under oath to see that the laws of the land are faithfully executed are themselves not obliged to adhere to those laws.

It is no less surprising that Justices on the liberal wing of the SCOTUS wished to consider which circumstances could provide a rationale for such an authoritarian measure to be adopted by the nation’s commander-in-chief (cf. the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by President Lincoln during the Civil War).   Notwithstanding, those liberal Justices seemed to recognize that a violation of the president’s duty to uphold the Constitution may be justified by a threat to the nation itself.  The only thing threatened by an opponent’s challenge to the president’s re-election is personal power, which cannot be identified with the existence of the state. 

It was Louis XIV who declared “L’etat, c’est moi!”  His descendent, Louis XVI, lost his head for continuing in that frame of mind.  I don’t espouse such a punishment for “King Donald;” but our revolution and others in the 18^th Century ended the lawlessness of exceptional rulers.  That is the principle that must be upheld when the Court issues its opinion, hopefully in the next few weeks, well before readers of the National Enquirer tabloid have made up their minds regarding the November 2024 election.