The decision in Trump v United States (Immunity Question) is beyond the pale in the application of rule of law.  This court, when convenient, apply original intent and powers (Dobbs); and when not they ignore original intent. In place, they create history through selective incorporation of the framers’ words. Chief Justice Roberts used Hamilton’s words in Federalist 70 about an “energetic presidency” as justification for the granting of absolute immunity on Presidential actions to keep Presidents from hesitating in taking action.  Duh, legal limits should always cause pause before any government official takes action.  Roberts conveniently ignored Hamilton’s assertion in Federalist 69’s that Presidents can be checked through criminal prosecution.

I have the read the decision and found Justice Sotomayor’s warning in her dissent chilling.  She wrote:

“When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

This court is banking on Biden’s decency to not act as Trump acted. There is no longer any check on the President short of impeachment and removal. A check that has always been thwarted by party politics.

During the Ratification Debates, Patrick Henry warned us on this very thing in 1788 at the Virginia Ratification Convention. Henry said, “If your American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and, if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him; and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, Sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely, and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion, have a King, Lords, and Commons, than a Government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a King, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them: But the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I cannot with patience, think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: He shall come at the head of his army to “carry every thing before him; or, he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne?“

The most chilling warning came from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington in 1792 in a note (Enclosure: [Objections and Answers Respecting the Administrati … (archives.gov).  Hamilton described the kind of person that could bring the country to ruin. 

Hamilton wrote: When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, [possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits]2 —despotic in his ordinary demeanor —known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty —when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity —to join in the cry of danger to liberty —to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion —to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day —It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’

Lastly, this Court has always had a problem with history.  In particular, most of its 2nd Amendment and the Dobbs decisions were historically problematic.  There were two briefs filed under this suit that featured the very history that should have been used as foundations in the historical context.  They are each sourced and explained in pretty plain language.  I would recommend reading both.

Constitutional Law Scholars Amici Curiae: Microsoft Word – Trump Immunity Amicus Brief FINAL FOR FILING (supremecourt.gov)

Amici Curiae Scholars of the Founding Era In Support of Respondent: 20240408173320339_23-939 Brief.pdf (supremecourt.gov)

In the end there is in reality only one solution…vote.  Vote as if our republic depends on each person to perform their civic duty to become informed and cast a vote based on knowledge.