Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” published in 1776, was instrumental in convincing the British subjects in America to revolt, throw off the monarchy and create the United States of America. One central theme of “Common Sense”: the utter nonsense and even danger of a leader that, like the king, is above the law.
I learned of and became proud of this core tenet of my country as a boy, in my social studies classes, as well as in the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts.
The ruling last week from our Supreme Court is flabbergasting and horrifying. It attacks this key basis of democracy in the United States of America.
The accountability of all citizens, including the president, must be reestablished. The only chance we, who do not have immunity, have is to vote wisely in November for candidates who support this key to our democracy.
— Mark Foisy, Evanston
Voters must prevent ‘checkmate’
Nothing better illustrates how dangerously wrong the Supreme Court’s majority decision on presidential immunity is than the words of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s blistering dissent:
“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he 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.”
For Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts to make this decision is brazen and frighteningly irresponsible, particularly in light of the justices’ own words under oath at their Senate confirmation hearings that “no person in this country is above the law” — the very reason for which the American Revolution was fought. Their decision was an assault on the U.S. Constitution, which they have sworn to uphold.
These six justices know full well the former president’s own dangerous words about being a dictator on “day one,” as well as his actions already taken to remain in power against the will of the voters in the 2020 election, including but not limited to inviting a violent attack on the Capitol and doing nothing for more than three hours to stop it. Surely, they are aware of the former president’s reckless talk suggesting that Gen. Mark Milley be executed. Surely, they are familiar with his authoritarian rhetoric in which he said he would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” if NATO member countries don’t pay their fair share.
The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity has just granted the former president permission to unleash the retribution he has already promised — to be the sole arbiter of his actions. In other words, to do “whatever the hell” he wants.
As in a game of chess, these six justices have collectively made a calculated move: They have put our country and the American people in “check.” Now, it is up to the American people to make their move. All across the country, exercise your right to vote in November in numbers so large as to leave no doubt Americans have chosen democracy over authoritarianism.
By doing so, we can avert “checkmate” on our democratic way of life, in which power remains invested in the people, not in a wannabe dictator.
— Linda Smoucha, Arlington Heights
Presence of presidential ill intent
The Supreme Court’s immunity decision has truthiness. But it lacks depth. The justices ignored intent. Intent is intrinsic to the entire legal system.
They were correct to ignore intent for initial assessments of immunity protection of the office of the president. But consider this example. When men break into your children’s bedroom to take your kids away without your awareness, it might be criminal. It might be a rescue by firefighters. The actions are the same. The core difference is intent.
The proof of intent is the situation — Is there a need to be rescued? — and subsequent actions — Were the children freed after the rescue?
Each president, like all people, deserves the assumption that he or she is acting with good intentions up to a point. Also, official governmental obligations ought to provide additional deference in the form of layers of immunities.
However, each immunity should be able to be pierced when ill intent is found to have been demonstrated by actions and inactions.
For presidents, a finding of impeachable offenses pierces layers of immunity. Subsequent investigation should be able to pierce each remaining layer in turn if ill intent is found with the certainty appropriate for the step in the justice-securing process: investigate, indict, try, convict, appeal, sentence and appeal.
Everyone knows good intent is constitutionally required because the ratification of the document was done by people who spoke at length about high standards for ethical and moral behavior. It’s inconceivable that taking the oath of office was just a nice ceremony for them.
Should we believe it’s just suckers who take the oath seriously? In court, who will argue good intent is not foundational?
The electorate has the right to assume that appearance of ambivalence to truth is not ill intent. However, voters have the obligation to change their minds when ill intent is demonstrated to have abused the authority of the highest office. That change occurred in 2020 for the majority of the electorate, the House of Representatives and the Senate. (The Senate fell short of the two-thirds required to immediately convict.)
Only the Supreme Court, of the three branches of government, has not acknowledged presidential ill intent. Perhaps the justices desire the greatness for our nation of the former Soviet Union central government, in which the ends always justified the means.
Could someone in the justices’ social circle please remind them that didn’t work?
— Christopher Olmsted, Chicago
Founders didn’t want immunity
I am not a constitutional scholar, but now that the Supreme Court has immunized the president from committing crimes, albeit under official acts of the office, the justices have effectively rewritten the Constitution. The Constitution bars the president from receiving any benefit from his actions. This is codified in the emoluments clause. The court’s decision is in contrast and in conflict with this clause. Which overrides the other? The court cannot cancel the Constitution without an amendment. How is this possible?
The Founding Fathers never meant for the president to have immunity. The impeachment clause recognized and anticipated presidential crimes (high crimes and even misdemeanors), allowing for him or her to be removed from office. Again, the justices cannot immunize the president for any reason, but here they go.
Why can’t this decision be challenged?
— Christopher N. Kurby, Bartlett
Signs of cognitive challenges
To those who advocate continuing to support President Joe Biden in his reelection campaign because of his past record, I pose this question: Would you feel comfortable continuing to entrust the health of your family to a beloved doctor who was showing the cognitive challenges that the president displayed during the June 27 debate and the follow-up interview with George Stephanopoulos?
— Jeanne Martineau, Chicago
Let’s emulate Britain’s speed
So the British prime minister asks for an election on May 24. The election is held on July 4. Results are just about the same day.
We could take a lesson and streamline our elections. What a waste of time and money.
— Gary Delson, Glenwood
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.