Representative Joe Morelle, a Democrat from New York, said on Monday that he will propose a constitutional amendment that would essentially nullify the recent decision on presidential immunity made by the Supreme Court.
Presidents are immune from prosecution for some "official acts," but not for unofficial ones, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court on Monday. It did not, however, define what distinguishes official from unauthorized activities.
According to The Hill, many who disagree with the recent decision argue that since the president is immune from prosecution for their official acts, the high court has effectively established that they are "above the law." It is still possible for the Senate to impeach and remove sitting presidents who commit crimes while in office.
On X, Morelle stated, "I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse the harmful decision made by the Supreme Court and ensure that no president is above the law." "This amendment will prioritize our democracy, something the Supreme Court was unable to do."
The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of law, thus one of the few avenues to contest its ruling is via Morelle's constitutional amendment. A fresh court decision has the power to modify rulings as well.
Donald Trump, the former president, claimed presidential immunity in relation to his purported attempts to void the outcomes of the 2020 presidential election, which led to the Supreme Court's ruling.
Though some situations are quite apparent, it is unclear what conduct would be formally protected, according to Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz. For instance, the president is protected when he kills a terrorist, but Trump's actions in the hush money scandal were not.
Dershowitz said on the TV program "Just The News, No Noise" that "where we have problems is when [Trump is] trying to, he claims, enforce the laws, but he is enforcing them in a way that the prosecution believes are helpful to him politically." However, the court made a highly significant ruling, stating that considering the president's motivation is not appropriate for determining what constitutes an official conduct vs a personal one. You must consider objective actions.
Presidents are immune from prosecution for some "official acts," but not for unofficial ones, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court on Monday. It did not, however, define what distinguishes official from unauthorized activities.
According to The Hill, many who disagree with the recent decision argue that since the president is immune from prosecution for their official acts, the high court has effectively established that they are "above the law." It is still possible for the Senate to impeach and remove sitting presidents who commit crimes while in office.
On X, Morelle stated, "I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse the harmful decision made by the Supreme Court and ensure that no president is above the law." "This amendment will prioritize our democracy, something the Supreme Court was unable to do."
The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of law, thus one of the few avenues to contest its ruling is via Morelle's constitutional amendment. A fresh court decision has the power to modify rulings as well.
Donald Trump, the former president, claimed presidential immunity in relation to his purported attempts to void the outcomes of the 2020 presidential election, which led to the Supreme Court's ruling.
Though some situations are quite apparent, it is unclear what conduct would be formally protected, according to Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz. For instance, the president is protected when he kills a terrorist, but Trump's actions in the hush money scandal were not.
Dershowitz said on the TV program "Just The News, No Noise" that "where we have problems is when [Trump is] trying to, he claims, enforce the laws, but he is enforcing them in a way that the prosecution believes are helpful to him politically." However, the court made a highly significant ruling, stating that considering the president's motivation is not appropriate for determining what constitutes an official conduct vs a personal one. You must consider objective actions.
