A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”
Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.
“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.
In referring to Donald Trump, Morelle said the former president “must be held accountable for his decisions. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and stand with me on the front line to protect our democracy.”
It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions take within their official duties — a decision that throws into doubt the Justice Department’s cases against Trump, including his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump and his allies celebrated the ruling by the court, which includes three justices appointed by the former president, and his legal team immediately moved to delay sentencing for his felony conviction in an unrelated hush money case in New York state court that had been scheduled for next week. The judge agreed to push off the sentencing until fall.
The outcome all but ensures the federal cases against Trump will not be resolved before the November election when he faces a likely rematch with President Joe Biden.
While the constitutional amendment process would likely take years, and in fact may never come to fruition, supporters believe it is the most surefire way, even beyond a new law, to enshrine the norm that presidents can face consequences for their actions.
“This amendment will guarantee that no public officer of the United States — including the president — is able to evade the accountability that any other American would face for violating our laws,” Morelle wrote in a letter to colleagues this week.
He quoted from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who led the dissent, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who joined in dissenting, before summing up his in his own words: “Presidents are citizens, not tyrants.”
Another Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said Monday she planned to file articles of impeachment against the justices over the ruling, which she said represents “an assault on American democracy.”
“It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture,” Ocasio-Cortez said on social media. “I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”
Congress can launch the constitutional amendment process and then send it to the states for ratification. Such a resolution takes a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which is highly unlikely at this time of divided government, and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
So far, there have been 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
Making such a thing retroactive would seem to be a human rights violation. But if that is what the Democrats want, then that would mean (for one example) that Obama himself would be subject to indictment for murder (the U.S. has no statute of limitations on murder) for – one example – the targeted assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011 in Yemen.
Typical leftism at play here.
You don’t get your way, so change force yourself.
Democracy [according to leftists] is only relevant and true so long you hold their beliefs, the second you hold beliefs other than leftist ideals, you are a “danger to democracy”.
I’d like to remind the illustrious Congressperson that the Senate rule which certifies Judges (SCOTUS and otherwise) with a simple majority of 51 votes was implemented by the Dems and has since caused them much grief. You reap what you sow.
Good idea. Then they can prosecute Biden and Obama (among others) for taking money from the Treasury to hand out as patronage, bypassing the requirement that only the Congress can authorize expenditures of government money. And they can prosecute former presidents for signing administrative agreements with foreign countries that cost the taxpayers money, rather than submitting them to the Senate for ratification. Think of all the money the can be saved if they don’t have to pay pensions to former presidents since they will be convicted felons, and how much more efficient for the Secret Service if they can keep the presidents locked up in one place.
georgeg, the idea of prosecuting 0bama for ordering a military strike on an enemy of the USA is not only ludicrous, it borders on treason. The US military, under the president’s command, has the right and the duty to wage war, which means to kill the enemy wherever he may be found. The USA was at war, this person was an enemy soldier, therefore he was a legitimate target; nothing more is needed.
And the military is not responsible to the civilian criminal court system, and cannot be made to justify its decisions on who is an enemy. If you get your way then every enemy soldier on the battlefield will be entitled to a trial with due process before being shot!
The idea that an enemy is somehow immune from being killed just because he holds a US passport is just bizarre. This has NEVER been the case, and nobody has ever even suggested such a bizarre idea until now. We don’t inquire into enemy soldiers’ citizenship, because it doesn’t matter and has never mattered. In every war, from the Revolution on, we have killed enemies who held US citizenship. And nobody has suggested we shouldn’t. So how is Awlaki different?