Note: The following came in from a Wyoming voter. While we attempt to share work that reflects the WDP platform, you may come across some words that are not exactly what WDP would have written. Perhaps you will agree with what you read below, perhaps not. Your mileage may vary. -wdp
The Supreme Court, as the premier institution of justice and arbiter of the Constitution, serves an immensely impactful role within our Republic. Their role is as difficult as it gets: deciding the constitutionality of incredibly complex issues without expecting any sort of positive compensation in return. In recent years, though, confidence in the Court has declined precipitously, and for good reason. Mired by corruption scandals and a series of decisions scaling back long-held precedent and rights previously viewed as immutable or safe from judicial legislating, the Court has continuously positioned itself away from precedent and constitutional norms. Recently, the Court has, once again, placed itself squarely on the wrong side of history.
In its ruling granting former President Trump, and theoretically all presidents, immunity from the rule of law over “official acts” taken while in office, the Court has fundamentally restructured the institution of the presidency for the worse. In its complete disregard for history and the ideals of the Founders, the Court has, in essence, declared the president a king above the people rather than a servant among them. This is not just foolish and dubiously legitimate at best, it is dangerous.
The majority of the Court has done backflips to try and justify their ruling all the while contradicting themselves along the way. In one sentence, Chief Justice John Roberts says “the president is not above the law,” and immediately declares in the next that they “may not be prosecuted” for certain official acts and are “entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution” for such acts. He does this while simultaneously failing to define what constitutes “official” versus “private” acts. One cannot be “immune” to the consequences of the law and, at the same time, equal to their fellow citizens before it. Equality before the law means there is no special exception because of one’s position or status. Such a contradiction cannot exist and should not exist for anyone within our country, let alone the most powerful individual. The president should fear accountability, not feel entitled to do whatever they please due to the assured absence of it.
As Theodore Roosevelt once said, “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we require him to obey it.” This should be as true for presidents just as it is for you and me. I, for one, wish to be on record that I am in agreement with the principle laid by the Founders of our country and the American heroes who have defended it for nearly 250 years: presidents are not kings, for they are bound by the rule of law as are the people.
In response to the Court’s divergence from that principle, the Constitution must be amended to declare that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States. Until such an amendment materializes, I join Justice Sonia Sotomayor in solemnly declaring, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
Keenan Morgan
Bar Nunn, WY
Leave a Reply