Pressed in court, Trumpās lawyers made an argument that would destroy nearly all limitations on presidential power.
ā¦
In a hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court, the former presidentās lawyers argued that he should be immune from criminal prosecution for his role in the attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election. This argument has an obvious flaw: It implies that the president is above the law. Such a blunt rejection of the Constitution and the basic concept of American democracy is too much even for Trump to assertāpublicly, at leastāso his lawyers have proposed a theory. They say that he canāt be criminally prosecuted unless he is first impeached and convicted by Congress.
This argument is no less dangerous, as a hypothetical asked in court demonstrated in chilling terms. Judge Florence Pan asked Trumpās attorney, D. John Sauer, if āa president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rivalā could be criminally prosecuted. Sauer tried to hem and haw his way through an answer but ultimately stated that such a president couldnāt be prosecuted unless he was first impeached, convicted, and removed by Congress.
āBut if he werenāt, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?ā Pan pressed. Sauer had no choice but to agree, because acknowledging any exceptions would have blown a hole in his argument.
ā¦
What lawyers say in court is not the same as what politicians say or will do in office, but no normal politician would allow such an argument to be made on his behalf, especially while sitting in the courtroom. Trump did because his mentality is victory at all costsāwinning the present legal case, but also anything else. Trump has already made clear that he wishes to punish his political opponents, and once he discovers the possibility of some power, he is seldom able to resist trying it. Todayās legal argument could very well be next yearās exercise of presidential power.
Jefferson agrees with you. In one of his letters to Madison he argued that a āgenerationā was about 19 years and that a new constitution should be written about that time period. His quote was summoned as āIām afraid that weāve tied the men of the future to the men of the past.ā Which is rather telling that the guy responsible for the document itself that we still hold up had those ideas 200+ years ago. He knew the framework that was laid out shouldnāt be permanent and that it was flawed no matter what.
Theyāre wildly complex people, and if you just simply read one document on them they sound either terrible or amazing, but the truth was much more complex. For me, Thomas Jefferson was ahead of his time and knew how history would look back on them. They werenāt ignorant just from a different era.