THE CORE CONTRADICTION
The Supreme Court of the United States routinely grounds its constitutional reasoning in English common law, the Glorious Revolution settlement, and the anti‑absolutist tradition that shaped the Founders.
But that tradition is explicitly built on the idea that:
No ruler is above the law.
The King can commit a crime.
And the people may hold him to account.
The trial of Charles I in 1649 is the founding case for this principle.
So when the modern Court suggests that a president, acting in his “official duties,” may be immune from criminal prosecution, it is in direct tension with the very legal tradition it claims to inherit.
1. What English constitutional history actually says
A. Charles I was put on trial for abusing the powers of his office
The charge against Charles I was not personal misconduct.
It was official misconduct:
- waging war against Parliament
- violating the rights of English subjects
- governing without consent
- using state power for personal and factional ends
The indictment literally says he acted:
“against the liberty, peace, and safety of the people of this nation.”
This is the opposite of the idea that “official acts” are immune.
B. The trial established a new constitutional rule
The court declared:
“The King is not a person, but an office;
and the office is accountable to the people.”
This is the birth of the modern idea that public power is a trust, not a personal shield.
C. The Glorious Revolution (1688) reaffirmed it
The Bill of Rights 1689 codified that the monarch:
- cannot suspend laws
- cannot dispense with laws
- cannot levy taxes without consent
- cannot maintain standing armies without consent
These are criminal abuses of office, not private acts.
The entire English constitutional tradition is built on the idea that official power is the most dangerous kind of power — and therefore the most accountable.
2. What the U.S. Founders took from this tradition
The Founders explicitly cited:
- the trial of Charles I
- the Bill of Rights 1689
- the anti‑absolutist common‑law tradition
They believed:
The President is not a king.
The President is accountable to law.
Hamilton in Federalist 69:
“The President would be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
Madison in the Convention debates:
“No man is above justice.”
The Founders rejected the idea of an immune executive.
3. So how does the modern Supreme Court justify immunity?
The Court’s recent reasoning rests on two moves:
A. Reframing “official acts” as categorically protected
The Court argues that if an act is:
- within the “outer perimeter” of presidential duties,
- even if abusive,
- even if criminal in effect,
then prosecution may be barred.
This is not an English common‑law principle.
It is a 20th‑century invention (mostly from civil immunity cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald).
B. Treating the presidency as a structurally fragile office
The Court claims that allowing prosecution for official acts would:
- chill presidential decision‑making
- invite political retaliation
- destabilize the executive branch
This is the exact argument Charles I made in 1649:
“A King cannot be tried by any earthly power.”
Parliament rejected it.
The Founders rejected it.
The Court is now reviving it.
4. The historical tension in one sentence
English constitutional history says:
“Official power is the most accountable power.”
The modern Court says:
“Official power may be the least accountable power.”
These two positions cannot be reconciled.
If the Supreme Court wants to stand in the English common‑law tradition, it cannot claim that a president acting in his official capacity is immune from criminal law — because the entire tradition begins with the execution of a king for crimes committed in the performance of his office.
And the kicker:
If Charles I could be tried for abusing public power, the idea that a modern president cannot be is not “tradition” — it is a break from tradition.
By vapac
No comments :
Post a Comment