". . . and having done all . . . stand firm." Eph. 6:13

Newsletter

The News You Need

Subscribe to The Washington Stand

X
News

Senate Dems Try to Annihilate Presidential Immunity following SCOTUS Ruling

August 2, 2024

The U.S. Senate’s top Democrat is moving to strip the office of president from official immunity, contradicting a recent Supreme Court ruling. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) put forth a new bill he dubbed the “No Kings Act,” aimed at undoing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling which stipulated that the president is immune from criminal prosecution in certain instances.

“In a dangerous and devastating ruling, the MAGA Supreme Court has once again subverted the will of the American people, and the very idea of democracy itself,” Schumer stated in a press release. “The Founders were explicit — no man in America shall be a king. Yet, in their disastrous decision, the Supreme Court threw out centuries of precedent and anointed Trump and subsequent presidents as kings above the law.”

Last month, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Trump v. United States, addressing former President Donald Trump’s claims that he is shielded from prosecution for certain acts of his while in office due to presidential immunity. While both a federal district court and appellate court rejected Trump’s arguments, the Supreme Court clarified that the president is protected by “absolute immunity” “with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers,” but only presumptive immunity for his official actions as president outside of his core constitutional powers.” All other actions of his deemed not official are protected by no immunity.

Declaring that “no person, including any President, is above the law,” Schumer’s “No Kings Act” would bring about three changes. First, the Act would declare, “A President, former President, Vice President, or former Vice President shall not be entitled to any form of immunity (whether absolute, presumptive, or otherwise) from criminal prosecution for alleged violations of the criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress.”

Although the act explains that Congress has the constitutional authority to “determine to which persons the criminal laws of the United States shall apply, including any President,” it would further deny that authority to the Supreme Court or any U.S. court, in effect ensuring that Congress would be responsible for interpreting the U.S. Constitution:

“A court of the United States may not consider whether an alleged violation of the criminal laws of the United States committed by a President or Vice President was within the conclusive or preclusive constitutional authority of a President or Vice President or was related to the official duties of a President or Vice President unless directed by Congress.”

Finally, the act says that the Supreme Court cannot “dismiss an indictment or any other charging instrument;” “grant acquittal or dismiss or otherwise terminate a criminal proceeding;” “halt, suspend, disband, or otherwise impede the functions of any grand jury;” “grant a motion to suppress or bar evidence or testimony, or otherwise exclude information from a criminal proceeding;” “grant a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of coram nobis, a motion to set aside a verdict or judgment, or any other form of post-conviction or collateral relief;” “overturn a conviction;” “declare a criminal proceeding unconstitutional;” “enjoin or restrain the enforcement or application of a law;” or “direct another court of the United States to” do any of the above when dealing with criminal charges leveled against a U.S. president.

The bill also stipulates that its constitutionality may only be challenged in a civil action, which may only be brought by a current or former president or current or former vice president. A facial challenge to the act’s constitutionality must be brought within 180 days of the proposal being enacted (should it even be passed), but an as-applied challenge may be brought within 90 days of its application or enforcement. Any challenge must be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which alone has “exclusive jurisdiction” over cases pertaining to the bill. Any case tried under the act may also not be appealed to the Supreme Court.

While Schumer’s proposal would deny presumed immunity to a president, it demands that any “court of the United States shall presume that a provision of this Act … is constitutional…” The Act states, “The Supreme Court of the United States shall have no appellate jurisdiction to declare any provision of this Act (including this section) unconstitutional or to bar or restrain the enforcement or application of any provision of this Act (including this section) on the ground of its unconstitutionality.”

Schumer boasts that the act already has 34 co-sponsors, including Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and committee members Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.), in addition to 24 other Democrats.

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.



Amplify Our Voice for Truth