More on Presidential Immunity

Earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask some old prep-school chums about something I consider to be absurd: the U.S. Supreme Court’s considering the idea that the president of the United States should enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution.

One such friend, the only conservative in the group, pointed out that presidents have done things in the past, e.g. dropping the first atomic bomb and sending troops into Vietnam, for which he could have been criminally charged.  Such immunity would enable the president to do what he thinks is right, and not be worried about going to prison for it.

An interesting response, to be sure, though both of these examples are potential war crimes, which are prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.  In any case, this seems to be a red herring.  What we’re concerned about here is something quite “over the top,” something that would definitely be, and, in all likelihood will be, prosecuted within state and federal jurisdictions.

In particular, there is ample evidence that Donald Trump tried to overthrow the U.S. government, which, if he had been successful, would have made him a king, rather than a public servant.  Are we saying that this is a valid direction for our nation to take?  Insofar as I don’t recall any mention of the subject in the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine what these SCOTUS people are talking about.