On Thursday, we acknowledge the 248th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. We call it Independence Day.

The average American’s familiarity with that founding document is likely confined to the first two paragraphs which begin with “When in the course of human events” and “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

Almost everything that follows is an assault on King George III, a litany of 16 charges and another 12 related offenses that served as justification of the American colonies’ demand to be a free and independent people, a people not subject to the whims of an all-powerful monarch.

Many of the signers of that document became the framers of our constitution, helping establish a form of government that, through a system of checks and balances, would assure that no tyrant could deprive us of self-government.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, declared, in direct conflict with the framers’ intent, that the president is a law unto himself. The Court will not check a president’s power and Congress can check it only after the fact.

It is the most disturbing and consequential ruling of a Roberts Court that will go down in history as the most radical ideological court since the Taney Court, which gave us among other horrible rulings the Dred Scott decision that held that Black Americans were not and could not be U.S. citizens.

On Monday, the six conservative radicals of the Supreme Court granted Donald Trump — and presumably every future president — broad criminal immunity. The court found that, as president, Trump was free to use his “official” powers to commit crimes. Monday’s ruling is a staggering admission that the idea that no one is above the law in our country no longer applies to the most powerful person in our nation. The danger is self-evident.

In the broad sweep of American history, there has never been a need for such an interpretation, not even for Nixon, who resigned and was pardoned by Gerald Ford before obstruction of justice charges were filed against him.

Trump, alone among the nation’s presidents, has been credibly accused and legitimately indicted by grand jury of citizens for crimes that include conspiring to overturn the results of a lawful election, inciting a riot to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and unlawfully withholding government documents, many of them highly-sensitive classified documents, after leaving office.

Conservatives say putting Trump on trial is unprecedented and they are correct in saying that. It is unprecedented because no previous president has had such brazen contempt for the laws of the land and the Constitutional restraints that prevent a president from becoming a despot.

The majority opinion is an exercise in judicial acrobatics, a vague and confusing argument that finds a loophole in justice that preserves for the Court the illusion of upholding the Constitution while violating its intent. This Supreme Court has invented a new kind of presidential immunity devoid of any Constitutional basis. Instead, Roberts cites the necessity for a president to take “bold and unhesitating action” without “undue caution.”

Presidents have always had immunity on policy decisions. That’s why Lincoln was not charged with a crime when he suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, why FDR was not charged with a crime for interring Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, why Truman was not charged for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and why President Obama was not charged for approving the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden.

Now, a president can also avoid criminal responsibility for crimes he commits for personal gain and be protected from prosecution even after leaving office. Remember: During his second impeachment trial, Trump’s lawyers argued that senators should not convict him because if there was evidence supporting wrongdoing, Trump could be criminally prosecuted for the events of January 6 after leaving office.

No more.

Monday changed all that.

So we turn our attention to Thursday and what it means to our nation.

As our forefathers were crafting a new form of government, they were wary of an all-powerful executive branch.

Alexander Hamilton wrote that the president would be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” This, Hamilton wrote, is the key distinction between the “King of England,” who was “sacred and invulnerable,” and the “President of the United States.”

Soon after the final version of the Constitution was drafted, a citizen asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

“A republic,” Franklin replied. “If you can keep it.”

Can we keep it?

After Monday’s Supreme Court decision, I’m not at all certain.

Slim Smith is a columnist and feature writer for The Dispatch. His email address is [email protected].

Slim Smith is a columnist and feature writer for The Dispatch. His email address is [email protected].

READER FAVORITES

• 

  Our View: When the chase becomes the danger

  By Dispatch Editorial Board • 19 hours ago