Donald Trump has claimed "absolute immunity" from investigation for misconduct by New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. Fighting in the Supreme Court to block turning over his tax and financial records, Trump now faces the opposition of former Republican Members of Congress and officials, including two time former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman.
The President raised the prospect of dozens of harassing subpoenaes and even prosecutions if the Court upholds the Grand Jury subpoena to Trump's accountants to turn over his tax records.
The brief is well worth reading but here is an excerpt that I thought particularly apt:
Petitioner’s argument that denying immunity in this case would permit states to control federal government operations is weak. Perhaps for that reason, Petitioner also makes an argument of a very different kind: he argues that criminal proceedings of any sort must be off the table because of the stigma they carry.
This is a deeply troubling argument, and one that again reflects Petitioner’s understanding of the presidency as a sort of royal office. The idea that the president has a distinctive claim to be protected against stigma, over and above the legitimate practical demands of his office, is more suited to the principles of an aristocracy than those of a republic. A king, perhaps, is entitled to be shielded from stigma: the person of the king is sacred in a monarchical system, and the law can be subordinated to protect his honor. But the Constitution knows no principle of lèse-majesté. To argue that the Constitution shields the president from even the suggestion of involvement in criminal wrongdoing because that suggestion might call him into disrepute is to afford him an aristocratic privilege to which no American is entitled.
- GWC
No comments:
Post a Comment