Joining fellow Democrats in decrying the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, Rep. Joe Morelle, D-Monroe County, has announced plans to propose perhaps the most sweeping measure to counter the ruling: a constitutional amendment.
Decided by the court’s conservative majority in a 6-3 vote that fell along ideological lines, the high court’s July 1 ruling says former presidents have absolute immunity for clearly official acts and a presumption of immunity for a broad range of actions “so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.” However, former presidents have no immunity for unofficial acts, the court ruled.
The case, Trump v. United States, involved the prosecution of former President Donald Trump for allegedly conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The ruling sends the case back to lower courts to determine whether Trump’s conduct related to the charges was official or unofficial.
Congressional reaction to the decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, has predictably splintered along party lines.
Republicans have hailed the decision as a needed counter to what they see as a Democratic administration’s politically motivated harassment of Trump.
Democrats are denouncing the ruling as an unprecedented expansion of presidential power, putting not only Trump but future presidents of either party above the law.
Calling the decision a measure needed to counter President Joe Biden’s alleged “weaponization” of the Justice Department, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, hailed the ruling as one that “comports with the Constitution and common sense,”
In a July 3 statement, Morelle maintains an amendment is needed “to ensure that no president is above the law.” In a letter to congressional colleagues seeking their support, Morelle characterized such an amendment as needed to preserve “not just the rule of law but the very foundation of our constitutional government.”
Biden reportedly is weighing even broader changes. In addition to possibly calling for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the president is expected to endorse term limits for Supreme Court justices and an enforceable ethics code, the Washington Post reported late Tuesday.
Other Democrats have called for less-sweeping measures.
Casting the ruling as a case of “judicial activism unmoored from the text of the Constitution and intentions of our framers,” in a July 11 statement Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., announced a September hearing to explore “legislative solutions to the dangers of this decision.”
What role if any Morelle’s proposal might play in such discussions is not clear.
Morelle so far has not advanced legislation to begin the constitutional amendment process or revealed what the text of the amendment might say. How successful such a bid might be or how long it might take to be adopted remains to be seen.
Asked whether Morelle’s amendment proposal is meant to coordinate with any Senate action, when Morelle plans to introduce it and what chance he gives such a proposal of succeeding, a Morelle aide did not immediately respond.
Given Johnson’s statements on the ruling, whether he would allow Morelle’s proposal to go to a floor vote seems questionable as does whether it would pass if it were to go to a vote. In either case, any new constitutional amendment needs to clear a high bar.
The Constitution calls for amendments to be proposed by either a two-thirds vote of the Senate and House or by two-thirds of the states. To be adopted, amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the 50 states.
The most recently adopted amendment to the Constitution, the 27th, declares that Congress cannot vote to raise its members’ pay in a current session. It was first proposed in 1789 but was only ratified by the states in 1992.
By contrast, the 26th Amendment, which made 18 the legal voting age, was adopted in 1971, some five months after Congress first proposed it.
The Equal Rights Amendment First, first proposed by Congress in 1923 and reintroduced by multiple succeeding congressional sessions, most recently in 1972, has never been approved by the required number of states.
If Morelle’s amendment proposal fails to clear the Committee on House Administration, where Morelle is the ranking minority member, or clears the committee and dies in a floor vote in the currently GOP-controlled House, Morelle could reintroduce the measure in the next congressional session.
However, in the wake of what was widely seen by many in both parties as a disastrous debate performance by Biden, the president and some down ballot Democrats are seen by many on both sides of the aisle as facing tough prospects for retaining the White House and Senate as well as regaining control of the House.
A number of Democrats have called for Biden to step aside, while others are supporting his continued candidacy. Biden himself has so far vowed to press on.
Morelle was reportedly among several Democrats who, in a July 6 call organized by House minority leader Hakim Jeffries, D-NY, called for Biden to step aside. Morelle has refrained from publicly speaking about the call or taking a position on Biden’s candidacy.
Trump, meanwhile, is seen by many as leading in key polls and buoyed by new support in the wake of the failed attempt on his life last weekend. He is also seen as boosted by the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, which has at least temporarily short circuited Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump in the 2020 election case in Washington, D.C., and U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision this week to dismiss the entire classified documents case against Trump in Florida.
Meanwhile, a state Supreme Court judge in New York has delayed Trump’s sentencing in a case in which the former president was convicted of 34 felony counts.
Initially scheduled for this month, sentencing in the so-called hush money case is now postponed until at least September to give Trump’s lawyers time to prepare a motion to have the convictions thrown out in light of the high court’s presidential immunity ruling.
Will Astor is Rochester Beacon senior writer. The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. Submissions to the Letters page should be sent to [email protected].
The Supreme Court got it right. Joe Morelle is a smart man. I was surprised he proposed this legislation which would weaken the Presidency and our country. I wish Joe would have this vocal over the past 3.5 years against the invasion of 10 million illegal aliens because of a defacto open border policy.
Joe Morelle is a posturing politician, not a constitutional scholar. This amendment has no chance because the Founders framed this perfectly. Morelle is wasting the political capital of our region on the Democratic national lawfare attempts to subjugate us all. This is the work of one of the real insurrectionist, and a great example why we need term limits.
Unfortunately the response limitations on this page requires me to initiate a new comment string to comment on Mr. Mars’ interesting take on the Constitution. He seems to believe that, although Congress has the authority to legislate ANYTHING they wish, subject to being over-ruled by the Supreme Court, they should nevertheless restrict themselves to only using the Constitition’s amendment process. Hopefully he can elaborate on why he believes that the federal government can operate under that restriction.
AI? What about the use of Artificial Intelligence to find ways to save DEMOCRACY, now?
———————————————————————————————————
Perhaps, with the aid of computer programs, we can get a handle on this political insanity.
AI may help to find better strategies and more convincing speeches for Democrats, now
I would not be surprised, if Democrats are turning to computers for solutions, right now.
Do any Rochester Beacon readers have any ideas and information on AI, in politics? Thanks
Mr. Mars.
Facts matter. We are not talking civil suits, but criminal felonies, over 80, of which Trump has already been convicted of 34 and remains out of jail on $250,000 bail. Many of the offenses for the charges occurred after Trump left office. The only civil suit was brought by a private citizen for rape, sexual assault, and libel/slander. The last elected leader that tried to overthrow an election and committed treason did serve time in jail. He was Jefferson Davis. No one indicted George W. though he and his VP Cheney, as well as their AG, did not travel to Europe for some time fearing they could be arrested for war crimes, like Pinochet from Chile, by the International Criminal Court at the Hague. They knew that their claims of weapons, yellow cake from Niger, and involvement by Saddam in 911 were all false before the invasion. Much proof, especially the Blair Memo for which Tony Blair apologized to the English people, for the invasion of Iraq. The U.S has never recognized this court as having jurisdiction over American officials. Solar panels, book deals? If there was any criminal activity Trump/Barr could have prosecuted Obama for they would have done it. They looked hard. This administration has only pushed an assault weapons ban and stopping background check loopholes like gun shows. Scalia’s opinion in Wash DC V. Heller, though overturning over 200 years of precedent, does not declare the Brady Bill unlawful or bans on deadly weapons unconstitutional. See Justices Brennan and Stevens critiques of that decision. Scalia also made clear that the reference to Militias in 2A was to government militias and 2A was an individual, not group right. Therefore, time to ban all private armed militias like the Proud Boys. Normally I would not waste my time here, but others not in a cult that read your misinformation should see a factual response.
TOO IDEALIST, Amendment Suggestion by Rep. Morelle
My fear is that Trump will get elected, and insanity will reign in the White House, with Trump.
Right now, I hope Joe Morelle, will continue to urge Democrats to find a replacement for
Biden. Perhaps VP Kamala Harris, can become the first woman president…
Let us pray for the salvation of the nation and for democracy… Thank You, Rep. Morelle …
A constitutional amendment is absurd and will not happen. A two thirds vote is needed in each chamber and then 75% of the states. They cannot get 60 votes to even debate legislation in the Senate, let alone vote on the legislation. What the rogue Court did, immunity, is what requires a constitutional amendment. The Constitution is clear under Impeachment that criminality is addressed and prosecuted separately, the same as any citizen. The Court made it up and amended the constitution. A party would have to take both chambers and could end the filibuster with 51 votes. Right now, 50 Democratic Senators represent about 40 million more Americans than the GOP in the Senate. Same thing with a Code of Ethics, which is already covered by the law, namely the Code of Federal Regulations. A relationship with anyone, or a gift of tickets to a ball game, requires recusal under the law and even the appearance of impropriety may involve serious penalties. Clarence Thomas is up to what, $4 million in gratuities? What is required is a President and Attorney general with the guts to enforce the law. Fearing to do the job because it could look political is a copout and cowardly. What is needed is an electoral victory, rescind the filibuster, and expand the Court. Immunity and much more would then be reversed.
The decison by the right wing majority on the Supreme Court in this case ranks right up there with the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v Ferguson. The lack of specificity (indeed the impossibility of specificity) in defining “official acts” versus “official actions” versus “unofficial actions” give any president free rein, or should I say free “reign”, to do as he or she pleases, leaving it up to future courts to try to make sense out of the Roberts courts’ abrogation of their duty to provide the People with equal justice under the law.
That being said, while a constitutional amendment might resolve some of the difficulties created by the Supreme Court, the odds of one ever obtaining the necessary 2/3 assent in the House and Senate, and being ratified by 3/4 of the states is approxinately equal to the odds that Donald Trump will ever cease to be an embarrassment to the nation.
At least Mr Morelle seems to understand our legal system. Courts “interpret” the law . The Legislature/Congress make the law. (Many in his party don’t seem to understand this) . It is ironic, that advocates of the Biden Admin are opposed to this Court decision. It seems to be within the bounds of common sense that there would be some level of immunity for a President. Otherwise you could tie them up in litigation until the cows come home. For example, agree or not, this Administration has let illegal immigrants and fentanyl flood across our southern border. If you unfortunately had a close relative killed by either one , without Presidential immunity you’d have grounds to bring a lawsuit against the President (and there would be thousands of examples of this or similar cases). I also suspect, that when Mr Biden leaves office, if a over zealous prosecutor wanted a former Presidential legal scalp, Mr Biden would be the first to use this Court ruling in his defense. (Similar to how this Administration is critical of, and does everything to undermine the 2nd amendment, yet when Hunter Biden was pursued on gun related charges, the first defense by his legal team was the 2nd Amendment). Conclusion: This is simply political posturing in a election year. No laws or amendments will proceed from this.
For 248 years no President has been “tied up” after they left office without immunity.
See Federalist Papers 69 and no kings. Judges do not get to make up the law because it is common sense in their view. Illegal immigrants are denied entry or deported when found. Those claiming asylum who pass background checks are treated as the law requires. No Executive or legislator has been prosecuted because people broke the law and they “let it happen.” This Administration has stopped and confiscated more fentanyl than the previous one. Much of the fentanyl comes from China to Mexico and Canada under the “De minimis Rule” which allows any package the shipper declares is valued under $800(per person, per day) cannot be inspected by Customs or Postal Inspectors. We finally have some Republicans agreeing with Dems to rescind this rule. No one can find anyone prosecuted for false info on a gun application unless that gun was used in a felony, let alone never fired and disposed of in days. Hard to believe this administration “does everything to undermine the 2nd Amendment” when we now have 500 million guns and gun deaths have replaced accidents, leukemia, and juvenile diabetes as the number cause of death for those 18 and under. GOP talking points are often not facts.
You make my point again. We have the right to own legal firearms. It’s clear that this Administration doesn’t accept this. What ever statistic dejour you site doesn’t justify removing this right from people. The only justification for attenuating this right would be a law passed by Congress or a repeal/modification of the Second Amendment.(and that’s what the Courts are basing their rulings on) As far as “tying up” a former President, we certainly saw this with the lawfare applied to Mr. Trump in several cases. There was serious talk at the time to extradite and prosecute former President W Bush for actions in Iraq. If this is the way the game is going to be played, then folks like myself would insist on going after all Presidents (not just Republicans targeted by the largely Democrat employees of the Beltway Administrative State) , specifically President Obama for targeting and eliminating a American citizen in the Middle East via drone attack and FISA Court abuses for starters (his Administration when challenged never denied they had the authority to take out people via drones within the United States). Tying Mr Obama up in lawsuits would put a dent in all of that book deal and Netflix revenue or funding solar panels on the Martha’s Vinyard house. The founders stipulated a process of Impeachment and Removal as the remedy, not perpetual lawsuits for daily Presidential decisions. BTW, this Court decision would of never come to pass if the Democrat led kabal in the Justice system hadn’t decided to use their offices in a political prosecution. So I again praise Congressman Morelle for having at least a High School understanding of civics in that if you want to make lasting changes to how we are governed, you have to pass a Constitutional law in Congress and have the President sign it. Our Courts today will affirm that.
Perhaps a reading of part of the Supreme Court’s decision in DC v Heller in 2008 is in order. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…” Today no law-abiding citizen in America is denied the right of firearm ownership for defense or even for their “entertainment” if that’s how they get their jollies. Anyone so inclined can purchase all the firearms their particular level of paranois requires. Nor is this administration trying to take away of those rights. What is being advocated is a restriction on certain classes of weapons whose purpose is offense, not defense. We have today an estimated 120 privately-owned firearms in this country for every 100 residents. A far higher number if we count only adults. Do you wish to claim that we are twice as safe today as we were when there were only 60 such weapons per 100 residents?
Oh, as to fentanyl and those “illegals”, even the far right Cato Institiute knows that’s a crock, having reported in 2022 that, “Fentanyl Is Smuggled for U.S. Citizens By U.S. Citizens, Not Asylum Seekers”.
Thank you Sir for also making my point. Congress can mandate limits via LEGISLATION (not siting some statistic and demanding a Court decision in response) . Again I would complement Congressman Morelle for following the Constitution to pursue his remedy.