U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D) has co-sponsored a bill introducing a Constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding presidential immunity.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 opinion that presidents are entitled to complete immunity from criminal prosecution for any exercise of their “core constitutional powers” and presumptive immunity for any remaining official actions.
The Justices also declared, however, that presidents do not enjoy immunity for “unofficial acts.”
Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In addition to joining the opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, Justice Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion of her own.
These dissenting Justices argued that the Court was wrong to grant any degree of presidential immunity, suggesting that it imprudently places the President above the rule of law.
The Constitutional amendment proposed by Rep. Pingree and thirty-nine of her Democratic colleagues seeks to reverse this ruling by declaring that no “officer of the United States” — including the president — is immune from criminal prosecution for violating otherwise valid laws.
The president would also be explicitly precluded from granting “himself or herself” a reprieve or pardon.
It is also specified in the proposed text that the amendment would be self-executing, meaning that Congress would not need to take any action for these provisions to go into effect. Lawmakers would, however, be given the power to enact legislation to “facilitate the implementation of this amendment.”
Click Here to Read the Full Text of the Legislation
“Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court undermined the foundation of our Constitution that no man is above the law,” Pingree said.
“As Justice Sotomayor laid out in her powerful dissenting opinion, this decision could have severe long-term consequences and upsets the principles that have existed since our nation’s founding,” she continued.
“This constitutional amendment not only corrects an error of this Supreme Court and protects our democracy, but ensures our nation endures for years to come,” Pingree concluded.
Click Here to Read Rep. Pingree’s Full Press Release
These remarks largely echo those which Pingree issued on X immediately following the Court’s decision in early July.
Pingree posted a lengthy statement to the social media platform in which she explained her strong opposition to the Court’s decision, accusing the Justices of “undermin[ing] the foundation of our Constitution.”
“Public trust in the Supreme Court is already at a historic low, and this term has cemented the current Court’s place as one of the most partisan and extreme benches we’ve ever seen,” Pingree said.
“This is the Supreme Court that overturned 50 years of precedent protecting reproductive rights, struck down affirmative action, and stripped significant rulemaking authority from federal agencies to further empower the Judicial Branch,” she continued.
“Now,” Pingree said, “by expanding a President’s immunity from prosecution for so-called ‘official acts’, the Court has undermined the foundation of our Constitution that no man is above the law.”
“As Justice Sotomayor lays out in her powerful dissenting opinion, this decision will have severe long-term consequences and upsets the principles that have existed since our nation’s founding,” she continued.
“Mr. Trump’s desperate attempt to cling to power fueled a violent insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021,” said Pingree. “SCOTUS’s decision today not only opens the door to absolving this treasonous act but gives any future president seemingly unchecked freedom to commit crimes at will for political gain.”
“It’s a sad day for America,” Pingree concluded. “It’s a sad day for democracy.”
U.S. Sen. Angus King (I) joined Pingree in her criticism, accusing the ruling of giving future leaders “unchecked” authority and putting presidents “above the law.”
U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (R) and U.S. Rep. Jared Golden (D) took a more restrained approach in responding to the Supreme Court’s decision at the time.
While Sen. Collins simply stated that that the Justices differentiated between official and unofficial conduct and that it will now be up to the lower courts to engage in “further fact finding,” Rep. Golden explained that he wanted to wait and see how the decision is applied by the lower courts before “rushing to judgement.”
The United States Congress has not yet taken any further action on the resolution introduced this past Wednesday by Pingree and other Democratic lawmakers.
0 Comments