Senate Majority Leader Chuckie Schumer introduced his No Kings Act to eliminate immunity for presidents and vice presidents.
Who cares about the Constitution?
The Democrats used the Exceptions Clause under Article III to justify its actions.
The Democrats hate the Constitution. They hate the Supreme Court. SCOTUS ticked them off when they ruled that Trump was entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
The No Kings Act puts everything in the hands of Congress and the notorious left-leaning United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Democrats wrote (emphasis mine): “No President or Vice President (former or sitting) would be entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that violate the criminal laws of the United States. The bill would clarify that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal laws may be applied.”
Oh. My. God. That’s not how this works.
Congress writes and passes laws.
The judicial branch determines whether laws are constitutional and how they are applied. It also interprets the actions of the legislative and executive branches.
The judicial branch keeps the two branches in check and ensures they don’t overstep their authority.
The No Kings Act allows only the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to handle any charges against a president and vice president.
The bill “would also create a presumption of constitutionality for the No Kings Act unless a party establishes its unconstitutionality with clear and convincing evidence.”
Chuckie didn’t read the SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS did not give presidents and vice presidents blanket immunity.
The ruling had a specific and narrow ruling. The immunity only applies to official acts and when carrying out “core constitutional powers.” Emphasis mine:
We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient….
SCOTUS even said the president is not above the law (emphasis mine):
It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.
The ruling is also important because the bill says the D.C. Court “correctly concluded in United States v. Trump that former presidents:
It also shows another reason why Schumer picked the D.C. Court. But one could call that ruling a blanket case because it eliminates pretty much everything.
The SCOTUS ruling is narrow and also not hyperbolic.
From what I could tell, the SCOTUS decision does not guarantee Trump will receive immunity.
The jump to assume as such shows how much much Trump has broken the Democrats.
Sad!
The bill won’t even make it to the floor in the House.
That doesn’t matter. The Democrats have become bolder, showing that they don’t care about the Constitution or the will of the people. They threw Biden off the ticket and pushed Kamala to the top.
Also, be careful what you wish for. They obviously haven’t learned anything after they removed the filibuster when confirming judges.
Trump has broken the Democrats so much that they don’t care about ruining the country. I mean, the Democrats have never cared, but they’re so brazen about it now.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY