They rolled the bones — the die was cast — six anointed a king.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, requires presidents to: “be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to law.” Article 14 requires “equal protection of the law.”
Article 3 Section 2: “Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, and laws of the United States…” Without a finding of conflict in law or equity SCOTUS’ power is ended. SCOTUS made no such finding — our Constitution stands.
And, Article 3 limits judicial power to cases arising under the Constitution, and laws of the United States. Presidential immunity is found in neither; SCOTUS overstepped its granted power.
Justice Alito asked, “If an incumbent loses a very close, hotly contested election … will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”
A very biased political question. However, Article 3 Section 2 limits SCOTUS power to law and equity. Granting immunity belongs to Congress, per Article 1 of our Constitution. Only Congress, by amendment, and the consent of the governed, may grant presidential immunity or release a president from Article 14 equity.
How are judicial officials to react to this ruling? Article 3 does not grant SCOTUS power to entertain presidential immunity; Article 1 denies presidential immunity and, amendment 14 requires equal protection.
Must we simply ignore an unconstitutional action that conflicts with consent of the governed, granted power, separation of powers and both law and equity?
Vote. Vote to save your republic, your Constitution and consent of the governed.
K. Ellis Davis, Salt Lake City