The death of ambiguity
A Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s immunity reflects a debate as old as the Republic.
The Supreme Court ruling on immunity for former President Trump lays bare an essential conflict over the presidency.
The Founders didn’t want a king. They developed checks and balances to ensure it. Yet the Court majority asserts the founders did want a “vigorous” and “energetic” presidency, as described in the Federalist Papers.
In the years since the founding—and especially since the onset of the Cold War—lawmakers, courts, and presidents themselves have been reluctant to impose many explicit limits on the powers of the presidency. The idea being that in a dangerous world, you just never know what a president might feel called upon to do. Those in power have managed this tension through ambiguity, leaving questions unanswered.
This Court ruling takes a different course, which may influence how we think about the people we elect to the presidency. One of the dissents asserts the president can, with immunity, order a military coup.
My thoughts follow in this post for paid subscribers—and thanks to those who support this effort.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Differ We Must to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.