US Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity

By Jim Denison, PhD - Posted at The Denison Forum:

How To "Keep" Our Republic

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Donald Trump is entitled to “a presumptive presidential immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” However, it added that a president “enjoys no immunity for unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official.” The case now returns to a lower court to assess whether Mr. Trump’s January 6 actions were official or private.

President Biden responded last night, warning that the decision means there are “virtually no limits on what the president can do.” Other reactions were swift and mostly on partisan lines.

However, here’s the foundational issue no court or law can resolve unilaterally: whether the actions of a president—or anyone else—are moral.

Harry Truman acted within his powers as commander in chief when he decided to drop atomic bombs on Japan, though historians continue to debate the morality of his decision. Presidents from George Washington to Joe Biden have been disparaged for actions that their critics considered to be wrong but were not illegal.

The obvious reason laws cannot ensure morality is that we can neither make a law for every ethical issue nor enforce every law we make. Unless people, including American presidents, are innately moral, no human court can make them so.

See also: