by Claire Wofford
Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Charleston
In a 57-page opinion issued on Feb. 6, 2024, a federal appeals court ruled against former President Donald Trump, deciding that presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while in office. The decision allows the federal prosecution of Trump for attempting to undermine the 2020 election to continue.
‘Divine right of kings’
Trump is the subject of multiple civil and criminal cases in both state and federal courts. He is currently appealing several of them, including one relating to his appearance on the Colorado ballot, which the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear. In mid-December 2023, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the immunity dispute as well, but the court declined to do so, at least until the appeal was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit This particular case involves the prosecution of Trump by special counsel Jack Smith. On Aug. 1, 2023, Smith indicted Trump on four counts of violating federal law for his conduct relating to the 2020 election, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. The proceeding in the appeals court was not about whether Trump committed these crimes but whether he could be prosecuted for them at all. Trump’s argument centered on a claim of presidential immunity – the notion that a president cannot be subjected to legal action for official conduct or actions taken as part of the job. While there is no explicit language in the U.S. Constitution about such immunity, the Supreme Court had previously ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents can be protected from civil lawsuits for their “official acts.” The Nixon decision did not control the outcome here, however, because that case involved a civil lawsuit rather than a criminal prosecution. As highlighted during the oral argument in Trump’s appeal, that distinction – of whether it’s a civil or criminal case – makes a world of difference. Protecting the president from the hassles of civil litigation is one thing; permitting the president, charged in Article 2 of the Constitution with faithful execution of the laws, to be able to break those same laws with impunity is quite another. That sort of upside-down world is precisely what led District Court Judge Chutkan to issue her sweeping ruling on Dec. 1, 2023, that presidents are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. As she put it, Trump did not have the “divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability.” The court today agreed with that sentiment.High stakes
The oral argument before the appeals court on Jan. 9, 2024, was similarly dramatic. The three judges spent over an hour rigorously questioning both sides, and the language was often sweeping. Trump’s lawyer spoke of a president’s need to take “bold and fearless” executive action, to not have to constantly “look over their shoulder” for fear of prosecution and of the “republic shattering” consequences of ruling against the former president. Judge Florence Y. Pan raised striking hypotheticals about presidents assassinating political opponents or selling national security secrets to foreign governments. The lawyer for the federal government noted the “frightening future” if presidents were free to violate the law while in office.
That principle, the appeals court panel wrote, “applies, of course, to a President.” The court’s Feb. 6, 2024, decision will have a substantial impact, at least until any final ruling is issued by the Supreme Court. Trump can be criminally prosecuted for the actions he took to overturn the 2020 election. Whether the case makes it to trial or results in a conviction, what happens to all the other pending cases involving Trump, and whether the former president is returned to the White House, are unanswered questions so far. The Supreme Court will surely be asked to provide some of those answers.“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.”
Claire Wofford, Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Charleston
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
When you turn on the morning or evening news the first few minutes is filled with all the bad news in the world and your area. Innocent people in Israel being ripped apart by hate-filled religious terrorists. Innocent civilians in Gaza are dying every day. Another mentally ill gunman kills innocent people in Maine. A category five hurricane wipes out Acapulco. Congress finally agrees on a Speaker. Surely, we are glad if we are not part of the news story. Being in the news typically means something bad is going on. You don’t want to be in an active shooter situation or being attacked by terrorists.
A friend of mine has said, “I don’t watch the news, it’s too depressing.” Depressing is probably a reasonable word. Yet, be glad that you weren’t in the news because that would be more depressing.
If you are like me, you are probably ready for a break from all the bad news. You can turn off your television and your computer and move throughout your day. Just hope that along the way that nothing bad happens around you. There are crazy people almost everywhere it seems. Drugs are flowing in this country. Drug related deaths are rampant. Violent drivers are on our highways. Road rage violence happens somewhere every day in this country. The mentally ill have access to semi-automatic rifles. Hate-filled people live throughout our country. The desperate and hurting are everywhere. Hate-filled religious terrorists are not just isolated people living in the Middle East. Some of them probably live not far from you.
You can be minding your own business and living the good American citizen’s life and still have something bad happen to you. At every level there is a new devil. It just takes a crazy person to make news happen and unfortunately you can be in the right place at the wrong time to become part of the news story.
So, while many of us are tired of the bad news, let’s try to be grateful for every day that we somehow, by the grace of God, miss being a part of the news.
In his letter to President Biden, Governor Pritzker complained about the “refugees” being bussed to Chicago from Texas and how federal aid hasn’t kept up.
Pritzker rightly points out that the situation is “untenable.”
Immigrants are sleeping in police stations, airports, and temporary shelters, making Chicago bureaucrats scramble to provide food, clothing, and medical care — putting a greater strain on already limited services.
Instead of enforcing border security and upholding the legal process, they are spending gobs of tax dollars for the basic needs for tens of thousands of new arrivals.
While Democrats continue to parrot the “we are a Welcoming City” mantra, taxpayers are expected to pay the price for billionaire Pritzker’s generosity to those future voters who are intentionally skirting the U.S. immigration process.
USA Today reports about 2.2 million without a health exam or criminal background check have crossed the border so far this year. Those numbers have risen to about 8,000 per day. And it’s expected to get worse.
Thanks to Democrat policies, the borders remain wide open. Yet they want us to believe that big government and more tax dollars are the solution. Don’t believe them! They are failing the American people on so many levels, including upholding their oaths of office.
Anyone entering the labor market or buying cars or property this year or next will be highly affected by inflation policies.
Throughout history, sometimes the Federal Reserve, or "Fed," has altered the federal funds rate in the same direction, up or down, over lengthy eras. The Fed has also often left interest rates constant.
An example of the first was raising them from approximately 1977-1980, or cutting them from 1968-1971. An example of the second was over the Great Recession (2010-2015) - which held near 0%. Predictability gives firms expectations, causing smoother shifts in supply and demand without smaller iterations.
However, keeping rates lengthily at the same level can lead to financial instability, from: "chasing higher yield;" savings and investments imbalances; or, from larger policy changes once “shocks” arise. With the pandemic “shock,” political-economic turbulence might still be ahead, and more inflation. The 1920’s economist Irving Fisher described inflation as butter (money) spreading too far over bread (goods).
Inflation today has several culprits: monetary policies of central banks; international conflict; fiscal policies of spending bountiful government money, much of it deficit-financed; labor shortages from workers fearing the virus; and online-bought goods causing trouble coordinating ships or truck entries into ports.
The Fed, while independent, must still align itself with President Biden’s policies, which called for two infrastructure bills. With the larger bill, even moderates have to compromise, and the newly-convoluted idea that lawmakers do not have to reveal their stances makes politics more dyspeptic.
The wealth tax (on unrealized capital gains) to pay for the bill may have been unconstitutional or could have shifted investments overseas. But, raising the top income bracket was rejected, and raising the payroll tax on upper-earners was not even considered. Spending proposals, such as “free” community college, or even scholarships, or my own proposed idea for an ice-breaker vessel for the Arctic’s infrastructure, were rejected ad-hoc in behind-the-scenes negotiations. Hyper-politicized parliamentary rules took precedent over actually voting on amendments.
Undernoted in this debate, and absent from modern economic texts, is the 1960’s "balanced budget theorem," promulgated by economist Paul Samuelson. Increasing taxes and spending by similar amounts can theoretically increase short-term growth, though never attempted, but permitting an inflation focus. Yet, bills sometimes die, and Mr. Biden has not even addressed healthcare yet.
Fortunately, last year’s annual end-of-year budget crises were averted. Perhaps the Republicans saw no need to add “insult to injury,” since inflation hit. As Fisher described, perhaps butter melts faster than bread expands, in our analogy, because money is more liquid than goods, which take time to produce.
Henceforth, Mr. Powell may have lowered rates too slowly before, too quickly during, and to be seen too delayed after the pandemic. Some economists have said these were the Fed’s worst historical mistakes.
With both inflation and held-back pandemic growth presenting challenges, it might benefit the Fed to follow a third course, of short-term changing rates incrementally, from meeting-to-meeting, or quarter-to-quarter, based on changing conditions "on the ground," as military leaders say. In essence, mix the ingredients differently. The Fed did so in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. Instead of dubiously committing to raising rates indefinitely, it might be wise to keep an eye on growth, especially with the conflict overseas, as rate hikes could lead to recession- worse than the current climate.
The economy is now Mr. Biden’s, having re-nominated Mr. Powell for Chair, while nominating Lael Brainard for Vice-Chair, both now before the Senate amidst questions over Fed "insider trading," and whether the Fed should own environmentally-unfriendly assets.
Dr. Brainard could steer Mr. Powell within his newfound fixation on rate-raising. Once set, though, a mixed-method approach, as described here-to-fore, might prove most stabilizing, along with mixing policies between different tools. Also helpful for Fed policy, and for keeping rates low, would be if President Biden’s larger bill were to be revisited once growth slows, even if voted on in pieces. Parts, even those aimed at climate change, could stimulate the economy, especially if some revenues paid down debt.
A combination of all such approaches would ensure that the government gets the upcoming climate right and that the kids get their holiday baked goods just under a year from now, without a recession, but certainly with butter for everyone.
