Notes
“Our Nation Has Never Before Needed an Answer to the question of prosecuting a former president”
The Seminal Quote, by Chief Justice Roberts in his Opinion of the Court in Trump v. United States, should tell us all we need to know about how and why we find ourselves in this predicament.
Why, you may ask, has this question never come up in the 250 year history of our nation? We find ourselves in this situation for the simple reason that no president, save Nixon, has ever challenged the Constitution and the Rule of Law as has former President Trump.
It is precisely for this reason that we are here. Trump did not believe he’d lost the 2020 election despite all evidence and official advice to the contrary. He then tried to weaponize the DOJ and other portions of the government to put pressure on the swing states to arrive at a different outcome than the certified popular vote in each state. (He Failed)
When that didn’t work, he then tried to pressure the Vice President, Mike Pence, to go against his Constitutional duty to certify the vote declaring Joe Biden as the winner. (He Failed)
When that also did not work, he summoned the mob to march on Washington DC in a partially successful attempt to halt the Constitutionally mandated certification proceedings. (It Failed)
This was an attempted coup that failed. Trump even refused classified briefings for President Elect Biden in the weeks leading up to the inauguration.
This case would have never needed to be brought were it not for the so-called official and unofficial/private actions actions of former President Trump.
The District Court will now be forced to tease out official from unofficial acts and determine their criminality if any, subject to appeal, of course.
“This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency?
Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.
In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation 42 TRUMP v. UNITED STATES Opinion of the Court of powers and for the future of our Republic. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 634 (Jackson, J., concurring).
Our perspective must be more farsighted, for “[t]he peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.”
