To the editor: Thanks to Harry Litman and Erwin Chemerinsky for their excellent op-eds on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution.
In reading these articles, I was struck by how the majority relied on the supposed separation of powers principles — not the actual text of the Constitution — to, as Litman wrote, “forbid the criminal prosecution of a former president for ‘official acts,’” and rule that “this immunity precludes any consideration of motive.” They don’t seem bothered by Trump’s past proclamation: “I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
The framers of the Constitution were caught between two extremes from the recent memories of their time: the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation and the tyranny of a British monarch. And thus, we have the constitutional principles of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances.”
I think Justice Louis Brandeis got the principles of separation of powers correct in his dissent in the 1926 Supreme Court case Myers vs. United States: “The doctrine of separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power.”
John Eaglesham, Long Beach
..
To the editor: Litman has been excited about the Russia investigation, the impeachment efforts, then the Jan. 6 committee hearings, and finally the conviction of Trump in New York City. I would say this to Litman: If Trump had anything to do with the trespassing at the Capitol on Jan. 6, he would be in prison right now. As I see it, the reason why Trump is back is because the elites supported an incompetent candidate in 2020.
Mark Walker, Yorba Linda
..
To the editor: I have been thinking about the Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity. If I am to assume that the former president does get elected once more and that he is indeed the “one day” dictator, will his personal Supreme Court sycophants also then undo the 22nd Amendment limiting the president to only two terms, or will they grant the title of president-for-life to him?
Peter Ambrose, Claremont
..
To the editor: Litman stated that “the justices are not, strictly speaking, interpreting any provision of the Constitution but rather applying their notion of what makes for an effective president.” It appears to me that the Supreme Court has overstepped its judicial function in favor of constructing a new amendment to our Constitution dealing with the indemnification of presidents. Unfortunately for the Supreme Court, there is no authority for the justices to take it upon themselves to construct a new amendment. The justices rather have the authority of overseeing the judicial system in the United States.
Therefore, it seems that the justices’ opinion regarding the indemnification of Donald Trump should be declared null and void.
Rick Palardy, Temecula
