This Whole King Trump Thing Is Getting Awfully Literal - Jamelle Bouie
Donald Trumps claim that he has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy: that no man is above the law.
More astonishing than the former presidents claim to immunity, however, is the fact that the Supreme Court took the case in the first place. Its not just that theres an obvious response no, the president is not immune to criminal prosecution for illegal actions committed with the imprimatur of executive power, whether private or official (a distinction that does not exist in the Constitution) but that the court has delayed, perhaps indefinitely, the former presidents reckoning with the criminal legal system of the United States.
This is nonsense. In a detailed amicus brief submitted in support of the government in Trump v. United States, 15 leading historians of the early American republic show the extent to which the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution rejected the idea of presidential immunity for crimes committed in office.
Although the framers debated a variety of designs for the executive branch ranging from a comparatively strong, unitary president to a comparatively weaker executive council they all approached the issues with a deep-seated, anti-monarchical sentiment, the brief states. There is no evidence in the extensive historical record that any of the framers believed a former president should be immune from criminal prosecution. Such a concept would be inimical to the basic intentions, understandings, and experiences of the founding generation.
Full article at The New York Times - gift link