In a move that has ignited a fierce debate across the political landscape, Representative Joe Morelle (D-NY) announced his intention to file a constitutional amendment aimed at reversing a recent Supreme Court decision that grants former presidents absolute immunity for their core constitutional powers. This bold and provocative proposal comes in the wake of a highly contentious ruling that many see as a shield for former President Donald Trump against legal accountability for actions taken during his tenure.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of granting absolute immunity to former presidents for their official acts. Chief Justice John Roberts, delivering the majority opinion, stated that “under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office”. This decision effectively sends Special Counsel Jack Smith’s January 6th case back to Judge Tanya Chutkan, emphasizing the need to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.
Justice Roberts sharply criticized the lower courts, particularly Judge Chutkan, for expediting their decisions without fully analyzing the conduct alleged in Smith’s indictment. The ruling underscores the complexity and unprecedented nature of defining the boundaries of presidential immunity, a task that the Supreme Court itself deferred for future deliberation.
In direct opposition to this ruling, Rep. Joe Morelle has vowed to introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn what he deems a “harmful decision.” Morelle’s proposal seeks to ensure that no president is above the law, arguing that the Supreme Court failed to prioritize democracy in its ruling. “This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” Morelle declared on X.
Morelle’s proposal is nothing short of audacious. Amending the Constitution is an arduous process, requiring a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures. Despite these formidable hurdles, Morelle’s initiative signals a profound discontent within certain Democratic circles over the judiciary’s current trajectory and its implications for presidential accountability.
This proposed amendment has already generated significant controversy. Critics argue that it undermines the Supreme Court’s role as the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation and sets a dangerous precedent of legislative overreach. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) warned, “This is a dangerous precedent. We must respect the Supreme Court’s decisions, even when we disagree with them”[^1].
Conversely, supporters of Morelle’s amendment view it as a necessary corrective measure to ensure that former presidents cannot exploit their office to evade justice. Progressive activists have rallied behind Morelle, applauding his initiative as a bold defense of democratic principles and rule of law.
As Morelle’s amendment makes its way through the legislative gauntlet, it faces long odds. Nevertheless, its introduction alone has achieved one of its primary objectives: sparking a national conversation about the limits of presidential power and the mechanisms of accountability in American democracy.
In a deeply polarized nation, Morelle’s proposal represents a dramatic escalation in the ongoing struggle between different branches of government. It challenges mainstream narratives, positions itself as a defender of alternative viewpoints, and forces a reckoning with uncomfortable truths about the balance of power in the U.S. political system.
Whether Morelle’s constitutional amendment succeeds or fails, it has undoubtedly stirred the pot, ensuring that these critical issues remain front and center in the public discourse. As America grapples with these foundational questions, the path forward will require careful navigation, robust debate, and a steadfast commitment to democratic ideals.