Is the "No Kings Act" a Threat to the Constitution?

Introduction

The "No Kings Act" has been introduced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, with significant support from his Democratic colleagues. The act is seen as a legislative attempt to reverse the ruling in Trump v. United States. While it has been well-received by the media and commentators, there are concerns that it is entirely unconstitutional.

The "No Kings Act" and the Constitution

The "No Kings Act" is not just seen as a strategic move by Democrats, but also as a potential threat to the Constitution. There have been previous discussions on the false claims made about the Supreme Court’s decision by President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other leading democrats. The coverage of the act by the press and commentators has reached a new level of sensationalism.

Understanding the Trump Decision

The Court, in fact, rejected the most extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower courts. It adopted a three-tiered approach to presidential powers based on the source of a presidential action. The court held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.

The No Kings Act: A Cynical Approach?

While the coverage of the act has been inaccurate, the No Kings Act is seen as cynically dishonest. President Joe Biden was honest in proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision in Trump. However, that proposal was dead on arrival in Congress. The Democrats are now seeking to circumvent that process with simple majority votes with the No Kings Act.

Understanding the No Kings Act

The No Kings Act is more than just a jurisdiction-stripping measure. It aims to dictate the outcome of future cases. It declares that a President or Vice President is not entitled to any form of immunity from criminal prosecution for violations of the criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress. This contradicts the opinion in the next section that states that a President, former President, Vice President, or former Vice President shall not be entitled to any form of immunity from criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress.

The Death of Marbury?

The Democrats insist that they are merely changing the jurisdiction of the Court and not ordering outcomes. However, this is meant to “reaffirm that the President is not immune to legal accountability.” The greatest irony is that the Democrats are practically reverting to the position of critics of Marbury v. Madison, who argued that the Supreme Court should not be the final arbiter of what the law means. This principle has been the touchstone of American law since 1803, but the Democrats would now effectively revert to the English approach under the guise of jurisdiction stripping legislation.

Conclusion

The No Kings Act would constitute a radical change in our constitutional system to allow popular justice to be meted out through legislative fiat. This is a curious position for the party that claims to be defending the rule of law. The senators willing to adopt this Constitution-destroying measure include Chuck Schumer, Mazie Hirono, Brian Schatz, Ben Ray Luján, Jack Reed, Richard Blumenthal, Tom Carper, Peter Welch, John Hickenlooper, Bob Casey, Chris Coons, Jeanne Shaheen, Tammy Baldwin, Jeff Merkley, Ben Cardin, Dick Durbin, Elizabeth Warren, Patty Murray, Chris Van Hollen, Ed Markey, Tammy Duckworth, Amy Klobuchar, Laphonza Butler, Sheldon Whitehouse, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Ron Wyden, Angus King, Martin Heinrich, Debbie Stabenow, Alex Padilla, Gary Peters, and Raphael Warnock.

Bottom Line

The "No Kings Act" has sparked a significant debate about the balance of power and the role of the Supreme Court in American society. It raises important questions about the nature of our democracy and the future of our constitutional system. What are your thoughts on this controversial act? Share this article with your friends and join the discussion. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.