How should we judge presidential immunity when the decisions of the office can carry grave consequences? Written in July 2024 after the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, this episode considers the distinction between difficult official decisions and personal corruption. Historical examples raise the problem of holding leaders accountable without making every contested act a future criminal prosecution.
I examine actions associated with Obama, Franklin Roosevelt, Harding, and Grant, then return to the character and judgment required of a president. The essay offers an argument about responsibility and the ability to act in defense of the republic. It reflects that moment in the debate, not a current account of court proceedings or a claim that presidents are above the law.
Read the essay and sources: https://joelkdouglas.com/2024/07/09/presidential-immunity/
