A bipartisan coalition is pushing for lawmakers to signal a declaration to fight attainable abuses of energy by the president within the wake of a Supreme Court docket choice giving former executives broad immunity from legal prosecution.
The “No Dictators Declaration” asks lawmakers to take steps that may stop a president from misdirecting army may, abusing the ability to declare nationwide emergencies, or demanding loyalty pledges from appointees and civil servants.
Led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-In poor health.), the coalition additionally bands collectively teams just like the American Civil Liberties Union and conservative grassroots group Ideas First.
“This declaration is about protecting the freedoms of the people by closing statutory loopholes that could allow a president to exploit the executive power to trample constitutional freedom in liberty,” Raskin mentioned throughout a press convention in entrance of the White Home, saying Congress would want to intervene if the nation faces “a runaway president.”
Whereas the declaration doesn’t title former President Trump particularly, lots of the “commitments to defend constitutional representative democracy” within the declaration handle varied pledges by the previous president or reference his conduct.
The 5 most important pillars that make up the declaration are every centered on decreasing “the threat of dictatorship.”
One appears to particularly name on Congress to reverse the Supreme Court docket’s immunity ruling, saying that “Congress should ensure that presidents who abuse their powers to commit crimes can be prosecuted like all other people.” Although it doesn’t supply a particular pathway for doing so, it notes the constitutional excellent that every one are equal underneath the legislation.
It additionally addresses a failed last-minute effort from the tail finish of the primary Trump administration searching for to topple the merit-based civil service system, making federal workers simpler to fireplace and permitting extra positions to go to political appointees.
One other addresses Trump’s calls to prosecute his political enemies and those that have launched investigations into him. The declaration says that Congress should restrict a president’s potential to “use investigative and prosecutorial decisions and resources to pursue vendettas against disfavored people and groups.”
The opposite pillar seeks to restrict presidential energy to bypass Congress to declare “bogus” home and overseas emergencies. That features the Revolt Act, which permits the president to make use of the army to suppress dysfunction.
“We’re at a point where the American people need to be protected against a president who would be a king, who would be a dictator,” Walsh mentioned. “In the 248-year-old history of this country, we’re here right now.”
Any such bipartisan motion could be a troublesome promote amongst GOP members, amongst whom Trump has cultivated a robust loyalty. A “unity commitment” drafted earlier this 12 months — “to acknowledge the election winner certified at the January 2025 joint meeting of Congress as the legitimate president [and] to attend the president’s inauguration” — garnered simply six GOP backers.
The declaration is the newest in a string of strikes by Democrats and different Trump critics to focus on the dangers stemming from the Supreme Court docket’s immunity choice as Trump has sought to toss his prosecution associated to the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.
The courtroom dominated in July that former presidents retain broad protections from legal prosecution. Executives are immune from any actions associated to their core constitutional tasks and are presumptively immune from all different official actions. Personal conduct, nonetheless, should be prosecuted.
On Tuesday, lawmakers within the Democrat-led Senate will hear from varied witnesses concerning the dangers posed by the Supreme Court docket’s ruling within the immunity choice.
After the courtroom’s ruling, President Biden mentioned the justices “fundamentally changed” the precept that nobody is above the legislation and pressured “there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.”
