OPINION:
Despite arguments from Donald Trump’s detractors in both parties, the Supreme Court in its Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803 ruled that Secretary of State James Madison could not be held liable for political and even illegal conduct of his office in a matter that was discretionary.
Furthermore, under the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution, members of the legislative branch are immune from liability for anything they say in furtherance of a legislative agenda. Notably, the judicial branch enjoys judicial immunity.
Why, then, would a president of the United States, who is conspicuously never off duty and always responding in a manner that is likely to have political implication, be entitled to any lesser level of immunity in the conduct of his office?
Rooted in the constitutional requirement for a separation of powers, immunity is a safeguard against one branch of government interfering in the conduct of the other branches, regardless of whether the interference is from one administration to another, as it was with James Madison, or in the case of former President Donald Trump.
WILLIAM T. FIDURSKI
Clark, New Jersey
