The Shining City on a Hill?
Written by Will Wigginton
Published on 11/6/24
Democracy is a fickle creature. When the United States of America was in its infancy, the Founders, who were attempting to escape from tyranny, placed in their Constitution a mandate of freedom and self-governance. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Yet, even though that statement was extremely powerful, it was dripping with hypocrisy. During the time of the Constitution's ratification, slavery was allowed, women were not allowed to vote, and any minority ethnicity was seen as almost sub-human. However, even with those evils present throughout the country, a foundation was established and a promise was made.
America would finally cash in on that proclamation following the Civil Rights movement. But, even with all of the progress that the United States of America has made, many would argue that it has still fallen short of the lofty goals set by the Founders, and I agree with that argument.
On July 1st, 2024, only three days before America's 248th birthday, quite possibly the most un-American Supreme Court case in U.S. history was decided. Trump v. United States was an astronomically polarizing case. It saw our 45th President, Donald J. Trump, with his back against the wall, facing a potential prison sentence. The much-maligned President was on the heels of a loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, which nearly resulted in the destruction of American democracy, as President Trump incited a coup attempt on January 6th, 2021. Following this virtually catastrophic event, Trump continued to desperately cling to power, but ultimately failed, paving the way for the Biden administration to take over the White House.
After Trump's criminal indictment by multiple states and the federal government for a multitude of violations regarding his conduct before, during, and after the 2020 election, he saw no way out except to fight for his freedom by claiming presidential immunity, (which, at the time, was seen as a ludicrous act by many lawyers and scholars) and parlay that with another run at the Oval Office in 2024. He claimed that the Department of Justice's charges against him were a "witch hunt," however, he undoubtedly committed crimes against the United States of America.
Even with clear criminal evidence against President Trump, the Supreme Court of the United States, with an ideological Republican advantage, and three justices appointed by Trump himself (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney-Barrett), decided by a 6-3 vote that presidential immunity would be granted to President Donald Trump. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "A former U.S. President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts."
With no clear explanation given as to what constitutes an "official" act by a president, much of the United States populace went into a frenzy, myself included. As was previously mentioned, the Founders proclaimed independence from the British Empire partially to create a republic to stand alone from the tyranny of an absolute government. The three created branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial bodies were intended to have a thorough system of checks and balances on each other. Theoretically speaking, no branch was intended to be able to usurp unilateral power from another. On paper, it was a nearly perfect system. But no system of government is infallible.
Over time, cracks have started to appear in the armor of America's system of checks and balances, in all aspects of government. Judicial review allows the higher courts to determine the constitutionality of what they are deciding on. On the surface, the concept of judicial review should be seen as a positive check on the legislative and executive branches. However, the "easiest" way for a Supreme Court decision to be overturned is for the legislation to be codified into law by Congress. For that to occur, a 2/3 majority is required to overrule the SCOTUS. A president can also veto laws passed in the legislative branch, however, it also needs a 2/3 majority to nullify a veto, making that act by a president moot in this context.
The legislative branch, which was originally intended to be the most powerful body of the federal government, with the power of the purse, being the metaphorical sword of the federal government, has now taken somewhat of a step back in its governing prowess. The Constitution allows for Congress to establish its own rules, which have gone into affect in both the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively. Although they may be two limbs of a singular body, they have different methods of conduct. Most notably, the Senate has the filibuster enshrined in its chamber.
The filibuster allows for the Senate to create an internal check on the legislative branch. Since the House only requires a simple majority to pass a law in its chamber, the Senate created the filibuster as a way to effectively counterbalance majority rule. The filibuster is intended to delay the passage of legislation, unless a cloture motion is passed to eradicate it. What is required for a cloture motion to pass? You guessed it, a 2/3 majority in the Senate. Therefore, many bills that pass in the House die upon arrival in the Senate, making it an ineffective body of governance at times.
With all that said, the most important changes to our systems of government since the creation of the Constitution have clearly been seen in the executive branch. What was once a position of relatively tame status has now been enabled to wield a scythe across the other branches of government. Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) arrived in office, the role of a president was supposed to be a peaceful deal-maker with its peers--a partner to the legislative branch. However, as a result of the ambiguous Commander-in-Chief language in the Constitution, the role of presidents has continued expanding through the increase in executive orders, the passage of the 1973 War Powers Resolution in Congress, and now the Trump v. United States immunity case. It is not hyperbole to say that July 1st, 2024 may go down as the darkest day in American history.
The Shining City on a Hill has long been a phrase attributed to the United States of America, and for good reason. America has long been the wealthiest, most influential and powerful country in the world. It has, for many decades, truly been the arsenal of democracy, as FDR once stated.
The Shining City on a Hill is supposed to symbolize the American dream. The vision of America is for it to be a melting pot of culture, a mixture of different ethnicities, nations, sexualities, and perspectives. No other country in world history has accomplished what America has. But with those lofty expectations comes the need to produce even better results.
The Supreme Court presidential immunity will be seen as the final crack in the armor of not only American democracy, but of its precious system of checks and balances. Gone are the days in which the president maintains a modest role in government. Now, they can theoretically rule with an iron fist. The reason this has shaken so many people to their core is because of the ramifications behind this possibility. If the United States of America, the strongest country in world history and the global symbol of democracy can't withstand the push toward authoritarianism, who can?