Limited Executive Versus Unlimited Executive
Some of the Justices at the Supreme Court seem to be concerned that a limitation on the President's power is somehow harmful to the nation and our form of government. My view is that a limited executive is much better than an unlimited one. This court seems too concerned that limiting a President's power is some sort of danger to our country and form of government.
The danger of having an autocrat in the White House is much greater than a Presidency with clearly limited powers. The Founders understood this, having overthrown a dictatorial monarch when the nation was founded. A President should not be above the law. No one should be.
It is surprising to me that many so called conservatives are the ones calling for complete Presidential immunity. Traditional conservatives want limited government, not an unlimited executive. So what if a President can be held accountable if they commit a crime? That is much better than an unlimited President that is free to commit crimes. An unlimited autocrat is much more of a danger to our democracy than a limited executive. That is what the court should focus on.
= new reply since forum marked as read
