Former member of the January 6th House Select Committee, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, expressed his expectation that the U.S. Supreme Court will take on the question of former President Donald Trump's immunity from prosecution. Congressman Raskin, who also played a significant role in the congressional effort to hold Trump accountable for the events of January 6th, stated that the notion of presidential immunity for crimes committed while in office is a 'ridiculous claim.' He emphasized that even if a president goes through an impeachment process, it does not absolve them of criminal liability or protect them from future prosecution, as outlined in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution.
Congressman Raskin, a constitutional scholar and former law professor, maintained that a plain reading of the Constitution would lead the Supreme Court to reject the claim of presidential immunity in this case. He cited the 14th Amendment, Section 3, which states that anyone who violates their oath to support the Constitution by engaging in insurrection or rebellion can be disqualified from holding office, unless Congress votes by a two-thirds majority to reinstate their eligibility.
The congressman pointed out that the intention of the Republicans who added this provision to the Constitution was clear. They sought to prevent the most egregious offenders, specifically those who held office and then violated their oath, from ever holding office again. However, it is important to note that these individuals can still exercise their right to vote.
Twitter Post On Supreme Court to decide on Trump's immunity, says Congressman Raskin
Addressing the hypothetical scenario in which the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump's immunity and allows him to be on the Colorado ballot, Congressman Raskin compared it to the controversial Bush v. Gore case. He expressed his acceptance of the ruling, albeit with reservations, citing the perception of right-wing judicial activism in that instance. However, he urged the justices to demonstrate a commitment to textualism and originalism by upholding the plain text of the Constitution, which in this case would make Trump ineligible for future office.
Congressman Raskin's remarks highlighted the importance of this Supreme Court decision in determining the scope of presidential immunity and ensuring that justice is served. The court's ruling will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the former president, as well as for the interpretation and application of the Constitution.
