The president is not above the law. The Supreme Court has gone too far.

To: Rep. Strickland, Sen. Murray, Sen. Cantwell

From: A constituent in University Place, WA

July 3

Yesterday's SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity raises concerns. Congress should consider drafting and passing a bill providing legal definitions of US Const. Art. II "official acts" of a president. Section 4 of Article II makes clear that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to immunize the president from "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The Section 4 check on executive power does not deprive the judicial or legislative branches of their express constitutional powers under Articles I and III. In other words, Section 4 cannot be read as being exhaustive. A president is not a monarch. He/she cannot be "above the law." Presidential "official acts" therefore can and should be defined as excluding criminal conduct, including treason, bribery, and other high crimes (felonies) and misdemeanors. A federal law in this regard can provide future guidance on cases under the immunity/non-immunity test described in SCOTUS's decision yesterday. Thank you for serving,

Write to Marilyn Strickland or any of your elected officials

Resistbot is a chatbot that delivers your texts to your elected officials by email, fax, or postal mail. Tap above to give it a try or learn more here!