Heather Cox Richardson of Boston University:
Well, let me be clear: in fact, since the founding of the United States, there has never been a major debate about presidential power.
The people who drafted the Constitution and wrote the Declaration of Independence were very clear that they didn't want a king, that it was important to have guardrails around the chief executive of the day, and that it was essential that the president be accountable to the law at all times.
For example, Alexander Hamilton made it clear in Federalist No. 69 that the president could be impeached, could be found guilty of treason or bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors, could be removed from office, and, importantly, could always be prosecuted and punished within the ordinary framework of law, as he said.
They contrasted it with the King. This is really uncontroversial. You know, since 1974, when President Richard Nixon resigned for breaking the law and received and accepted a pardon from Gerald Ford, it has been suggested that President Nixon was aware that a president could be held accountable for crimes.
And yesterday we had confirmation hearings for a number of Supreme Court justices who also subverted that central rule of law by saying they believe the president is and should be subject to the law.
So this is not an issue that we fought for. This is an issue of entirely new developments that undermines a core American principle that we are all accountable to the law. No one can be more. No one can be less.
