2024-07-01華盛頓 --今天最高法院的六個保守派裁決：在我國權力分立的憲法結構下，總統權力的性質要求前總統在其任職期間享有一定程度的官方行為免受刑事起訴的豁免權。至少就總統行使核心憲法權力而言，這種豁免權必須是絕對的。至於他剩餘的公務行為，他也享有豁免權。然而，在本案的現階段，我們不需要也不會決定這種豁免是否必須是絕對的，或者推定豁免是否足夠。簡而言之，就是賦予總統職位的官方行為享有 "絕對豁免權"，不受刑事犯罪起訴。而且其他行為，即使是那些處於總統公務外圍的行為，也享有 "推定豁免權"，使其更難受到起訴。
這些保守派一向標榜自己是“原文主義者”（originalism and textualism）。首先，憲法原文裏完全沒有賦予總統任何豁免權的段落文字，無論是絕對豁免還是推定豁免，無論是公務行為還是私人行為。現在無中生有，完全是虛偽的黨派行為。
其次，在1974年美國訴尼克鬆一案中，最高法院就一致裁決總統沒有特權，必須服從法律的正當程序和公正的刑事判決。尼克鬆當年就曾經說，隻要是總統做的，就是合法的。當時最高法院就一致否決如此謬論。
第三，尼克鬆被迫辭職之後，繼任的福特總統在給尼克鬆的赦免書中就說明赦免尼克鬆是為了使得尼克鬆避免被刑事起訴所導致的犯罪判決。
第四，川普因為在2021年1月6日煽動其支持者暴力攻擊企圖推翻2020大選結果而麵臨第二次被彈劾，川普的辯護律師和共和黨參議院領袖麥克內爾在參議院辯論時候就明確指出，川普不應該被彈劾的理由是川普已經卸任了，國會彈劾程序不適用了，但是沒有任何豁免權，川普依然完全受製於刑事指控和民事起訴。但是，等到被大陪審團起訴了，川普的律師團隊又180度大反轉向最高法院提出總統又絕對豁免權，因為他們知道最高法院有六個保守派。
果然，最高法院的六個保守派（其中三個由川普任命，但是都沒有自我回避）先是極限拖延了六個月，然後無中生有地編造出一個新的總統享有絕對豁免權的法理。根據如此荒謬的法理，總統可以隨時命令軍事戒嚴，命令軍隊向和平示威者們開槍射殺，命令司法部對其政治對手做出莫須有的刑事指控，甚至可以命令特種部隊暗殺其政治對手，可以接受賄賂，出售官位和赦免書，等等，所有這些違法犯罪都是將不受法律製裁。
一些讀者提出公務員如警察也有豁免權。但是這個說法忽視了一個前提，公務員必須是遵守適用的法律法規履行職責，則可以免受訴訟，如果違反了法規，就會麵臨法律程序，這與六個保守派無中生有提出的總統以職務名義實施的任何行為都有絕對豁免權完全不同。
還值得注意的是，世界上其它發達民主國家都沒有如此荒謬的總統絕對豁免權，也沒有總統在任期內不受刑事犯罪檢控的特權。
這是最高法院在總統權力和憲政問題上做出的最具影響力的判決之一。該判決的直接效果是無限期推遲了對川普試圖推翻 2020 年大選的起訴，這意味著今年大選之前，選民們就無法知道川普在2020大選之後的所作所為，就無法對川普在暴力攻擊國會企圖顛覆大選的違法行為予以追究任何法律責任。
但是，今天這六個保守派的裁決對憲法和美國政府造成的長期威脅更為嚴重，尤其是考慮到川普在短短幾個月內就有可能重新上台的實際可能性，他最近在紐約被判定犯有刑事罪，這隻是他蔑視法律界限的最新表現。
一些人問，杜魯門下令投放兩個原子彈，尼克鬆下令對越南地毯式轟炸，造成無辜平民老婦幼死亡，是否應該被刑事起訴。許多人在這裏混淆了問題。法律界限始終是一項行動是否違反憲法和現行法律、法規和規章。例如美國《憲法》（第 I 條第 9 款第 8 段）禁止聯邦官員接受外國或其統治者、官員或代表的任何饋贈、付款或其他有價物品。川普在白宮對麵公然開了川普酒店，就是屬於違反憲法的行為。收受賄賂，貪贓枉法，將國家機密泄露給國外勢力，命令特種部隊暗殺政治對手，煽動暴徒攻擊國會，幹擾妨礙國會執行憲法規定的程序。。。等等這些都是刑事犯罪，無論是誰，都必須受到法律程序的製裁。
美國在1776宣布獨立的建國理念包括，"任何人都不能淩駕於法律之上 "。從今天開始，這一基本原則已被擱置一旁。就在美國慶祝建國的這一周，六個保守派踐踏破壞了美國獨立革命的初衷，給將來的總統們提供了一個 可以肆意妄為的"無法空間“，朝著恢複《獨立宣言》所反對的君主製邁出了一步。
因為這個可恥的裁決，這六個保守派顛覆了美國的建國理念和憲法原則，美國的民主共和憲政，再一次被踐踏和破壞。
美國最高法院曆史上曾經做出過不少及其惡劣可恥的裁決，今天這個裁決無疑將加入這個可恥名單。例如
1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Oh, the dreaded Dred. The oldest case on our list is also coincidentally the worst. There may be disagreement about the other worst-ever SCOTUS, but nobody disagrees that this one is hands-down the worst Supreme Court decision ever. Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.
The 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution overturned the 1857 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, and the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to all people born in the United States.
2. The Civil Rights Cases of 1883
These were five consolidated cases challenging the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations like hotels, restaurants, and transportation. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment so narrowly that it struck down the Act, arguing that it could not regulate private businesses. This decision effectively ushered in the Jim Crow era of legalized racial segregation.
It would take over 80 years for the Court to switch course, allowing for the government protection of civil rights in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. — this time under the Commerce Clause.
3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): You've probably heard of the infamous concept of “separate but equal." This decision upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. This flawed logic, despite supposedly guaranteeing equal facilities for both races, inherently implied Black inferiority and violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Plessy's legacy is one of perpetuating Jim Crow laws, psychological harm to Black Americans, and impeding racial progress for decades.
Only in 1954 did Brown v. Board of Education finally overturn Plessy and dismantle its segregationist legacy, a stark reminder of the dangers of legalized discrimination and the ongoing fight for a truly just and equitable society.
4. Lochner v. New York (1905): This case ignited a fiery debate for protecting employer interests over worker welfare, expanding judicial power through "substantive due process," and paving the way for the "Lochner era" of striking down progressive laws. Here, SCOTUS struck down a New York law limiting bakery work hours to 10 hours a day, finding an implicit "liberty of contract" in the Due Process Clause.
Though overruled, its legacy sparks ongoing discussions about balancing economic liberty with worker protection, interpreting fundamental rights, and the Court's cautious power to influence public policy in a changing society.
5. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!" the Court declared in this terrible decision. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."
6. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied what is called “strict scrutiny" to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."
Technically, Korematsu was never overturned by SCOTUS. However, its legitimacy has been severely undermined and it is no longer considered good law for several reasons. In 1983, a federal court judge overturned Korematsu's original conviction, acknowledging government suppression of evidence and racial prejudice in the decision. In 2018, Chief Justice Roberts strongly rebuked the Korematsu decision in the Trump v. Hawaii case, calling it "gravely wrong" and stating it has "no place in law under the Constitution." Thus, thankfully, Korematsu has lost its practical authority and is highly unlikely to be used as precedent in future cases due to its discredited foundation and inconsistent history.
7. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): This decision upheld a discriminatory Georgia sodomy statute that criminalized sexually active gay and lesbian relationships. As Justice Harry Blackmun noted in his dissent, the majority opinion displayed "an almost obsessive focus on homosexual activity." The decision was inconsistent with precedent because it denied a fundamental right to privacy for consenting adults engaging in private sexual conduct, even though the Court had previously recognized privacy rights in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception) and Roe v. Wade (abortion). Fortunately, Bowers was overruled in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas, which recognized a fundamental right to privacy for all consenting adults engaging in private sexual conduct, regardless of their sexual orientation. This was a major victory for LGBTQ+ rights and helped pave the way for future advancements, including marriage equality.
8. Bush v. Gore (2000): Shaping the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, this remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in American history for several reasons. The Republican majority stopped the recount, raising potential violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and arguing that different standards for counting votes across counties could unfairly disenfranchise voters. However, critics argued that stopping the recounts altogether disproportionately affected Gore's supporters in those counties. Furthermore, the majority opinion specifically warned in the decision that “[o]ur consideration is limited to the present circumstances," discouraging future courts from relying on any legal holding in the decision.
9. Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Another, more recent case about presidential elections, Citizens United is a household name to this day due to ongoing controversy. It held that political donations are speech protected by the First Amendment, opening the floodgates to unlimited personal and corporate donations to "super PACs." Critics argue this grants enormous influence to wealthy special interests and corporations, effectively drowning out the voices of everyday citizens and giving undue power to a select few.
海闊天空
2024年7月1日
作者的相關文章：
- 美國政治製度係列之一–輸者當選的五次總統大選
- 美國政治製度係列之二–選舉人團的曆史背景和根本錯誤
- 美國政治製度係列之三–選舉人團的辯偽
- 美國政治製度係列之四–選舉人團製度的弊端和改革
- 美國政治製度係列之五–美國眾議院席位的不平等分配
- 美國政治製度係列之六–眾議院席位的黨派蠑螈劃區
- 美國政治製度係列之七–美國參議院製度的弊端及其危害
- 美國政治製度係列之八–美國最高法院的弊端及其危害
- 美國政治製度係列之九–美國民主憲政的危機與改革方案
- 美國總統日 - 最新總統排名
- 中華民國2024大選結果看民主選舉製度
- 暴力攻擊國會1-6事件三年之後的曆史回顧
- 美國的民主指數持續下降淪為有缺陷的民主國家
- 美國50個州，誰是貢獻州或是吃福利州？
- 民主憲政需要捍衛，否則魏瑪重演
- 2020大選到底有沒有大規模選票舞弊
