How to Weaken Executive Accountability: <i>Trump v United States</i>

Accountability of those holding executive power is vital to ensure good government, respect of legal and constitutional principles, and public faith in the political culture of the state. The mechanisms developed to achieve accountability must also be fair, effective, and have legitimacy. As Elbridge Gerry said during the debate at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, he wished that a “maxim would never be adopted here that the chief magistrate can do no wrong.” That was the rationale for the inclusion of impeachment within the US Constitution. This article will argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v United States is misguided and offers a broad immunity to a former President of the United States, an immunity that will erode accountability, and reduce the deterrent of the ordinary courts once the President has left office.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Judicial Review
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2024.2421077
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Law, Rights, and Freedoms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How to Weaken Executive Accountability: Trump v United States

Chris Monaghan
1 citations
Judicial Review
Law, Rights, and Freedoms
article

How to Weaken Executive Accountability: Trump v United States

Chris Monaghan
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Accountability of those holding executive power is vital to ensure good government, respect of legal and constitutional principles, and public faith in the political culture of the state. The mechanisms developed to achieve accountability must also be fair, effective, and have legitimacy. As Elbridge Gerry said during the debate at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, he wished that a “maxim would never be adopted here that the chief magistrate can do no wrong.” That was the rationale for the inclusion of impeachment within the US Constitution. This article will argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v United States is misguided and offers a broad immunity to a former President of the United States, an immunity that will erode accountability, and reduce the deterrent of the ordinary courts once the President has left office.

Judicial ReviewVol. 29(4)
University of Worcester (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Law, Rights, and Freedoms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.