From the Founders:
Identified as an “acknowledged leader for ratification,” one of the United States’ early Supreme Court Justices (1790-99), James Iredell, contributed extensively to the ratification debates.
Opining ‘Against Presidential Immunity & Unitary Executive theory (interpreting the Opinions Clause)’ — as attorney and author Jed Shugerman describes it in a tweet — Iredell asserted that, unlike laws that pertained to the King of England, “in the republican Constitution, the president is (obviously) civilly & criminally liable, and his accountability should be made clear.”
Shugerman, the author of The People's Courts: Pursuing Judicial Independence in America, reports that his rediscovery of Iredell’s clarification on the subject of Presidential Immunity is so consequential — “highly relevant” as it pertains to former President Donald Trump’s current claims — that it warranted his return to the social media fray after a two-month hiatus.
Iredell, in ratification debates to eliminate potential ambiguities in the Constitution’s meaning, argued that “No man has an authority to injure another with impunity. No man is better than his fellow-citizens, nor can pretend to any superiority over the meanest many in the country.”
Attorney Rejects Trump's Immunity With Resurfaced Supreme Court Justice Argument
Identified as an “acknowledged leader for ratification,” one of the United States’ early Supreme Court Justices (1790-99), James Iredell, contributed extensively to the ratification debates.
Opining ‘Against Presidential Immunity & Unitary Executive theory (interpreting the Opinions Clause)’ — as attorney and author Jed Shugerman describes it in a tweet — Iredell asserted that, unlike laws that pertained to the King of England, “in the republican Constitution, the president is (obviously) civilly & criminally liable, and his accountability should be made clear.”
Shugerman, the author of The People's Courts: Pursuing Judicial Independence in America, reports that his rediscovery of Iredell’s clarification on the subject of Presidential Immunity is so consequential — “highly relevant” as it pertains to former President Donald Trump’s current claims — that it warranted his return to the social media fray after a two-month hiatus.
Iredell, in ratification debates to eliminate potential ambiguities in the Constitution’s meaning, argued that “No man has an authority to injure another with impunity. No man is better than his fellow-citizens, nor can pretend to any superiority over the meanest many in the country.”
