250 Years of Independence—But We Keep Electing Kings

250 years after declaring independence from a king, the barrier between President and King has never been more fragile

This Fourth of July—the 250th anniversary of American independence—between hotdogs and fireworks, RSVPs and BBQs, I want to have an honest, difficult, but necessary conversation.

While the blurring between President and King has accelerated since 2016, it did not begin with Donald Trump. Donald Trump—as fascistic as he is—is not the root cause of the decline of America’s democracy. Rather, he is a manifestation of it.

If we hope to protect our Republic and restore democratic rule, it is critical we understand the history of how we arrived at this moment. A painful moment where a sitting President operates with virtually unlimited immunity, his criminal convictions rendered meaningless, his financial conflicts in the billions, his waging of illegal wars unchecked, and the rule of law treated as optional. If we take the time to understand how we got into this mess, we can still deliver meaningful justice, break the cycle, and revive the true promise of an America where justice—not money or power—is our standard. But is it too late? Let’s Address This.

How Did We Get Here?

Some 250 years ago, on July 4, 1776, Americans declared independence from the British monarchy, led by a king who believed he had the “divine right” to rule with limitless power. As Alexander Hamilton would soon contrast in Federalist Papers No. 69, the role of the President was quite different to that of a King:

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution.

And while some might point to Trump’s unprecedented 34 felony convictions as proof that Presidents are held to the same standard as ordinary citizens, on July 1, 2024, the US Supreme Court decided perhaps kingship was better all along with their absurd ruling expanding Presidential immunity. When asked during the hearing whether a President could hypothetically “assassinate his political opponent as an official act,” Trump’s lawyers said, “Yes.” Notwithstanding this catastrophically dangerous world view, the Court voted 6-3 to expand Presidential immunity. In response, dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. The majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

Donald Trump leaves court after 34 felony convictions. Source: AZ Central

In response to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, Trump’s lawyers successfully filed a motion to delay Trump’s sentencing in his Manhattan 34 felony count conviction case—ultimately securing zero sentencing whatsoever. And thus the line between King and President became impossibly blurred.

But the point many in corporate media insist on missing is that it did not start here. This blurring has certainly accelerated with Trump, but the uncomfortable history of how we got here is a story too few are willing to address.

The Blurring of Presidents and Kings

While Richard Nixon was forced to resign from the office of the Presidency after the Watergate scandal, the Presidential pardon he was afforded was undoubtedly a blurring between President and King. Most notably, President Ford’s pardon prevented enforcement of Hamilton’s principle that a President “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Despite eight of Nixon’s officials being indicted or convicted, Nixon himself faced no meaningful criminal accountability—nudging the Overton window to that of a King.

This arguably primed the pump for President Ronald Reagan to know he would face no consequences for illegally selling arms to Iran during an arms embargo in what is now known as the Iran-Contra scandal. As noted, eight Nixon officials took the fall for their boss. But as Haynes Johnson writes in his book, Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years:

By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.

Reagan knowingly violated established U.S. law, a law for which 138 of his own officials took the fall, while he personally emerged unscathed. Does this result sound more like a President “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law,” or “the sacred and inviolable king of Great Britain?”

Again, who can forget that President George W. Bush shamelessly lied to the American public and the world about WMDs in his justification to invade Iraq? Bush’s preemptive invasion set the United States on course for two decades of deadly war, $6 Trillion in money wasted, and no safer as a result. And lest we pretend Christian nationalism is just now taking the country by surprise, George Bush himself arrogantly declared after he launched the Iraq and Afghan wars, “God told me to end tyranny in Iraq.” As The Guardian reported back in 2005:

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, [saying], 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Far from ending tyranny by any stretch of the imagination, Bush’s wars killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians, more than 10,000 American soldiers, and gave rise to militant groups like Daesh who unleashed further havoc on the region. Moreover, 16 Bush administration officials were convicted of criminal activity, with nine of them serving prison sentences. Meanwhile, far from facing any consequences whatsoever for his crimes against humanity, George Bush sits as comfortably as a King in his Texas ranch, painting dog pictures.

Bush delivers a speech to crew onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare combat operations over in Iraq, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. LARRY DOWNING/FILE/REUTERS

Lest anyone think I’m picking on Republican Presidents only, consider President Barack Obama’s time in office. Obama famously executed American citizens via drone strike, faced no consequences whatsoever, and unbelievably argued in court he had “unreviewable” Presidential authority to do so. As the ACLU then reported in 2010:

The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the administration’s asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution and international law.

No charge. No trial. No due process of law. No conviction. Yes, unilateral unreviewable execution. Let’s be clear, demanding the “unreviewable authority to kill Americans that the President has unilaterally determined poses a threat” sounds an awful lot like a “sacred and inviolable King for which there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable.” President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder would later admit that the Obama administration unilaterally killed at least four American citizens. No person in the Obama administration, obviously including himself, faced any accountability. As an aside, this is also why I cringe when people lament, “I miss a President whose biggest scandal was a tan suit.” And the blurring of Presidents and Kings continued.

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/

The first Trump administration resulted in two impeachments, an insurrection, and hundreds of criminal indictments. Yet, despite Biden promising to “restore the soul of America,” his Attorney General insisted on “norms” and refused to take any meaningful action to hold Donald Trump himself accountable for his grotesque high crimes and misdemeanors. Apparently stealing and hoarding boxes of government secrets in your bathroom is “normal” per Merrick Feckless Garland.

The Biden administration was supposed to restore American democracy, end the Trump era, and revive rule of law. It’s what he promised. It’s why a historic number of voters turned out for him. In reality, we saw a President slow walk prosecution of Donald Trump despite having full control of the House and the Senate. A President who knowingly funded Netanyahu as he committed genocide in Palestine, while lying to the American people that he was “pushing relentlessly for ceasefire.” A President whose Secretary of State Antony Blinken knowingly ignored his own State Department reports that admitted that Israel was violating human rights law, and lied to Congress to the contrary. This allowed the US Government to continue to arm Netanyahu in violation of the Leahy Laws.

Then, prior to leaving office, Biden granted blanket pardons to his closest family and allies because he knew full well that Trump would target them. In other words, he gave King-like protection to his closest allies to protect them from the King-like dictator coming back into office.

And now under the second Trump regime, the whole idea of rule of law is a fantasy. Voting rights have been decimated. Trump has grifted more than $1.4B by illegally leveraging his role as President. He has illegally killed Venezuelan fisherman, illegally kidnapped Nicolas Maduro and taken Venezuelan oil, illegally invaded Iran and killed more than 2000 civilians including 165 schoolgirls, and continues to arm Netanyahu as Israel perpetuates its genocide of Palestinians and now Lebanon.

And he still hasn’t released the Epstein Files, despite the law requiring he do so by December of last year. And this is just a snapshot of his voluminous list of illegal actions. This question becomes more pressing than ever before—is it too late for us to return to our founding promise of no kings?

Where Do We Go From Here?

The above list of illegal Presidential excursions is not exhaustive, but hopefully it is instructive on how we got here and the work that remains before us to restore justice.

I am certain this history makes some (many?) of my fellow Americans at least somewhat uncomfortable. To such neighbors I say, first, you’re uncomfortable because you care about our democracy. That’s a good thing. And second, remember that our safety and progress is not in accepting comfortable lies, but in embracing and acting upon uncomfortable truths. Thus, as we rightly condemn Donald Trump for his calls for unlimited Presidential immunity, it is important to recognize that he did not emerge out of a vacuum. He emerged out of a system that has consistently failed to uphold the principle that our Presidents are not Kings with unlimited immunity, but citizens who must “be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” And to reject Trump’s extremism, justice mandates we also reject attempts by other Presidents who violated U.S. and international law with impunity, invaded sovereign nations illegally, and killed American citizens with unilateral authority.

Indeed, after detailing all the contrasts between a President and a King, Alexander Hamilton concluded his Federalist Paper No. 69 with this gem:

What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism.

Indeed, this is what is at stake. Failure to hold Presidents accountable to the rule of law—whether they be Democrats or Republicans—risks reducing our government to despotic rule. Unsurprisingly, that is what we currently face with the fascist Project 2025 expanding its power and reach over our nation.

I’ve written extensively on how we can play a meaningful role in protecting our democracy—get involved locally, donate to orgs upholding justice, support this platform with a subscription so we can continue to elevate research that corporate media ignores. I do this work because I believe in the promise of what America is supposed to be, and I will continue to fight to make that a reality. So no, it is not too late for us to revive those critical principles of justice. This July 4, remember that our nation was not founded as a perfect Union. It is called to become a more perfect Union. It was not founded on the principle of Kings with divine rights, but upon the principle of a President accountable to the people and rule of law. Let us strive then, as We the People, to recognize this truth, to uphold this truth with meaningful action for justice, and build that more perfect Union together.

That, in my book, is what true patriotism looks like, and that is the task before us today. As we reflect over these past 250 years, we must redouble our efforts to uphold true justice and accountability for all people in this country—including for Presidents.

Wishing everyone a safe and happy Fourth of July.

---

As an alternative to a paid subscription, by popular demand, you can now make a one-time contribution to support our human rights platform.

Why Your Support Matters: Every dollar we spend is a vote for the kind of future we want. Help me create a future more committed to justice and universal human rights. Subscribe, and I welcome your thoughts, feedback, and insights in the comment section below.