What’s missing from the concerned reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity certainly has many troubling implications, but what seems absent from the reaction to the decision is the many powerful, non-violent checks that remain in place on presidential power, including checks held by the business community.

Yes, a U.S. President might try to wrongfully prosecute perceived enemies, but judges can dismiss such cases, and juries can nullify them.

Yes, a U.S. President might now try to use the military for illegitimate purposes, but officers and enlisted soldiers can refuse to follow orders they deem unlawful or unconstitutional.

Yes, a U.S. President may now feel they can engage in any number of other behaviors that reasonable observers would deem illegal and/or immoral, but the U.S. business community, including defense contractors, can refuse to fulfill or enter into contracts with the U.S. government, cutting it off from services and supplies and effectively isolating it.

And, ultimately, of course, the most effective response to constitutional law decisions the public disagrees with is to hold a constitutional convention and to draft a new or revised U.S. Constitution that offers greater precision and clarity on important issues.

Part of the problem with our legal system is that our source code, the Constitution, simply has too much ambiguity, which enables inventive, unexpected decisions like yesterday’s immunity opinion. Having an imprecise U.S. Constitution is like having a bad, incomplete contract that hasn’t anticipated potential loopholes or bad behavior and preempted such conduct.

As always, we have many options to respond in constructive, non-violent ways to perceived injustices, and the only real limits on our responses are our own creativity and willingness to act.