On: Supreme court nears the end of its term with cases about Donald Trump’s power to

The Supreme Court’s deliberations on the scope of presidential power strike at the very heart of what we have fought to build - a government of laws, not men. That this question should even arise, that a single individual’s claims to unchecked authority should require judicial review, is itself a condemnation of our moment.

I have seen this before - the slow erosion of restraint, the gathering of power into fewer hands, the insistence that necessity demands exception. The argument is always the same: that danger justifies the suspension of principle, that the ship of state must sometimes be steered by a single hand lest it founder. But who defines the danger? Who measures the exception? The same hand that grasps the power, of course.

The Court now weighs whether a president may act beyond the law’s reach. But the answer is already written - not in their parchment, but in our history. No man is above the law; no office confers immunity from its bounds. To rule otherwise would be to enshrine the very tyranny we overthrew.

Let them consider well. The Republic is watching.