Not that it has any chance of passing in the current Congress, but if there is a major shift following the next election, who knows? Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has proposed what he delightfully calls the No Kings Act, the putative purpose of which is to reverse the Supreme Court’s presidential criminal immunity ruling in Trump v. US and strip the president (and vice president, although the Court never mentioned the Veep) of any immunity from prosecution whatsoever.

(1) NO IMMUNITY.—A President, former President, Vice President, or former Vice President shall not be entitled to any form of immunity (whether absolute, presumptive, or otherwise) from criminal prosecution for alleged violations of the criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress.

Much as the Supreme Court’s Trump decision may have gone overboard with the scope of immunity and, more importantly, the evidence of criminal intent admissible in a criminal prosecution, the “no man is above the law” platitude is far better for stoking the outrage of the simpletons than preserving a functioning chief executive where very serious decisions will involve very hard choices, some of which may very well involve conduct that could be criminal, even if it’s the right choice for the benefit of a nation.

But Schumer, trying to nail down the outer edges of his misbegotten election year proposal, not only stripped the president of immunity, but also the Supreme Court of independence and supremacy.

(A) dismiss an indictment or any other charging instrument;

(B) grant acquittal or dismiss or otherwise terminate a criminal proceeding;

(C) halt, suspend, disband, or otherwise impede the functions of any grand jury;

(D) grant a motion to suppress or bar evidence or testimony, or otherwise exclude information from a criminal proceeding;

(E) grant a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of coram nobis, a motion to set aside a verdict or judgment, or any other form of post-conviction or collateral relief;

(F) overturn a conviction;

(G) declare a criminal proceeding unconstitutional; or

(H) enjoin or restrain the enforcement or application of a law.

So all the normal things courts do in criminal prosecutions, all the authority and jurisdiction that courts possess should any other “no man is above the law” be prosecuted, is gone along with immunity. How else can Schumer assure that a Supreme Court, particularly this one that the Dems hate with a passion, can’t pull some sly trick to let Trump walk on some “technicality” like the Fourth Amendment.

The big issue, aside from stripping presidential immunity which would theoretically remain the law as applied to Biden if enacted and Trump is elected, is whether Congress can, by law, strip the Supreme Court of its authority to perform its judicial function. Is there any basis in the Constitution for doing this? Well, maybe. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

According to joseph Story, the “with such Exceptions” language refers to whether the Supreme Court has original or appellate jurisdiction. The alternative argument is that Congress can make exceptions which strip the judicial branch of its judicialness whenever it wants.

While some, if not many, would argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. US deserves such treatment, if the Court can be neutered whenever Congress either dislikes a decision or prefers its political choices of dubious constitutionality to be supreme and unreviewable, it can invoke this same power to nullify the power of the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.

And if so, why would Congress ever allow the Supreme Court to find a law it enacted, which it obviously likes or it wouldn’t have passed, to be unconstitutional?