In 2014, when my book, For Fear of an Elective King: George Washington and Presidential Title Controversy of 1789, was published, the term “elective king” when referring to the president did not roll easily off the tongue. The term emerged during the ratification of the Constitution from writings of a group of Constitutional critics who called themselves “An Old Whig” and feared that the president would become a king “and a king of the worst kind—an elective King.” Ten years ago, fears of the presidency morphing into a form of elective kingship seemed more steeped in history than the present. Now, with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling granting absolute immunity to all “official acts” of the presidency, it appears alarmingly prescient.

The irony of the presidential immunity decision coming out just before Independence Day could not be avoided, as laudatory remarks about our nation’s founding on a rebellion against King George III and the democratic republic that evolved were everywhere in the days following the ruling. And yet, not even the English king was above the law. Although kings in other nations ruled solely by divine and hereditary right, in England, the king was considered a mortal and subject to standards of conduct upheld by Parliament. Because of the Supreme Court’s utterly new........

© The National Interest