“When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” That declaration, uttered by disgraced former President Richard Nixon in a 1977 television interview, was stunning in its simple dismissal of what had been a basic tenet of the U. S. Constitution: that no one is above the law, even the president. Until last week, that is, when the Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, upended more than 200 years of constitutional law by granting almost unlimited immunity for acts committed by a president during his term. The ruling sparked outrage by scholars and citizenry alike and questioned whether our fragile democracy might survive another potential Trump term.

The question extends beyond Trump, though. Presidential elections are fraught with political arguments and varying approaches to governance, but rarely question the major party candidates’ allegiance to democracy and the Constitution. After all, the person taking the presidential oath of office swears to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s been an expectation for our presidents since the founding of our nation. History reveals failures across the centuries, but most presidents, mindful of their oath, ultimately put the good of the nation first, not greed, grift, or power.

Supreme Court justices also take an oath, to “administer justice without respect to persons…to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties…under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” It’s the “without respect to persons” and “impartially” language that seems to confound us about some members of the Roberts Court. The immunity decision surprised many court observers who anticipated that the justices would uphold the Constitutional precedents. Perhaps it shouldn’t have been a surprise. They couldn’t possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, the 50-year protection of a woman’s right to have an abortion, but they did. They wouldn’t decide that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion in the Dobbs decision, but they did. They couldn’t possibly rule that bump stocks are legal or reduce government agencies’ ability to establish regulations and enforce them, but they did. The Court is in its summer hiatus now, but the trajectory is clear. Individual rights and common sense are swept away and our long-held institutions and protections are destabilized by court decisions, exacerbated by a chaotic Congress that has done little to instill confidence or sensibility in governance and fair play.

The Declaration of Independence declared freedom from the English Crown, not independence from each other or from governance. Indeed, the signers mutually pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on behalf of what became, in the Preamble of the U. S. Constitution, the “People of the United States.” The signers – wealthy white landowners and slavers – recognized despotism and tyranny (although failed to equate those with slavery), and resolved to end them in their individual jurisdictions and in what would become a new nation a decade or so later.

The prospect of an “imperial presidency,” as coined by historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in the 1970s, is heightened by the Court’s immunity decision. Mr. Trump has declared that he will be a dictator on Day One, and he and his cronies already have identified many institutions and individuals as targets. Democrats are in crisis mode about President Biden’s debate performance and ability to carry the ticket to victory in November. Nearly every election is termed “the most important in our lifetime.” Some voters are inspired by that idea; some voters are turned off. Sitting out this election is not an option. Whether in person, by mail, or drop box, every person eligible to vote must plan now to exercise their civic duty. Your vote really can make a difference and preserve democracy.