最高法院的裁决;裁定历史学家和法律专家认为，总统对“官方行为”享有豁免权，违背了美国建国者在起草宪法时推动的所有原则。
由自由非盈利政策研究所布伦南司法中心代表的15名宪法历史学家，提交了法庭之友的辩护状今年4月，他向最高法院提起诉讼，挑战前总统唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)关于现任和前任总统享有刑事诉讼“绝对豁免权”的说法。
“新宪法的倡导者试图向批准公约的国家保证，新总统不会是民选国王，”简报说。
马里兰大学副教授、简报的主要作者霍利·布鲁尔(Holly Brewer)告诉美国广播公司新闻，包括亚历山大·汉密尔顿(Alexander Hamilton)、詹姆斯·麦迪逊(James Madison)等人在内的关键人物的历史著作以及各州批准宪法时的记录明确显示，他们反对在大不列颠国王乔治三世(George III)统治下遭受痛苦后的“另一个失控的君主制”。
“这很了不起。创始人们在很多问题上都存在分歧，但这不是其中之一，”她说。
布鲁尔说，创始人都回顾了历史，以便不重复他们认为导致他们反对的国王绝对统治的同样错误，坚持“没有人可以凌驾于法律之上”的概念
“制宪者们来到1787年的费城会议，决心不再复制他们所击败的英国君主制。他们就行政和立法部门之间的适当权力平衡以及各自的具体权力进行了辩论。但他们从未试图赋予总统特权，让他成为“民选国王，”简报援引詹姆斯·麦迪逊(James Madison)的“制宪会议笔记”称
布伦南中心(Brennan Center)民主倡议主任托马斯·沃尔夫(Thomas Wolf)是这份简报的合著者，他告诉美国广播公司新闻(ABC News)，创始人中的反君主制精神如此强烈，以至于即使是那些推动加强行政部门的人，如汉密尔顿，也认为总统可以被起诉。
例如，在全国代表大会期间，汉密尔顿主张，民选行政官员可以终身任职，但只能“在表现良好期间”任职，并可能被起诉和免职。
沃尔夫说，当创始人们在为国会的豁免权进行辩论时，詹姆斯·麦迪逊建议为总统进行一次类似的讨论，然而，没有其他人愿意进行讨论。
“他把它带到地板上，每个人都决定他们应该回家，”他说。
沃尔夫和布鲁尔说，宪法在各州的批准取决于这样一种想法，即总统可以对滥用职权和犯罪行为负责。
在倡导批准的过程中，开国元勋们试图向批准公约的国家保证“我们的总统不是国王，我们的参议院也不是上议院”。这份简报引用了批准过程中各州代表大会上的发言。
布鲁尔说:“在每一次州批准大会上，这都是一个问题，各州都得到保证，[宪法]不会导致另一个失控的君主制。”。
索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官也在1996年援引了这一观点她的异议认为在保守党多数派的统治下，总统“现在是凌驾于法律之上的国王。”
“法院有效地在总统周围创造了一个法律自由区，打破了自建国以来就存在的现状，”她写道。
沃尔夫说，最高法院的多数意见在其裁决中忽视了美国历史上基本的、证据充分的事实。
“制宪者已经考虑给予刑事豁免权，并拒绝了它，这意味着他们得出结论，一个充满活力的高管仍可能被考虑进行刑事起诉，”他说。
Nation's founders pushed against 'elected king' when framing presidential powers: Historians
The Supreme Court'srulingthat presidents have immunity for "official acts" goes against all of the principles the nation's founders pushed for as they drew up the Constitution, historians and legal experts argued.
Fifteen constitutional historians, represented by the liberal non-profit policy institute the Brennan Center for Justice,filed a friend-of-the-court briefto the Supreme Court In April, challenging former President Donald Trump's claims that current and former presidents enjoyed "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution.
"Advocates for the new Constitution sought to assure state ratifying conventions that the new President would not be an elected king," the brief said.
Holly Brewer, an associate professor at the University of Maryland and the brief's main author, told ABC News that historical writings from key figures, including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and others as well as the records from the states as they ratified the Constitution explicitly show they were against "another runaway monarchy" after suffering under Great Britain's King George III.
"It was remarkable. There were so many issues where the founders disagreed, but this was not one of them," she said.
Brewer said the founders all looked at history in order to not repeat the same mistakes they thought had led to the absolute rule by king they opposed, holding to the concept that "no man is above the law."
"The Framers came to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 determined not to replicate the British monarchy they had defeated. They argued among themselves about the appropriate balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, and the specific powers attached to each. But at no point did they seek to endow the President with prerogatives that would make him an 'elective King,'" the brief said, citing James Madison's "Notes on the Constitutional Convention."
Thomas Wolf, director of democracy initiatives at the Brennan Center who co-authored the brief, told ABC News that the anti-monarchal spirit among the founders was so strong that even those who pushed for a stronger executive branch, such as Hamilton, argued that a president could be prosecuted.
For example, during the convention, Hamilton argued for an elective executive to serve for a lifetime but only "during good behaviour" and be subject to prosecution and removal.
While the founders were debating the immunities for Congress, James Madison suggested a similar discussion for the president, however, no one else wanted to take up the discussion, Wolf said.
"He brought it to the floor and everyone decided they should go home instead," he said.
Wolf and Brewer said the Constitution's ratification among the states hung on the idea that the president could be held accountable for abuses and crimes.
"In advocating for ratification, the Founders sought to reassure the ratifying conventions that “Our President is not a King, nor is our Senate a house of Lords." the brief said citing speeches in state conventions during the ratification process.
"At every state ratification convention, this was an issue and the states were reassured [the Constitution] would not result in another runaway monarchy," Brewer said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also invoked this idea inher dissentarguing that under the conservative majority's ruling the president "is now a king above the law."
"The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding," she wrote.
Wolf said that the Supreme Court's majority ignored fundamental and well-documented facts from the nation's history in its ruling.
"The framers already considered granting criminal immunity and rejected it which means they concluded an energetic executive could still be considered for criminal prosecution," he said.
