Daily Herald opinion: The unspoken issue: Why isn't the court's recent expansion of presidential power being raised in the election campaigns?

In a shocking split decision two months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one the worst rulings in its history, creating presumptive immunity for any president's “official acts,” allowing for a president's unfettered abuse of the Justice Department and immoral conduct in foreign affairs. On top of that, the ruling severely restricts any attempts to investigate potentially corrupt presidential behavior of any kind — official or not.

Reaction to that ruling has been largely partisan, focusing mostly on its impact on the prosecutions of former President Donald Trump. But as important as the Trump relevance might be, the impact of this ruling is far more foreboding than that.

It is not hyperbole to say that the ruling puts the president above the law. Any president. Every president. It enables White House secrecy. And if allowed to stand, it will inevitably corrode the presidency with a hopelessly accepted venality and corruption that is likely to grow over time.

And yet, where is it as an issue in this year's election campaigns?

We have not expected Trump-aligned Republicans to make much noise about it, but search out the platform Democrats endorsed at their recent national convention in Chicago. Abortion, another issue that is a product of a controversial Supreme Court ruling, is addressed. “Democracy” in general terms is raised.

But presidential power? Presidential immunity?

Not a word. Why?

Are we just to allow presidents to act as they see fit? Are we just to roll over and offer no response to a terrible ruling that, if unaddressed, will forever alter the rules of the republic?

There has been some talk of Supreme Court “reform,” either expanding the court or setting limits to the terms of court justices. And talk that the recent rulings place a higher campaign priority on Supreme Court appointments when deciding between candidates for president and Senate.

But little talk about what can be done to restrain the power of the presidency. Check that. Make that no talk.

Some might think it is because there is little that can be done about that legislatively.

Not so. Much of the president's emergency powers, for example, have been granted by Congress. And not too long ago, on this page, Andrew Tree, a professor of constitutional law at Roosevelt University in Chicago, argued that Congress has the power to limit the reach of the court under Article III, Section 2: “The supreme Court should have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Is there something to be done on that basis? We are not expert enough to say. But this is a big deal. One that may not ignite the passions of, say, the abortion debate, but one that should concern all of us, Republicans, Democrats, independents alike.

Candidates for federal office have a duty to explore it and to offer practical solutions, and as voters, we have an obligation to demand that they address it.

The election is around the corner. Now is the time to ask the candidates what they are doing to ensure that presidents are accountable under the law like the rest of us.