Time To End Presidential Impunity

The following exchange took place when David Frost interviewed President Richard Nixon in 1977:

Frost: So, what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations and the Huston plan or that part of it was one of them where the president can decide that it’s in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal.

Nixon: Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.

Frost: By definition –

Nixon: Exactly … exactly… if the president … if, for example, the president approves something … approves an action, ah … because of the national security or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of, ah … ah … significant magnitude … then … the president’s decision in that instance is one, ah … that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.

Source - https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/transcript-of-david-frosts-interview-with-richard-nixon/

Isn't that more or less the same argument now being considered by the US Supreme Court? I think most people thought it to be BS back in 1977, and just as many probably still do.

Did you know the word "faithfully" appears twice in the US Constitution, and that both times it refers to the President?

Article II, Section 1

8. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II, Section 3

... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ...

Considered together, I believe these phrases mean the President in all that he does should neither break the law nor violate the Constitution in ANY official OR unofficial acts. If he does, any such act should by definition be considered to be unofficial since it violates the "faithfully" requirement.

This interpretation presents an obvious problem, since Presidents appear to break our laws and violate our Constitution ALL THE TIME. But knowing that, why do we continue to tolerate their lawlessness ... even to the point of granting them impunity? Clearly, the constitutional remedy of impeachment has been ineffective, so isn't it time to try something else?

I don't have a problem holding them accountable for their acts and their lies. If that makes them think twice before acting or speaking, then so be it. Most if not all of the theoretical situations suggested by some to excuse granting them impunity are a consequence of such acts and/or lies in the first place.

Apparently much of the country has no problem with the ordeal President Trump is now undergoing. On the contrary, they seem to relish it. So why shouldn't Presidents Bush, Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Carter also be subject to criminal prosecution for their alleged crimes?