It’s urgent to draw more attention to a very harmful short phrase in the federal budget bill currently undergoing review in the U.S. Senate. It would essentially make the president a king, suggesting he couldn’t be prosecuted with an enforceable contempt citation in the usual manner. So far, our courts have been the main backstop against our becoming an autocracy, using contempt citations to block multiple illegal presidential power grabs.

This short phrase undermining court authority in a 1,000-page bill could be overlooked if we don’t pay attention. A recent letter to the editor mentioned this phrase (“Big, beautiful bill’ includes small, nasty provisions,” June 13). I quote it directly: “No court of the United States may use appropriate funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued …”

Security, such as a bond, is not ordinarily required in legal proceedings to stop alleged abuses by the federal government. Demanding that it be given before a contempt citation can be enforced is essentially extortion. Contempt citations would become meaningless, and allow a presidency to be unrestrained by the rule of law.

Contact Sens. Collins and King to demand that the phrase requiring “security” to enforce contempt citations be removed from the proposed budget bill.

Sue Stableford
Brunswick