Trump thinks he has absolute authority -- will the Supreme Court save him from any accountability?

President Donald Trump proclaimed last year that Article II in the Constitution gives him absolute power. "I have the right to do whatever I want as president," he claimed.

Writing for the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus noted that Trump's team has decided they won't defend federal laws in court if they don't like the laws, they'll block anyone from testifying before Congress they don't want, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, they refuse to comply with subpoenas, hijack funds that were allocated to the military to fund his border wall.

"Trump's lawyers — both his private counsel and administration lawyers supposedly representing the presidency — will be before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, to argue against the legitimacy of subpoenas by Congress and a state grand jury for Trump's financial records," Marcus explained, noting that these are all part of Trump's decision that he has absolute power.

"It's important to fit these cases into the skewed architecture of his legal worldview: A sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted; the only remedy is impeachment. However, the president is free to direct officials not to testify or provide documents when he deems the impeachment a 'hoax,'" write Marcus. "If the House wants the material, it should issue a subpoena, except it can't; see the federal appeals court case, above."

The Supreme Court won't decide whether Trump could be indicted or impeached; it's whether his business can be investigated. Trump said that he was withdrawing from all of his business interests when he took office. He also said he would put all of his investments into a blind trust. Neither of those things came to fruition.

Marcus explained that the first two cases are about subpoenas of Trump's accounting firm and the banks that gave him money. Trump says Congress doesn't have the right to investigate his personal businesses. Congress has been investigating emoluments violations from the president as he continues to profit off of his presidency.

The Justice Department is arguing that Trump should get extra protections from such subpoenas because this use of congressional power "poses a serious risk of harassing the President and distracting him from his constitutional duties."

"Pardon me while I guffaw — and flash back to the Whitewater inquiry, when conservatives seemed to have no such compunctions about subpoenas for documents and testimony from, yes, the sitting president's personal accountants, and for Hillary Clinton's law firm billing records," wrote Marcus. "While an independent counsel was investigating the Clintons' real estate investments."

Not only did Republicans issue a barrage of subpoenas when they took over Congress in 2010, but they changed the rules to allow them to act unilaterally. So the GOP has no one to blame but themselves.

Trump is also under investigation by an impaneled grand jury that the Manhattan District Attorney is overseeing. They are looking into the information provided by Trump's accounting firm and his tax and financial records. Trump argued that he can't be investigated because he's "absolutely immune" from the "criminal process" as president. That didn't seem to protect the Clinton administration, Marcus noted.

The comment isn't too far off from President Richard Nixon's claim, "when the president does it, it's not illegal."

"Oh, please. It would be a problem if multiple local prosecutors were besieging a president with subpoenas, but that's not what's going on here," said Marcus. "DA Cy Vance has ample reason to investigate the goings-on at the Trump Organization. That can be accomplished without 'distracting' or 'stigmatizing' the president. Preventing the prosecutor from doing his work would not only insulate the president, but it would also shield others subject to investigation so long as Trump is in office."

"No principle of constitutional law justifies that outcome," said Vance.

"Unless it is the Trumpian principle, that Article II gives him "the right to do whatever I want." It is up to the justices — Article III — to renounce this dangerous misconception," Marcus closed.

Read the full editorial at the Washington Post.