Asked an historian of England, who agreed.
SCOTUS rejected an historical tradition that goes back to 1689, and gave the president protections which George III did *not* have, which Washington did not want, and which anyone & everyone who had any role in writing the constitution opposed.
England's 1689 Bill of Rights a) established that the law restricted English kings & that kings' unfettered power threatened the polity; and b) formed the background for all colonial resistance to British rule from 1765 on.
"Originalists" apparently reject this 334 y.o. legacy.
