The amount of news coming daily about the race for who will occupy the White House can be overwhelming and a daunting task to keep up on and get the latest accurate information.

Recently, the Sun-Gazette posed questions to two specialists in their fields regarding the sheer speed at which the developments are happening leading up to the Nov. 5 general election.

Dr. Jonathan Rothermel, of the History, Political Science and Philosophy Department at Commonwealth University Mansfield campus, and Michael Zicolello, a Williamsport-based attorney skilled in matters of constitutional law, weighed in on the political landscape, which is changing daily.

The next event in the presidential election-year cycle is expected to happen in a few days, as the presumptive Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris selects who is going to be her running mate. That is expected to happen before the Democratic Convention, which starts on Aug. 19 and where Harris needs 1,986 delegates’ votes to seal the nomination.

“The last time an incumbent president opted not to seek the nomination was President Lyndon Johnson, and ironically, that was leading up to the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago,” Rothermel said. “The Democratic Convention will once again be held in Chicago but under very different circumstances.”

After President Joe Biden voluntarily withdrew from the race, his pledged delegates to the convention were ‘released’ to nominate a different candidate, according to Rothermel.

“However, President Biden and his team quickly endorsed and mobilized support for Vice President Harris. Within days, a majority of Biden’s pledged delegates expressed support for Harris, thereby effectively securing her nomination. The speed by which the delegates acted to endorse Harris was intended to signify unity within the party and avert a divisive convention like the one in 1968.”

Q. What are the scenarios that could evolve as a result of the Convention in Chicago?

A. “If political support had not quickly mobilized around Vice President Harris, the delegates could have considered a wide range of candidates, including Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear and Pete Buttigieg, just to name a few.

“Historically, party conventions have gone through multiple ballots, often involving backroom negotiations, before settling on a majority-supported nominee. The Democratic Party, led by President Biden, clearly did not want to take the chance of weakening the party against a former president who had solidified his nomination long ago after his only viable challenge, Nikki Haley, withdrew from the race on Wednesday, March 6.”

Q. What is the purpose of the conventions?

A. “The purpose of a political party convention is to formally nominate the presidential and vice-presidential candidates and approve the party platform,” Rothermel added.

“As a result of primary electoral reforms in the late 1960s/early 1970s, conventions have evolved into ceremonial events used to coronate the presumptive candidate who has already amassed the requisite number of pledged delegates during the presidential caucuses and primaries leading up to the convention.

“Since then, conventions are used to solidify support around the party’s ticket and be a launching point towards campaigning for the general election. Given the fact that US elections are candidate-centered, not much attention is normally paid to official party platforms.”

Q. Does the 6-3 immunity decision by the Supreme Court really make Trump a king as alluded to by Justice Sonia Sotomayer? If so, how? If not, how, based on your understanding?

A. “The Supreme Court ruling grants immunity or presumptive immunity for official presidential actions that align with their constitutional roles and responsibilities under the US Constitution,” Rothermel added.

“Undeniably, this ruling expands the scope of power of the US presidency, but the President is still subject to some degree of checks and balances. In determining whether a presidential act is official or unofficial, the burden falls on the prosecution to make this case in a US court.”

Q. What are some of your thoughts about the recent Supreme Court 6-3 majority ruling on presidential immunity?

A. “In terms of presidential immunity, do presidents of the U.S., regardless of political party, must have leeway,” Zicolello said.

“With regard to presidential absolute immunity, it is, like it or not, a long-standing principle that people in such high offices get absolute immunity because they otherwise could not do the job,” he said.

That is why the court remanded the immunity case of former President Donald J. Trump, and candidate Trump, to a lower trial court to examine the facts, he noted.

“Without absolute immunity, former presidents could potentially be hauled into court constantly once they leave office,” Zicolello said.

“Without it, former presidents could be dragged into court, criminal or civil, for claims or charges arising from the harsh restrictions under COVID, for the harsh interrogation methods post 9/11, for executive decisions during the mortgage-backed security collapse economic meltdown, for drone strikes that killed civilians, etc…”

In reality, Zicolello said, official immunity is court created in this instance and most others.

In other words, the Legislature did not pass a law saying that presidents are immune. This is almost identical to Judicial Immunity that makes judges immune from prosecution for official acts.

For example the judges in the kids for cash scandal in the Scranton area were found not to be making official acts and were convicted, Zicolello said.

The attorney, who specializes in defense cases, also finds what he labeled the “unhinged” response to the court’s 6-3 decision by some in the media to be very troubling.

“The bottom line is that presidents have always been immune from criminal prosecution for official acts,” he said.

“This is not a new thing,” he added.

“The question that remains unanswered is whether Trump’s case involves official acts. That is why the case was remanded. … The Supreme Court did not decide Trump was immune, rather it gave guidance to the lower court on how to determine if he is immune from prosecution based on the facts of the case.”