A discussion of ideas, thoughts, philosophies and life in general.
Friday, May 31, 2024
Monday, May 27, 2024
Sunday, May 26, 2024
Why convicting a former president is not such a bad idea
Those who argue against former President Donald Trump’s conviction on any of the criminal charges against him often argue that this will have a chilling effect on future presidents and their ability and willingness to make the hard decisions that a head of state is called upon to make. He himself has maintained that a president is immune from prosecution for anything he does while in office—even if it is in violation of an existing law.
I’m neither a constitutional scholar nor a lawyer,
but I did serve in government for half a century, twenty years in the U.S. Army
and thirty years as an American diplomat, and from my point of view as someone
who raised his hand and swore to protect and defend the Constitution against
all enemies, foreign and domestic, I have a completely different take on the
issue.
I must say, first of all, that I strongly
support the American justice tradition that a person is innocent until proven
guilty, but if a jury of his or her peers determines that a crime was committed
and the evidence shows that the person indicted is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, that person should not only be formally convicted, but should be
sentenced according to the law. And that includes former presidents.
Why do I say this? I take issue with the
belief that convicting a president of violating the law will inhibit the
ability of future presidents to carry out their duties. One of their duties is
to faithfully carry out the law of the land. It’s in Article II, Section,1,
Clause 8 of the Constitution: 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.” In Section 3 of Article II, it says
that the President shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. Now,
again, I’m no lawyer, but my understanding of these requirements is that this
person should NOT be violating the laws which he (or she) is enjoined to take
care that they be faithfully be executed. To think otherwise strikes me as
playing fast and loose with the meaning of the Constitution.
So, back to the effect of convicting our
former president. I say, let the jury see and hear the evidence, let them make
their decision, and then respect that decision. What will it achieve? It will
send a message to future presidents and their staffs that we are a nation of
laws and flaunting the laws will not be tolerated. It will say to the nations
of the world who call us hypocrites when we call them on their violations of
and disrespect for the rule of law that we are quite serious in our belief that
no one is above the law.
I see this as a benefit to our system of
government and our status in the world.
To see it any other way makes me fearful
for the health of our democracy and makes me wonder what it was I spent half a
century of my life sacrificing for. The Founding Fathers were not perfect, but
they were wise, and I don’t think we should twist the meaning of their words to
suit the whim of one man, or even one group of men who wish to avoid taking
responsibility for their deeds. There is nothing in the Constitution that says
a president cannot be held accountable for breaking the law. There is nothing
in the Constitution that says any citizen cannot be held accountable for
breaking the law, and we assume then that when a citizen breaks the law, there
will be accountability. The Constitution requires that the president be a
citizen. Logically, then, the Founding Fathers, in my opinion, did not intend
that a president be allowed to do anything at any time, to anyone without
consequences. I think they hoped that no one who aspired for this august office
would be so carven as to knowingly violate the law. But, if you read the
Federalist Papers, you’ll see that they recognized that humans are fallible, and
since the president is human, I must assume that in the back of their minds
they recognized the possibility of a fallible individual ascending to that office.
Let’s allow the system to function the way
it was intended to function and move on.
Saturday, May 25, 2024
Why Judge Cannon needs to issue gag order in classified documents case
The graphic below was copied from an email I received at 11:31 am, May 25, 2024, from teamtrumpnews.com, and it shows why Special Counsel Jack Smith's request for a gag order in the classified documents case is justified. This is going out all over the place (I mean, it was emailed to me of all people) and is being used to solicit donations - naturally.
Tuesday, May 21, 2024
Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Monday, May 6, 2024
Sunday, May 5, 2024
Featured Post
Vida Designs - A New Place to Get My Photographs
If you like fine photography and fashion, you can now get them both in one place. Voices - Vida now hosts an online shop of custom-designed...
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgknVjO0EDpsRjDt5bIs0COlzDaJu3N_-jP7AWPQ9ru5_nBPHbl4U3xlQ4Rj360pQ7UAoTp1_igDDp2cIS4fwXNaEkKQHHLcPtd6qbzu0_Q1nbPJBJtZG1w1pdJmKPNNb5xNkfBuwIc8qAt/s320/57633bc8d32756ef68b9c563.png)
-
According to the American Psychiatric Association, approximately three to five percent of the American are sociopaths, with three of ever...
-
The 1980’s were difficult years for Americans at home and those living and working abroad, especially American diplomats and military pe...
-
Paint Example (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Paint since 1978 (Photo credit: dogwelder ) Supply (economics) (Photo credits: www.mydo...