Opinion/Satire: What Do a “Get Out of Jail Free Card” And Being President Have in Common?

PixabayPhoto byPaulbr75

For a moment let’s travel back in time. Then sit back and imagine that you’re in a room with the Founding Fathers, somewhere in the back so no one is asking who you are and what state you represent.

The room is a little smokey, the air heated, and discussions about adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution are in full swing.

They tick off the right to bear arms, the right of free speech, to freely practice religion, and the right of people to peaceably assemble and not be forced to quarter soldiers without the homeowner’s consent.

Fantastic ideals that we hold sacred today.

So, you’re taking all of this, the intent behind these actions. The frame of mind of those working through these rights and why they feel they are essential to America remaining free.

Now also imagine James Madison standing up, getting everyone’s attention by rapping on the table and beginning as follows.

Okay now that we have the Bill of Rights sorted, what about presidential immunity, whereby a sitting president has immunity from prosecution for any crime he may commit while in office? What do the rest of you think about this?

Honestly, do you think it was discussed?

Do you think that after the years of war, the fight for freedom, and the injustices heaped on them by the British before 1776, they collectively would have given the President the same powers and protections as a king or dictator?

I don’t think so.

******

But according to former president Trump's lawyers and the president himself, he has immunity for anything done while in office. Like what took place on January 6, 2021. Also referred to as The Insurrection.

Immunity is an interesting concept.

It seldom applies to the average person. If you run a red light and hit another car while doing so, you can’t claim you were late for important business and thus should have immunity.

It’s designed, at least in part, to protect those who are in office to protect the rest of us, like a mayor, governor, president, or an entire Congress.

A person tasked with making big decisions that have big effects on the rest of us would probably not wish to make these decisions or any decisions if each one were under constant scrutiny and the threat of lawsuits.

So, immunity places some distance between say a mayor hiring police officers and swearing them in and being held liable if years later one of them ends up shooting an unarmed person.

But if the mayor embezzles funds, or uses his office to enrich his family and friends then he does become liable for crimes committed.

Only the former president has been claiming that as the President of the United States he in effect has a rather extensive get-out-of-jail card that he can use for any action taken during his presidency. Like engaging in speech that actively encouraged the Insurrection of January 6.

He’s made the claim. His attorneys have made the claim and have requested that one of his cases be dismissed because of this.

******

As a result, the Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith has requested that the Supreme Court take this issue under review and issue a determination on whether a sitting president has such rights.

Rather than going back and forth with endless attorneys making endless motions that are delaying the legal actions that the former president is involved in, Jack Smith felt it was expedient to get a decision on this point because it’s not going away and will continue to be raised by Mr. Trump until it is no longer an issue.

Back in time, though not as far back as the Founding Fathers, sitting president Richard Nixon ran afoul of the laws and was close to being prosecuted after resigning from office when new President Gerald Ford issued a pardon.

He didn’t claim retroactive immunity, simply that he was pardoning the former president and giving the nation a chance to heal. At the time many considered that healing would have proceeded nicely if Nixon had been held accountable. But that’s another story.

If you were the mayor of a small town or large city, having certain traditional immunities would no doubt help you carry out the duties of your office – within reason.

But if you stole funds, or approved multiple contracts for your brother-in-law’s construction company when they were by far the highest bidders, would you feel it is your right to be immune from any prosecution simply because you were the mayor and it’s a tough job?

The Constitution does provide language for the impeachment of a sitting president. That if certain acts are carried out then by default there is no immunity simply because you’re the president.

That would be a certain precedent, wouldn’t it?

So, should former president Trump have a perpetual get-out-of-jail-free card when the Constitution already holds his office accountable in other ways?