The Myth of the Imperial Presidency

Depending upon which side of the ideological divide they inhabit people are exhibiting varying reactions to the news that former president Donald J. Trump has been indicted by a New York City grand jury. Those who are anti-Trump are cheering, while the pro-Trump gallery is wailing and gnashing their teeth in righteous fury, claiming that this is an unprecedented action that bodes ill for American democracy.

?????????While I acknowledge that a criminal indictment of a former president is something new, I find myself disagreeing with both sides on this issue.

?????????On the one hand, I don’t celebrate such an event. The most dastardly individual is, under our justice system, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. An indictment means that a prosecutor has offered a reasonable belief that the individual has committed a crime. It must now be proven in a court of law. It should also be kept in mind that everything that individual does and says publicly can be used as evidence against him nor her.

?????????On the other hand, though, I find those who decry this indictment sounding very hypocritical in their lamentations. Many of these people are the same ones chanting ‘lock her up’ during the 2016 campaign. They also seem blissfully unaware that while no sitting president or former president has been indicted, a presidential candidate was once imprisoned and, in fact, campaigned from prison and even though he lost, garnered almost a million votes. Eugene V. Debs, five times the candidate of the Socialist Party, was convicted of violation of the Sedition Act of 1918, for protesting America’s involvement in World War I, and was sentenced to the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, from where he campaigned. I would also point out that U.S. Grant, when he was siting president, was given a speeding ticket for driving his horse-drawn carriage too fast.

?????????Neither of these events in any way diminished the office of the presidency. They did just the opposite in my humble opinion, for they demonstrated that the United States is truly a nation of laws where no one, not even the head of state, is above or exempt from the law.

?????????The wise and prudent thing to do in the current situation would be to stop yammering—from either end of the political spectrum—and let the law take its course, allow a jury to adjudicate the evidence presented by both sides and come to a conclusion without undue influence from either side. Let the defendant demonstrate his innocence, or guilt, by his actions and let the prosecution endeavor to prove his guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt through the evidence presented, including the defendants post-indictment actions and words.

?????????In this way, we prove that we are a nation that believes in rule of law, not rule by law and that we have one system of justice not two—one for us common folks and another for the rich and powerful.

?????????We will also settle once and for all that our head of state is not an all-powerful king but a person of the people, an ordinary person who for four to eight years was awarded with extraordinary responsibilities—by us through our votes—who fulfilled those responsibilities in a manner that is deserving or honor and respect, and then returned to his (or her) position as a citizen of a country where ‘all are created equal’. Let us finally lay to rest the myth of the imperial presidency.