What was my impression of the Supreme Court ruling this week? This represents a marked departure from our previous expectations that our President is accountable to the rule of law. But I will also point out that Presidential immunity is by no means universal, even under the current ruling. A sitting President who targets a law-abiding citizen gratuitously and repeatedly, with an intent to profit from her demise, may be held to account under the legal prerogative of the next administration. So, no President should feel that he has carte blanche with which to abuse legal standards as they apply to the nation as a whole.
Beyond this, the public possesses an inherent and rigorous sense of fairness that no President should risk offending.
It is technically lawful for a person to stand on the side of a swimming pool and watch while a child drowns, doing nothing to intervene. But the public would find this inaction so monstrous as to shun the offender for all time. And whether the offender were the mayor of the city or the flower arranger on Main Street, it really wouldn't matter.
So, too, with a President who, through action or inaction, fails to serve the citizenry faithfully.
Fundamentally, will the public feel that a President should uphold the Freedom of Information Act if he has the power to do so in a timely way?
I think they will.
But of course it is best to inquire with the public to find out.
I think of equal concern to the Supreme Court ruling this week is the reaction to it. We need to ensure that those who are eschewing hypothetical kingly privileges publicly are not exercising those kingly prerogatives privately at the same time.
The Supreme Court was discussing the potential for a President to order the assassination of a political rival, for example, but what if a President is ordering the assassination of a citizen who is unhappy with his actions? How big a step is it between this crime and that of a President who is ordering the deaths of many citizens who are unhappy with his actions? I think the implications of a President who is hiding the manner in which he is targeting the electorate itself are profound, and they are no less profound when committed by someone who articulates an ostensible love for democracy. In some ways, the crime is more severe when it's coming from a leader who sets out to dupe the public about his commitment to their freedoms.
If the public's freedoms are going to be limited in some manner, I would rather have a President who is honest and forthcoming about those boundaries.
Otherwise, the public may develop a profound distrust of those in the political sphere, and under those circumstances, the electorate may gravitate toward those leaders who speak with more certainty, clarity and sincerity.
The Supreme Court ruling concerning Presidential immunity should not comfort those who are expressing one belief system in front of the cameras and manifesting another behind closed doors.
The American electorate is in many ways a sleeping giant. If that giant awakes in condemnation, a sitting President may not experience immunity for his actions. Quite the opposite.
So, I believe it is necessary for sitting Presidents to ensure that their public words and their private directives are aligned. And certainly those who are presenting themselves publicly as servant leaders need to demonstrate that they know what such leadership means in defending honorable members of the American electorate. Without that coherence and courage, the public will simply turn away.
I would like to emphasize that the public trust is a gift that a sitting President must never take for granted or betray.
Americans are a hardy, resilient, formidable people, and they are unlikely to forget those instances in which their trust was violated by a President who felt they would never know the facts.
Americans will know the facts of a sitting President's conduct. And so will the world.
Lane MacWilliams
No comments:
Post a Comment