icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 16,805
They did on several occasions.
Are we opening the door to political tit for tat
John Yoo opinion;
“American leaders of the past understood, perhaps only implicitly, that prosecuting past presidents would undermine the very purpose of the executive power. Presidential power is meant to be exercised in situations that legislation cannot anticipate, such as crises, emergencies, and war. In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton explains why the Founders chose to concentrate federal executive power in a single president — recall that the Articles of Confederation had diluted executive power by locating it in a Congress composed of the states. “Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government,” he wrote. “It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks: it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws.” For the president to wield this power effectively, he must have the ability to act alone with “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.” If others could veto or review executive action, only paralysis would follow. Constraining a single executive “might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the government, in the most critical emergencies of the state,” cautioned Hamilton.
For 235 years, American political leaders heeded Hamilton’s warning. They understood that the benefits of executive independence outweigh the need to enforce the criminal law against presidents. They knew that political stability precluded the use of prosecution to settle scores with partisan rivals. They appreciated that presidents should spend their time in office leading the American people into a better future rather than relitigating the past. This was no principle enforced by the courts or mandated by legislatures; it instead found expression in the wisdom of presidents, attorneys general, and prosecutors.
Repairing this breach of constitutional norms will require Republicans to follow the age-old maxim: Do unto others as they have done unto you. In order to prevent the case against Trump from assuming a permanent place in the American political system, Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents. A Republican DA will have to charge Hunter Biden for fraud or corruption for taking money from foreign governments. Another Republican DA will have to investigate Joe Biden for influence-peddling at the behest of a son who received payoffs from abroad. Only retaliation in kind can produce the deterrence necessary to enforce a political version of mutual assured destruction; without the threat of prosecution of their own leaders, Democrats will continue to charge future Republican presidents without restraint.
Tit for tat will produce benefits beyond shoring up executive independence. While pursuing their political self-interest, Republicans will generate the greater social benefit of repairing the rule of law. Whether it results in a conviction or acquittal, the Trump trial underscores a fact not often appreciated by the public. The rule of law — in this case, the idea that like cases should be treated alike — depends today on executive leaders as much as it does on the courts. It is the executive branch of the federal government, headed by an elected president, that bears the responsibility to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” It is the attorneys general of the states and the elected district attorneys of cities and counties that hold the power of law enforcement. The executive branch of the federal and state governments decides whom to investigate and prosecute long before a judge ever sees the case.”
Last edited:
