Rule of law on trial in the United States
Published:Saturday | August 26, 2023 | 12:08 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
When books will be written about Donald Trump’s political rise and fall, few authors will be able to turn a blind eye to his January 23, 2016 pre-election comment in Iowa. There, he said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”
With that comment, he was openly boasting that even if he committed a capital offence, his voters would remain loyal. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s take on his presidency is not so much about how he misconducted himself in office, but more so how did he get elected in the first place. US history records so many great men who found themselves at the other end of Trump’s weapon of choice, only because they spoke truth to power. King and Malcolm X are on that list.
Following on the truism that ultimately the people in a democracy receive the leader they deserve, the voters in the November 2016 elections have a lot to answer to. Trump, speaking along the same lines regarding the loyalty and ultimately the quality of his supporters, boasted in August 2023, that the more the indictments for criminal conduct increased against him, the greater is his showing in the polls.
Leaving the theatrics of the former reality TV star and Trump aside, the idea of the rule of law is currently on trial. Did their constitution anticipate the multiple arraignments for misconduct by a serial criminal offending president? Should Trump, for crimes committed during his reign, have been, like others would, arrested and tried while being president? Was justice delayed and hence denied by allowing him years later to seek office again without facing trial?
America is no stranger, if not the inventor, of the unfortunate bad habit of trial by the media ahead of court hearings. Trump is now having his go at the judge, prosecutor, and witnesses in his media utterances, in the land where you are apparently free to make pre-trial comments. This fiasco is an opportunity for congress to revisit free speech, and enact laws with clear boundaries regarding what can and cannot be said ahead of a trial. In short, free speech is not an absolute right in relation to the ideal of what constitutes a fair trial.
As onlookers outside of the US, let us take a front seat with a critical eye on the playout of the rule of law and its challenges and workings as Trump faces his days in court. In the not-to- distant future, a president might, be it Trump or another, be called upon to look into the mirror and ask him or herself, “Can I pardon Donald John Trump, and tell the rest of the world that the rule of law which maintains that all men are equal before the law is alive and well in the United States of America?”
BERT SAMUELS