Post Mueller Thoughts...
Updated: Aug 19, 2019
I’m shocked by Mueller’s testimony. I think it’s an absolute travesty that the OLC has an opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president. I understand it under the justice system apparatus logic but I do not agree with it in the macro. I don’t think Jefferson would agree either. The house must vote to impeach based off this testimony. After I read the report I was shocked they didn’t vote already, but after today - I just don’t see how you preserve people’s confidence in the system without voting to impeach. I understand that Mueller’s reasoning to not charge is under department of justice expectations, but I do not believe it’s the right opinion for the stability of the system. I think they have that opinion solely to preserve our system. But Jefferson never intended his document to his iron clad, he expected each subsequent generation to improve upon it, to benefit their time and not the time in which it was written. The same logic needs to be applied to this OLC opinion. It’s outdated, and we know that based off the actions of the man who sits in the Oval Office. He committed a crime, and honestly not just one, but there are no mechanisms in place for a president to defend himself once he is accused of a crime. And that needs to change as well. All because of this man. He sinkhole handily upended 270+ years of Precedent. He single handedly made Richard Nixon look ok in comparison, and what the heck does that say about us?
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
March 27 1789
Where Jefferson points out that the will of his generation shall not and should not be forced upon the succeeding generation(s)
“On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.“