Worried about the decline of the rule of law in the United States? Maybe you should be. Excerpt:
The most disturbing aspect of the scandal around Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure as secretary of state is not the former first lady’s penchant for secrecy. In fact, we all ought to be a little taken aback that Mrs. Clinton’s poll numbers are declining as a result of that storyline. It boggles the mind to imagine that, after a quarter-century, there’s a slice of the elector are just now coming to the realization that she is not a terribly forthcoming politician.
What’s truly unsettling is that it has been widely taken as read among both the media and the general public that Mrs. Clinton will likely avoid serious legal consequences for her behavior because the Justice Department is ultimately answerable to President Obama – and Democrats will not use the instruments of government to destroy one of their own. Whether that eventually proves true, the sentiment itself reveals a troubling trend in American politics.
While it’s far from unheard of for public officials to apply less-exacting standards to their partisan allies, it’s unnerving that the segments of society charged with keeping those officials in check – namely, the media and the voters – now regard such lack of principle as so unremarkable that it barely merits mention. We have transformed into a country in which it’s difficult to imagine precisely what kind of official malfeasance would be met with more than a shrug of the shoulders.
There is a basic principle here, one that is inherent in being a nation of laws, not men: What the government does for anyone, it does for anyone, or it does for no one. The corollary of that is, what the government does to anyone, it does to everyone, or it does to no one.
That means, when Her Highness Hillary I violates Imperial law and compromises secure communications, she should be prosecuted, just as General David Petraeus was.
Does anyone want to place a small wager on that possibility?
This goes way beyond Her Majesty Hillary I. It goes back to Richard Nixon’s Watergate coverup, to Jimmy Carter’s imposition of unConstitutional Cabinet-level bureaucracies, to George W. Bush’s imposition of yet another bureaucracy not authorized by the Constitution. But more recently, we have the Obama Administration’s refusal to address blatant voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers, his Justice Department’s meddling in the Zimmerman case, and his (probable) refusal to deal substantively with Her Highness’s email shenanigans.
The Imperial Federal government now selectively applies the law: Certain categories of citizen are exempt from statutes that others are strictly held to. And make no mistake, both parties are complicit.
The linked article concludes: There are only two options available here: Either the country returns to a form of government bound by the strictures of the Constitution and its subordinate laws or we give up the ghost and accept the fact that our politics are now entirely about power rather than principle – that we live in a nation where the president, whether his name is Obama or Trump, is limited only by the boundaries of imagination.
There are a lot of ways to describe that form of government. “Constitutional republic” isn’t one of them.
That, unfortunately, may be where we are headed. Hold on to your butts, True Believers.