I heard a TV lawyer justifying Trump’s boundless litigation in his quest for Presidential re-election as good for our Democracy, for our system, and good for our country. His reasoning was that such litigation would help resolve and uncover long-standing inconsistencies and help clarifying legal principles that were imprecise and needed pinning down. Wow, makes a lawyer’s job sound noble!
But as a participant in the legal process, I am a subscriber that some litigation is designed for one purpose — to make lawyers rich! After all why are legal cases called “suits”? When we can’t afford sneakers…
Certainly, I believe that everyone has their right to a day in court. And I believe that Justice and the legal system has an essential important role to play in our lives. After all, disputes are often unavoidable, and it is better to solve them in a court room than on a street or in a bedroom.
But at some point, I think everyone can agree that litigation can become excessive. It becomes a tool for rich people who have deep pockets to harass, scare, and intimidate poorer people into silence and submission.
What legal principals has Trump’s suits elucidated? Personally, I know a lot more about the US Constitution than I did before. And I know more about how the Electoral College works. That is a good thing.
But what about the endless conspiracy theories and legal theatrics that his folks are vetting? I don’t think those have clarified anything about Constitution Law. It has informed me on how you can get your 15 minutes on TV if you are that desperate.
I did a word search on the full text of the Constitution for the words “Democrat” and “Republican” and “Party”. They aren’t there. The closest I could find was Article 4, Section 4 “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”
So for those people wrapping themselves in the flag and talking of the Founding Fathers and “originalism”, one must ask them why are they so protective of the Republican (or Democratic) party? A bit earlier in Article 4, Section 2, I found this morsel,
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
This is the original interstate laws concerning slavery enshrined in the Constitution. Definitely a grain of salt for those who believe that litigation is the way to Justice and Truth.
That we had to fight a Civil War because people could not work out their differences should be a Constitutional lesson for today. And it should be a clear and present warning to the current President, the President elect, and legislatures in both parties that being a sore loser in an election, at some point, becomes against our nation and the Constitution itself.