The Need for Constitutional Reform: Eliminating Immunity for Presidents and Other Officeholders

Recently, the discussion on whether President Biden should call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders has been a topic of debate. While some argue that such an amendment would benefit America by enforcing term limits for House and Senate members and passing a balanced budget amendment, the feasibility and implications of such a move are often misunderstood.

Impossibility and Practical Challenges

The idea of proposing a constitutional amendment through an executive action is misguided. According to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the authority to propose amendments, and this process is designed to be challenging and time-consuming. It requires two-thirds (2/3) of both chambers of Congress to pass the amendment and three-fourths (3/4) of the states to ratify it. Given the current political landscape and conflicting interests, achieving such a consensus is nearly impossible.

The Political Landscape

President Biden, being a Democrat, would not have the political clout to push for such an amendment. The political atmosphere in the United States makes it highly unlikely that he would gain the necessary support from his party or across party lines. Additionally, the amendment process is a lengthy one that could take years, if not a decade or more. By the time such an amendment is proposed and ratified, President Biden would no longer be in office, making the effort futile.

Theoretical Rationale and Critiques

Supporters argue that such an amendment would have profound implications, including greater accountability and ensuring that no one, even constitutional officeholders, is above the law. However, this argument is often oversimplified. The primary concern lies in the practicality and the potential negative consequences. For instance, reforming the judiciary through other means might be more effective and less polarizing. Actions like voting for blue candidates and advocating for judicial reforms through the current political process might achieve similar goals without the need for extensive constitutional amendments.

Potential Legal Consequences and Historical Context

The idea of making a retroactive move to eliminate immunity raises significant legal concerns. Historically, presidential immunity has been a long-standing tradition, and any retroactive legal action could lead to controversy and conflict. For example, if such a move were to be implemented, it could potentially impact past actions of former presidents, including Barack Obama, who is often cited as an example. Such a legal battle could span decades and lead to intense political and legal turmoil.

Advocating for Reform Through Other Means

Instead of a constitutional amendment, the focus should be on electing individuals who support constitutional reforms through the current political process. Reforming the Court and ensuring that no judicial decisions or actions go unchecked can be achieved by electing judges and justices who prioritize fair and unbiased decision-making. Additionally, voting for candidates who support term limits for members of Congress and promoting fiscal responsibility through balanced budget amendments can be achieved without the need for a constitutional change.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the idea of eliminating broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders is well-meaning, the current political and legal climate makes such a constitutional amendment impractical and potentially counterproductive. Instead, focusing on political reform through elections and judicial reform is a more viable and less controversial approach to achieving a more accountable and fair government.