As the Biden Administration approaches its conclusion, a growing chorus of liberal commentators, including notable figures like Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann, is urging President Joe Biden to engage in unlawful actions during his remaining time in office. These influential voices are advocating for actions that flout the law and the Constitution, suggesting that Biden utilize his “super powers” to enact a controversial “bucket list” of liberal policies without regard for legality. In this context, Moore’s plea for Biden to embrace this rebellious mindset starkly illustrates a troubling trend where the distinction between lawful governance and illegal behavior blurs dangerously. The implications of such advice not only endanger the constitutional framework but also jeopardize the integrity of the nation itself.
Moore’s audacious call to action, which includes emptying death row and canceling all student and medical debt, underscores a mindset that equates power with unchecked authority. This philosophy echoes the sentiments of some individuals who rationalize illegal behavior through the guise of social justice or political objectives. Many liberal commentators have jumped on this bandwagon, pressuring Biden to consider these radical moves before his term concludes, regardless of their constitutional validity. Such propositions threaten to undermine the rule of law by suggesting that the executive can act unilaterally and disregard established legal frameworks, as they often advocate actions that can only be executed by overstepping constitutional boundaries.
Moreover, voices like Olbermann’s exemplify a disconcerting trend of targeting political adversaries, advocating for extreme measures, including the deportation of figures such as Elon Musk, under the pretense of protecting democracy. This presents a concerning picture of a political climate where personal vendettas are pursued with such fervor that they encourage the executive branch to leverage its immunity for partisan gains. Such rhetoric not only raises constitutional questions but also chips away at the democratic principles that prioritize fair political processes and the rights of individuals, showcasing a disconnection from the fundamental tenets of governance in a democratic society.
The trend of urging the Biden Administration to adopt a more autocratic approach is also echoed by legal scholars who seem to endorse a view that expands presidential powers unduly. For instance, Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe’s arguments in favor of Biden circumventing constitutional constraints provide a blueprint for disregarding legal norms. Such perspectives are worrisome, particularly when one considers that past administration actions, like the Biden administration’s illegal nationwide eviction moratorium, already showcase the peril of bypassing established legal guidance. The resulting judicial pushback reinforces the importance of the courts as checks against executive overreach, illustrating the ongoing tension that exists within our constitutionally bound government.
It is important to unpack the legal implications of these calls for expansive presidential action. The idea that the Supreme Court has granted absolute immunity to the presidency is a misinterpretation of judicial outcomes regarding executive power. The recent rulings emphasize that while the presidency possesses significant leeway, especially regarding actions within its constitutional mandate, complete immunity is a fallacy. The distinction made by the Court among official, unofficial, and personal acts is crucial; the latter categories afford no protection, thereby establishing a clear boundary against potential abuses of authority by the executive branch.
While the complexity of these legal frameworks can arguably lead to debates about executive authority, it is essential to recognize that a balanced system of checks and balances remains in place to curb any potential tyrannical behavior. The judicial system is intended to intervene and prevent executive misrule, with impeachment also serving as a potential remedy for misconduct. Contrarily, the attitude conveyed by figures urging radical actions suggests a disinterest in maintaining legal integrity, illustrating a dangerous willingness to prioritize expediency over constitutionality in pursuing political objectives. Through such a lens, the line between tyranny, justified as a necessary defense of democracy, becomes alarmingly ambiguous, indicating a risk that could have far-reaching consequences for the republic.