Letter to the Editor
Why not call him King?
If he can require payment before offering a pardon, why not call him King?
If he can use military force against American citizens, why not call him King?
If he can employ criminals to ensure he remains in power, why not call him King?
If he can prohibit any investigation into his actions, why not call him King?
If he can put his political opponents on trial, why not call him King?
If he can ignore the will of the voters and stay in the White House, why not call him King?
According to the Supreme(ly partisan) Court, an American president can do any of the aforementioned things as long as it is considered an “official act”, something with far too broad and flexible a definition to give any supporter of liberty and justice any comfort.
So while the former president and his allies crow in victory over this recent ruling and how it may affect his many criminal indictments, I find great irony in the fact that this ruling, before it applies to him, applies to the current president. That President Biden can do exactly these same things and be considered within his rights as the President of the United States. With so many of his own party panicking over his recent debate performance, and for which no appropriate definition of “bad” seems, to this author, to exist that would fully describe his horrible performance, is it not an interesting thought exercise to wonder if Biden himself were to use these powers to silence his opponents? I imagine that the former president and his allies would suddenly not be so appreciative of the court’s ruling; perhaps it would take such a scenario for them to correctly decry as unconstitutional, undemocratic, and un-American the Supreme(ly partisan) Court’s ruling. Is such a catastrophe truly the only thing that would alert some Americans to the dire nature of our nation? Why not, then, call him King? King Joe, indeed.
Amie Acton
Alfred Station
