Obsolescence Watch–Clinton v. Jones

Consider this passage in light of the litigation pending against the President and what will surely be filed over the next couple of years:

“[I]n the more than 200-year history of the Republic, only three sitting Presidents have been subjected to suits for their private actions. If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the Presidency.”

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Joe says:

    ” past is any indicator”

    ah the 1990s … weren’t they charming?

  2. Brett Bellmore says:

    Given a defendant who was being legitimately sued, they failed to take into account the possibility of frivolous lawsuits being weaponized.

    None the less, I think the key point here is that the President, constitutionally speaking, is just another person. It’s not as though the founders weren’t capable of writing legal immunity into the Constitution when they intended it to apply; See Congressmen’s rather limited protection against legal proceedings. Having done that for members of Congress, the omission of any similar shield for the Presidency has to be considered deliberate.

    From a policy standpoint, there’s a case for shielding Presidents from personal litigation. But it would have to be done by statute, it’s just not in the Constitution.