Image via Wikipedia
Why not a statute of limitations on the misdeeds and peccadilloes of Presidential candidates? I am sure that there are three reasons why not, but I forgot the third. I’ll remember to ask Rick Perry.
Bill Clinton had to deny that he inhaled marijuana while a college student. George W. Bush had to reveal his battle with substance abuse that ended decades before he declared. Herman Cain’s campaign is tottering over buried allegations that he groped one or more women fourteen years ago. The birthers want to go back to Obama’s birth. They are certain he was born in a Madrasa in Yemen. The elitists want to see Perry’s grades in high school; the Tea Party wants Obama to release his grades in the Madrasa. They might even want to know whether he studied Sharia at Harvard Law School
Sure, Presidential candidates should be scrutinized closely, and this would fairly include possible health, substance abuse and moral issues. But how far back is it useful to go? And aren’t we getting a little ridiculous.
If Herman Cain’s harassment were the subject of a civil sexual harassment suit, it would be quickly dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. If he committed an unindicted sex crime 14 years ago, the prosecutor would not have a leg to stand on. Most criminal conduct, except for murder and child abuse, must be prosecuted in the majority of states within five years. Arsonists, rapists and bank robbers not indicted in time are roaming the streets in freedom. But is it fair for Presidential candidates to answer in the court of public opinion to charges that would not stand up in a court of law?
I have no brief for Mr. Cain, and I probably wouldn’t vote for him anyway. But isn’t there more to talk about than whether he groped a subordinate 14 years ago? I say it is an issue better left in the dustbin of history.
We are in deep trouble in this great country of ours, and many of our problems appear insoluble. Frankly, I am quite worried. I would like to know the candidates’ views on how we can stave off another financial meltdown; reduce the deficit; curtail spiraling health care costs; deal with an unsustainable national debt determined to approach our GDP; create jobs; reform the tax code; deal with the fact that we have become increasingly marginalized in the world; and manage a nuclear Iran.
I want to know what they think the proper role of government is in our lives. Rick Perry would like to abolish two or maybe three departments of government. This would include EPA. Does anyone agree with this? Can we combat cancer and Alzheimer’s without government funded scientific research? Houston and Los Angeles are engulfed in smog. Can we live in a pollution free environment without federal regulation? And while we are on the subject of regulation, is FDA regulation impeding the progress to market of life saving drugs? Is financial regulation impeding market efficiency? And what about our cultural deficit if we stop funding for the arts?
What should be our foreign policy? Should we intervene in Syria, manage Pakistan and China better, withdraw from Afghanistan, engage Latin America more and help the Europeans through their financial crisis? Can we work harder and more effectively with the Israelis and Palestinians to achieve a two-state solution in the Middle East?
What criteria would the candidates apply in making federal appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court?
How do the candidates see our right to be let alone by the government? Should law enforcement officers, acting without a warrant, be allowed surreptitiously to install GPS devices in our cars and monitor our movements 24/7? Can we imprison suspected terrorists indefinitely without arraignment and trial? The list is probably longer.
Old claims are inherently suspect, particularly in sex crime cases. If a wrong were done, it would be natural to make prompt outcry and seek prompt redress. If outcry there is none, it is logical to scrutinize the allegations with great care. It is an easy charge to make, and a difficult one to refute.
The statute of limitations, also called the statute of repose, bars stale and ancient claims. We have enough controversy in our society as it is, and the law in its wisdom has decided that old claims should give way to fresh ones.
