The irony here is truly astonishing. It’s understandable that any father might do whatever it takes to help his son. Certainly, Hunter has made strides towards redemption, earning forgiveness and attempting to improve his life. Naturally, only those with harsh intentions want to see him jailed. The sentiment of live and let live rings true. However, the sweeping pardon extended by outgoing President Joe Biden carries immense significance. Just six months ago, Biden firmly denied any intention of pardoning his son Hunter, using it as a political stance. Yet, now with the election concluded, he’s done the very thing he once refuted.
Is this surprising? Not really. History is full of similar acts: President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon; Bill Clinton granted pardons to his half-brother and others connected to Democratic donors; Donald Trump pardoned his son-in-law’s father, alongside numerous controversial figures. It’s expected that Trump would continue this trend, possibly even pardoning those involved in the Capitol Hill riots of 2021. There’s speculation about whether he’ll attempt to pardon himself from looming legal challenges, although he can’t do so for state-level cases.
In defense, Biden might argue for a sense of justice. Hunter’s charges, including tax evasion and lying about his drug usage to purchase a gun, were possibly pursued with excessive zeal by political adversaries. However, one could argue that Trump’s business exploits were equally targeted by Democratic authorities in New York. The media’s sensationalist frenzy was exemplified by the New York Times’ bold headline: “GUILTY.”
Some might cynically, or perhaps pragmatically, assume this incident will fade from memory, much like past controversies. Against the backdrop of the U.S. judicial system—where elements can sometimes verge on chaotic—these infractions are minor. Meanwhile, significant challenges lie ahead with a prospective Trump administration.
Nonetheless, justice is a universal ideal that the U.S. claims to advocate globally. For a nation’s leader to possess—constitutionally, no less—the power to bypass justice seems inherently flawed. The U.S. constitution is founded on explicit rights and freedoms, safeguarded by distinct branches of power. Originally, article two, section two aimed to solidify the president’s authority over military affairs, not to excuse criminal acts. This provision has experienced considerable misuse. Democrats depicted themselves during the election as moral defenders, with Biden even commending Kamala Harris as having an almost saintly moral compass. By going back on his word, Biden may have compromised this image.
The U.S. constitution is an impressive framework. Over two and a half centuries, it has managed to hold the nation together through tumultuous times, while other empires have risen and fallen. It thrives on two core principles: respecting states’ rights to implement their own laws, such as those concerning abortion and gun control, and maintaining a balanced separation of powers among the judiciary, executive, and legislature. In today’s starkly divided American society, reinforcing this separation is clearly necessary.
The question remains: how should this be achieved? The framers made altering the constitution a challenging endeavor. Yet, on rare occasions, reform has been possible. Reevaluating the presidential pardon might be a change worth considering.
Do you have thoughts on this topic? If you wish to share your perspective, please send a response of up to 300 words via email for potential publication in our letters section. Click here to submit your thoughts.
