Mereja Forum

[Naga Tuma]

In my layperson’s view about social science, how deeply structured a fair legal process of a society reflects the depth of that society’s civility.

Definitely, the Constitution of the US is not the genesis of the reckoning of the supremacy of the rule of law. There are traditions of this reckoning that predate the Magna Carta.

The Code of Hammurabi is a very ancient legal provision.

Nonetheless, observing the legal processes of the US regarding the allegations against its former President appears to me a marvel of a fair legal process for the ages.

It even has a room for an opportunity for a deliberation if a Commander-in-Chief to enforce the law can claim an immunity for breaking the law.

One of the things that surprised me recently as unthinkable is when I heard in the news an assertion that if its former President is not re-elected to become its next President, the US will cease to exist.

At the very least, it is an unfair assertion against the fair legal process to marvel for the ages. The structure of this legal process couldn’t have been put in place without American thinkers.

More importantly, the US exists on a system of three branches of government with checks and balances. All these three branches of government appear to be functioning robustly in the face of the claim that if one of its citizens is not re-elected to become its next President, a Republic of over 300 million citizens will cease to exist.

I wonder if there is any social science expert in the world who can explain this paradoxical assertion. I find it unthinkable.

The other thing that surprised me as unthinkable is an assertion by Scott Jennings, someone I consider to be a clever Republican strategist.

There was yet another news recently about an alleged murderer of an American citizen. Somebody had called the alleged murderer an animal and Scott Jennings defended the assertion that the alleged is an animal.

I found it unthinkable for two reasons.

First, one of the cardinal provisions in the fair legal structure of the US is to let the legal process sort out the allegation instead of relying on an assertion by one of its citizens. I did not expect the clever Republican strategist would miss this cardinal provision in the US Constitution.

Even more importantly, from a professional point of view, according to basic Biology education, we all belong in the Animal Kingdom. It did not make a distinction between Humankind and Animal Kingdom and lumped us all in the latter.

Somebody who comes to mind as professionally qualified to make a distinction between Humankind and Animal Kingdom is Anthony Fauci.

The moment I heard his assertion, I would say at a moment’s notice Scott Jennings is the new Anthony Fauci.

So, is it just me thinking as a layperson about social science or these specific assertions are unthinkable even in the views of social science experts?