As I have indicated in my recent posts, one of the primary charges against Charles I at his trial was that he was guilty of murdering his own people in the Civil War that he started, and since murder was a capital crime, he could be rightly executed. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Gen. 9:6) is both a law of God and a law of nature. And like any law of nature, it is an impartial rule: anyone who commits murder shall be punished, which includes the king. The impartiality of law must therefore deny the maxim of the English common law that "the king can do no wrong," so that the king is above the law.
If President Trump begins murdering Americans, will he be able to claim, as Charles I did, that he is immune to criminal prosecution for murder?
On January 23, 2016, in a campaign speech at Dordt College in Iowa, Trump bragged about the loyalty of his voters, and he explained: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, ok? It's like incredible." Of course, Trump's defenders have said that he was just joking. But in 2019, Trump's lawyers argued in a federal court that since Trump had total immunity from criminal prosecution for anything he did while President, this would include murder.
Now, until recently, it was generally understood that the presidency as established by the Constitution does not have the immunity from criminal prosecution that had been claimed by the British king. In Federalist Number 69, Alexander Hamilton explained how the President is "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law," and how this distinguishes the President from the King of Great Britain, who is "sacred and inviolable" and thus above the law in not being subject to legal punishment.
In the North Carolina Ratifying Convention, James Iredell compared the British King and the American President. The King "has great powers and prerogatives; and it is a constitutional maxim, that he can do no wrong." But contrast, the President can be punished for his bad behavior. He can be impeached. And "if he commits any crime, his is punishable by the laws of his country, and in capital cases may be deprived of his life." So the President could be tried for the capital crime of murder and executed if convicted. As far as I know, no one in any of the ratification conventions disagreed with Iredell about this.
But last year, in the case of Trump v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the original meaning of the Constitution and effectively amended the Constitution (in a 6 to 3 decision) to declare that the President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his "core constitutional powers"--that is, powers that belong exclusively to the President.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor warned: "in every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law." She explained:
The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President. . . . The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Although Chief Justice Roberts ridiculed Sotomayor for "fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals," we now see Trump setting into motion the very criminal actions--perhaps including murder--that Sotomayor warned about.
Recently, The New Republic has published a secret memo from the Department of Homeland Security about a secret meeting between Philip Hegseth (brother of Pete Hegseth), Liaison Officer to Department of Defense, and all the senior people at the DoD. A few weeks ago, Trump ordered National Guardsmen and a contingent of Marines to deploy in Los Angeles to help ICE officers facing resistance from people protesting the kidnapping of people identified as illegal immigrants. Now, at this meeting, the participants talked about orders from Trump that "our joint work in L.A." should be expanded across the country "for years to come." According to one part of the memo, "SECDEF Hegseth wants this meeting to be a message to the uniform side of DoD emphasizing the urgency of the homeland mission."
Notice what this means: the military forces of the United States ("the uniform side of DoD") will be deployed for the "homeland mission" of targeting those Americans who resist the enforcement of Trump's domestic policies. Can't we expect that this will mean military attacks on Americans peacefully protesting Trump's policies, which will include killing some of those Americans?
Presumably, under the majority's decision in Trump v. U.S., Trump ordering his soldiers to kill Americans will come under the President's "absolute immunity" because his power as Commander in Chief belongs to his "core powers."
Is this "fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals"? Or is this fear justified by what we know about Trump's grandiose narcissism, his belief that he is God's Chosen One to save America from it's enemies, and the belief of Trump's intellectuals like Curtis Yarvin that something like the absolute monarchy of the Stuart kings would be best for America?
No comments:
Post a Comment