In the latest episode of our SCOTUS‘s debasement, the Majority held in Trump v. United States, “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” They claimed that such authority “stem (s) either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Thus, when the President exercises such authority, then “Congress cannot act on, and the court cannot examine the President’s actions.”. Yet, no constitutional scholar seems able to locate such an immunity clause in the US Constitution.
Whaaatttt!
Yes, that’s right. Heil Caesar!. Long live the King!
The Supreme Court decided, through pure irresponsible exercise of sophism, to equate the power of the executive branch with the power of a Monarch in medieval times. Thus, it created a non-existent “absolute immunity” standard in the constitution, and now, by magic wand virtue, we have a President with the prerogatives of a Monarch.
Those individuals who are religious or heir to the Western Christian traditions and laws recognize, on Earth, only one Omnipotent being with absolute power: God. Thus, no man is above the law. It is official. The United States does not operate as a federalist, constitutional democracy. The highest court of this land, in its unbound wisdom, ruled that Presidents are no longer required to perform their duties within the confinements of the law because there are no such confinements. Even in deciding whether the President’s actions stemmed from official or unofficial actions, the not-so-Supreme Court decided that “courts may not inquire into the President’s motives” and, ready? “Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.”
Conclusion:
A President, however venal, corrupt, and treacherous, is above the law. Instead of a president, it’s official that we have a Monarch.
Why?
What is the reason for such an outrageous decision?
Again, in their supreme wisdom, they justify such immunity as necessary for the strong phallic exercise of his presidential duties. According to the United States Supreme Court, given the patriarchal “unrivaled gravity and breadth” of his job, we need our President to be “vigorous” and “energetic” to take “bold and unhesitating action” -whenever pillaging and raping other villages, one may add-. Are we a constitutional democracy or Vikings raiders? If this is not a medieval interpretation of the law and definition of presidential functions, I don’t know what may be.
It’s evident that the individuals writing this decision, at a minimum, have some serious medieval, patriarchal mentality of a very aristocratic, elitist essence, where the biggest, “energetic,” and “bold” phallus rules. Their reasoning is one of bygone eras where feudal lords marched armies to plunder villages and conquer lands. Thus, the feudal lord, the US President, is an almighty, untouchable figure who, along with his Elite cadre, owns his subjects and is not accountable to any earthly power.
II
Democracy still represents the highest and more just system of governance that men experimented with after going through emperors, czars, kings, and other systems of governance ruled by megalomaniacs, tribal blood-shedding, rapists, and plunderers, who believed their power was preternatural. Thousands of years later, it seems that we have not progressed. Back to our caves!
The United States has been considered, at least by itself, as a beacon of Democracy. No longer. After one single, impetuous decision, the Supreme Court of this land has equated this nation to North Korea, Russia, and other dictatorships around the world.
The Supreme Court’s line of reasoning resonates well with the reasoning used by the Catholic church around the time of defending its pedophile priests. Given that supposedly these men were representatives of God on Earth, our civilian criminal courts could not prosecute these church’s apostles, Cardinal, Bishops, and others. It also resonates well with the case of the military establishment protecting its service members whenever accused of criminal behaviors, such as the endemic rape of female service members. As the military wisdom goes, since they control the means to annihilate the population and seem to operate out of the bounds of civil society, they are above any civilian criminal court, and those criminal actions, life-destroying and outrageous as they are, are better ventilated internally “not to disrupt the hierarchy of the military structure.”
So, as it stands now, the United States President, as well as the Princes of the Catholic Church and our Military, are all above the law.
III
In this implosive process, where the United States, as it has been known, will cease to exist, we are witnessing in primetime the erosion of the legal framework that served this nation well while passively witnessing its disappearance. For example, the separation of church and government is gone. Equitable, just voting rights are gone. Women’s rights are gone. Equal opportunity is gone. Und so weiter.
P.R. Thompson previously indicated that he would not vote in this election, probably for the remainder of my life in this country, because he understood this system of governance to be more of a Plutocracy than a Democracy.
This SCOTUS decision does nothing but confirm his judgment that this is no longer a representative democracy. Prior to this SCOTUS decision, he proposed the term Plutocracy better to describe the current United States system of governance, but he was partially wrong. It is not a Plutocracy. Now, it better resembles a legally sanctioned Monarchy-figuratively speaking-. In an outrageous decision packed with Sophisms and non-existent constitutional standards, this court decided to provide a mantle of legitimacy to a monarchic-like, pseudo-constitutional system.
This is day two of the systematic dismantling of the legal framework that supported and served this nation well for almost two hundred fifty-plus years, with day one being the 2010 Citizens United decision. With each decision and all those in the interim, this partisan court has dismantled the legal framework that sustained this country and expressed the victories and aspirations of its constituents.
Let us remind them that our civil rights did not stem from a King’s dictum; Women’s rights did not stem from a King; Voting rights did not stem from a King; Separation of Church and State did not stem from a King. The same goes for Social Security, Medicare, labor laws, the right to assembly, and the right to unionize. And the list goes on and on. All those landmark decisions and social victories were born out of civil strife, blessed with the sweat, blood, and tears of American citizens against the tyranny of the minority.
It is obvious that for the past three decades, and accelerated after the Obama administration, a concerted, well-financed, and orchestrated effort has taken place to dismantle the last fifty years of civil victories.
We are at an “inflection point” in this nation’s history, where nothing seems to work, and we, the citizens, have nowhere to turn to. “Vote, vote, vote,” they said in their naiveté. Then, you elect your candidate and both chambers of Congress, and nothing changes. The Fascists continue to violate the rules with impunity. History is very instructive in terms of the process that we are undergoing and the solutions that may arise. It will get bad before it gets better. All revolutions and social justice victories have been gained by fighting the oppression of the minority over the majority. This one will not be different. P.R. Thompson proposes a la M. Ghandi, delegitimizing this electoral process. We, the people, cannot continue blessing with our votes a system of governance that does not represent us: the Taxpayers. Our elected officials represent themselves and their financiers. The more you vote, the more you provide them with the mantle of legitimacy to execute their self-serving actions. By voting, we are only legitimizing the unfolding of our “more perfect union.” The majority votes do not count. The senatorial representation is nothing but a bad joke, where individuals remain “elected” until they die in office; the Supreme Court is nothing but a nest of elitist, corrupt, and religious fanatics appointed by a corrupt senate “for life.” Und so weiter.
If we don’t vote, at least, it will become clear that we do not support the current structure of governance. Their injustices will become clear as the sun lights in the desert. Their privilege status will be illegitimate. Their corruption will finally be unveiled. The two political parties’s mockery may also cease to exist. Or not. At any rate, as it stands, the votes and wishes of the citizens of the most populous states in this nation do not count. In America, the minority votes have elected the officials, and their obscurantist, bigoted, and theocratic agenda prevailed. Remember that historically, we fought the injustices of the Monarchy and its entrenched privilege(s) in favor of Democracy because its malignancy was clearly seen. Now, by not voting, you will express your disgust for the current order of things. It is our job to unveil the Plutocracy and Monarchy’s trappings in our governance, which, veiled under the guise of a representative Democracy, is legitimized every four years with our votes.
United States Citizens, unite!
P.R. Thompson July 2, 2024
Mr. Thompson,
Your passionate critique of the recent SCOTUS decision in Trump v. United States raises crucial questions about the nature of executive power and accountability in our democracy. Your comparison of the Court’s reasoning to historical justifications for monarchical and ecclesiastical immunity is particularly thought-provoking. Bravo.
While your frustration is palpable, I’m curious about your views on alternative paths forward. You propose delegitimizing the electoral process through non-participation, drawing inspiration from Gandhi. However, couldn’t this strategy potentially accelerate the very erosion of democratic norms you’re concerned about? Furthermore, wouldn’t such delegitimizing measures create opportunities for non-democratic actors to seize power? What can we do to prevent that? Perhaps we could explore other forms of civic engagement that might address these issues without fully abandoning the electoral system. For instance, what are your thoughts on:
1) Grassroots movements to push for constitutional amendments or judicial reforms?
2) Increased focus on local and state-level politics, where individual votes often have more impact?
3) Public education initiatives to increase awareness about the nuances of our governmental system?
Your historical perspective on how social progress has been achieved through struggle against minority oppression is compelling. How might we apply those lessons to our current situation in ways that unite rather than further divide the populace?
Lastly, I’m intrigued by your evolution from describing the US as a plutocracy to now viewing it as a legally sanctioned monarchy. Could you elaborate on how you see this shift playing out in practical terms for average citizens?
Your article certainly gives us much to ponder about the state of our democracy and the challenges we face in preserving it. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these points and continuing this important discussion.
Cheers,
JL
Thank you, JL, for your kind comments and your questions.
At this point, I am not willing to accept that we live under a democracy, as traditionally defined. Our system of governance does not respond to the aspirations or wishes of the majority. In matters of individual rights, e.g., abortion, access to health care, EPA legislation, gun control, Equal opportunity, etc., decision after decision proves the opposite of majority rule.
I salute your enthusiasm for grassroots efforts, engagement in local politics, and education to improve political awareness. Your beliefs resonate with former President Obama’s message, “community organizing,” before he became a millionaire. However, the dark forces—whether we call them fascists, plutocrats, or monarchical—figuratively speaking—are too well organized and well-funded to be fought by traditional methods. Not to mention, they own means of mass misinformation and propaganda, aka, the media. Even the so-called left media plays to the tunes of their corporate masters—for example, the despicable lack of coverage of the massacre of the Palestinians.
I wish I could be more hopeful and positive as you are, but I can’t. They, the Federalist Society, the ultra-right, and the religious fanatics, have played the long game and won. They have hijacked the supposed-to-be ultimate arbiter of justice in the nation. They have divided and conquered.
The minority has ruled even when Democrats held the White House and both chambers.
My conclusion is passive resistance and refusal to continue legitimizing this charade. The bipartisan system is way too corrupt to offer a possible solution. Our system of governance must be allowed to get really bad, even dictatorial as it will be, before it may get better. Then, we, the people, will wake up. Similar to people with severe head trauma and brain edema, they must be placed in a medically induced coma to improve their chances of survival.