The Utterly Absurd Nullity of Trump v. U.S.

I think every lawyer in the United States, indeed the world, could agree to the proposition that SCOTUS could not interpret the Constitution in such a way to declare it null and void, or to be nothing but a blank page of paper signifying nothing, or that since SCOTUS endowed itself in Marbury v. Madison with final say in interpreting the Constitution, that the SCOTUS majority can and must be the ONLY source of all law for the nation – essentially abolishing the role of Congress. Such interpretations are patently absurd, and therefore a nullity.

Such a decision is Trump v U.S.

Justice Roberts’ radical SCOTUS majority yesterday beclowned themselves before history and the world, for that is the (slightly more convoluted) nullity of Trump v. U.S.. Constitutional scholars will be feverishly reading this ‘opinion’ with utter incredulity yesterday and today, and the judgment will be harsh and nearly universal (other than those practitioners so enthralled by the Trump Cult that they have disposed any ethics, logic, or integrity). This ruling is wholly illegitimate and a nullity. It utterly abrogates the rule of law as regards the person of the President, something that the SCOTUS hasn’t any power to do.

The very essence of Trump v. U.S., stripping down all the ratiocination to the barest bones, is that the Constitution does not apply to the President – not, mind you, the Presidency, but any person who inhabits or has inhabited the office of the Presidency. It does so against all precedent, against all history and against all logic in the name of preserving straw man of vigorous and bold decision making by the President.

You see, SCOTUS has now declared that the incumbent President currently inhabiting the Presidency, cannot enforce the nation’s laws upon any former President. SCOTUS correctly asserts that seeing the laws are faithfully executed – the law enforcement function of Presidency, which includes prosecution of crimes – is Constitutionally delegated solely to the Presidency, yet SCOTUS declares that any prior or current President is immune to that same power. The declaration is a meaningless absurdity, and itself a glaring violation of the separation of powers they purportedly seek to protect. They are declaring that the Constitution simply doesn’t apply to current or former Presidents and is beyond the legal reach of the Presidency itself, and of Congress via its duly enacted criminal laws, and of the Courts themselves via criminal process.

In essence, they have asserted that highest and totally unaccountable power in our system of government is a man, perhaps a few men, who, while they inhabit the Presidency and forever after, are free from any restraint of law, including criminal process and even the courts’ own subpoenas for the purpose of investigating crimes. This is every bit as absurd as declaring the Constitution does not exist regarding the person of the President.

No high court in the history of the western legal tradition that I am aware of has ever issued such a ridiculous and facially absurd ruling, wholly divorced from reason, history, precedent and reality. The Roberts Majority stands accused of being utterly illegitimate, corrupt beyond repair, and unfaithful to our laws and our Constitution. History and the legal profession will convict and damn them forever for what they have tried to unleash upon this great nation – utter lawlessness.

Trump v. U.S. must not stand and, for the security, safety, and continuation of our constitutional republic, will not stand. The Roberts Majority must now end. Any majority that can pen such a perversion must end before they can do yet more harm.

If you wanted a constitutional crisis today – or even if you did not – such a crisis is exactly what Trump v. U.S. stands poised to produce. How that crisis will unfold, I know not. But it is surely the case that the clock is now ticking to either the end of our system of justice under law, or a renewal of it. I’m praying for the later. But I’m an atheist, so take that for what it’s worth…

Discover more from Blog for Arizona

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 thought on “The Utterly Absurd Nullity of Trump v. U.S.”

  1. We must have read about different decisions. The accounts that I read said that the court divided presidential action into three categories. The first are core functions where there’s absolutely immunity. The second are official functions where there is only immunity, if immunity is essential for the president to be able to perform his or her duties. The third are unofficial functions where there is no immunity. That is what I read, so what are you talking about?

    PS. I hope you agree that sending in a navy SEAL team to kill your political opponents is an unofficial act.


Leave a Comment

Discover more from Blog for Arizona

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading