I have a lot of experience in Minnesota. Minnesotans are an interesting blend of liberal and conservative tendencies. It takes a lot to work them up, but once their sense of right and wrong is triggered, there's no going back.
Minnesotans are highly law-abiding. It is, in fact, one place where their liberalism shows up. They believe that the force of law should be applied to social and economic problems. For example, government should have a role in feeding the poor. The lawlessness of federal agents is deeply disturbing to them.
The talk of civil war could be pretext, but I first heard the threats at a meeting of rural insurance agents a full year-and-a-half ago - in June prior to the 2024 elections. Bullies will threaten, but the danger is greater because staying in office has become an existential issue for Trump and the other Epstein pals surrounding him. Stay in power, or land in jail - seems like a clear choice to me. I hope it won't come to it, but it it does - MAGA will lose. God Bless America.
This is an excellent essay. It has not garnered the likes and comments typical of the firebrand expressions of outrage and calls to action type posts but that’s what I like about Contrarian - we get both and more.
MIke Johnson says there is not enough time to get judicial warrants for all the people that need to be arrested. Too bad; IT'S THE LAW. None of the rest of us can use the excuse that justice takes too much time. Johnson sounds like a whining three year old.
To me, a non-lawyer, there seems to be a glaring logical fallacy in many published interpretations of the Supreme Court's Presidential immunity decision. The logical fallacy allows an interpretation (conclusion) far more favorable to the President than the strict words of the immunity decision and the Constitution actually provide.
As best I can frame it, the fallacy starts with the second “Hold:” paragraph in the decision where they (SCOTUS) say ( or is it “rule” or “hold”?):
“And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is NO IMMUNITY FOR UNOFFICIAL ACTS." {capitals are mine for emphasis, where I would have preferred bold or underline font!}
And later they write:
“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity.”
HOWEVER, the US Constitution, Article II Section 3 says (final sentence or phrase) “…he {referring to the President} shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”
By what contortion of the English (or any other) language can one conclude that if the President takes action(s) that violate (that is, "fail to faithfully execute") the “Laws {of the United States}” that such acts can be considered to be “official acts”? Such actions would clearly contradict Article II Section 3’s commanded responsibility “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,…”. Thus, would seem to clearly make such acts of violating (or not executing) the law NOT “official”. Per the above quoted Supreme Court ruling, if the President’s acts are not official, then they MUST BE “unofficial”, and then, there is “…no immunity {from prosecution}…”.
It's ironic that if Trump had actually been smart enough to relent on healthcare funding like Dems tried to get him to do and if he took their advice on how ICE should conduct their business and if he relented even a little on tariffs, his approval ratings might be a lot closer to what he says they are and the Dems chances to take over Congress would be considerably less.
If that doesn't make the case for him being a demented moron I don't know what does...
After reading the responses today from the leaders of ICE and Border Patrol testifying before congress, I wonder if civil war is the only way out of this mess. Perhaps Canada can help the northern border states and the PNW if we are forced to separate ourselves from the states enthralled by the Trump/Epstein Crime Syndicate.
It has been too long since the Pretti and Good murders without arrests...this says a lot. It tells me there will be no arrests, really, how many prosecutors and cops would like video of the murders they want to solve ??
I truly believe the Supreme Court will come to regret inventing that totally imaginary "Presidential Immunity" at some point. Probably the first time a Democratic President overrides one of their flawed decisions. Or declares by fiat that "The Supreme Court will now adhere to these Binding Rules of Conduct at all times". They're going to HATE being asked to live like every other federal judge in the country.
My Constitution includes a right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." When did that right get cut from your Constitution Richard and Thomas?
You wrote: “The Supreme Court did not rule on whether anyone other than the president is immune from criminal prosecution. But too many people in the Executive Branch are inferring that they can commit crimes, even murder, and get away with it.” I’m very disappointed by several Supreme Court justices, and I suspect that three or more of them are likely to hold that those who are “merely following orders” of the President cannot be expected to refuse to follow those orders or question the legality of those orders. Otherwise, presidential authority and efficiency would be undermined. Accordingly, under that theory, to uphold the “principle” of presidential immunity, it must be extended to those who obey and execute presidential orders. I absolutely disagree with that reasoning. But I also believe that the presidential immunity decision was an erroneous, egregious, unprecedented, unprincipled and unconstitutional decision.
On a related matter, Trump has stated that he can do anything he wants as president — but I assert that that is a misinterpretation of the presidential immunity decision. The Supreme Court MUST CLARIFY that a presidential order, action, or decision, if it is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal — e.g., an order to kill a suspect summarily without due process — IS UNENFORCIBLE. Any governmental action committed as a result of such an order, action or decision must be ENJOINED. And if conduct has already occurred, any harm that results must be REMEDIED. Presidential immunity only prohibits holding a president criminally liable. It does not “permit” a president to execute an illegal order or violate legal and constitutional rights, nor does it permit others to execute an illegal order or violate legal and constitutional rights.
One could say that the Supreme Court — in creating this brand new “presidential immunity from criminal prosecution” — is like Dr. Frankenstein creating a MONSTER. The monster is the president who knows that he can do anything he wants free from criminal accountability. Even if he knows that his order is illegal, he can order the federal government to act illegally, and the government will act accordingly UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT RULES otherwise. When a “Doctor Frankenstein” creates a monster who can act with impunity — completely free of moral restraints — that “Doctor” has a moral responsibility to ACT QUICKLY TO RESTRAIN the monster. Otherwise that “Doctor” would be “permitting” — if not “abetting” — the harm caused by the monster’s actions. And here I will note how slow the Supreme Court is acting with regard to Trump’s tariffs, his “birthright citizenship order,” and various immigration enforcement actions. JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. WHO is more responsible? The criminal who commits the crime and causes the harm? Or the judges who let the criminal get away with it? I say BOTH are responsible … albeit in different ways.
I have a lot of experience in Minnesota. Minnesotans are an interesting blend of liberal and conservative tendencies. It takes a lot to work them up, but once their sense of right and wrong is triggered, there's no going back.
Minnesotans are highly law-abiding. It is, in fact, one place where their liberalism shows up. They believe that the force of law should be applied to social and economic problems. For example, government should have a role in feeding the poor. The lawlessness of federal agents is deeply disturbing to them.
I love that Minnesota was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I think if they actually got it Trump's fat head would immediately explode.
Here! Here! ❤️💕
Amen!❤️💕
The talk of civil war could be pretext, but I first heard the threats at a meeting of rural insurance agents a full year-and-a-half ago - in June prior to the 2024 elections. Bullies will threaten, but the danger is greater because staying in office has become an existential issue for Trump and the other Epstein pals surrounding him. Stay in power, or land in jail - seems like a clear choice to me. I hope it won't come to it, but it it does - MAGA will lose. God Bless America.
Lose, just like they did the last time. Only now, no more seats at the table afterwards.
This is an excellent essay. It has not garnered the likes and comments typical of the firebrand expressions of outrage and calls to action type posts but that’s what I like about Contrarian - we get both and more.
If there's anyone committing violence in Minnesota, it's ICE.
Thanks for explaining this lawlessness by the federal government and what can be done to stop and prevent it in the future.
MIke Johnson says there is not enough time to get judicial warrants for all the people that need to be arrested. Too bad; IT'S THE LAW. None of the rest of us can use the excuse that justice takes too much time. Johnson sounds like a whining three year old.
Professors Painter and Sullivan --
To me, a non-lawyer, there seems to be a glaring logical fallacy in many published interpretations of the Supreme Court's Presidential immunity decision. The logical fallacy allows an interpretation (conclusion) far more favorable to the President than the strict words of the immunity decision and the Constitution actually provide.
As best I can frame it, the fallacy starts with the second “Hold:” paragraph in the decision where they (SCOTUS) say ( or is it “rule” or “hold”?):
“And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is NO IMMUNITY FOR UNOFFICIAL ACTS." {capitals are mine for emphasis, where I would have preferred bold or underline font!}
And later they write:
“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity.”
HOWEVER, the US Constitution, Article II Section 3 says (final sentence or phrase) “…he {referring to the President} shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”
By what contortion of the English (or any other) language can one conclude that if the President takes action(s) that violate (that is, "fail to faithfully execute") the “Laws {of the United States}” that such acts can be considered to be “official acts”? Such actions would clearly contradict Article II Section 3’s commanded responsibility “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,…”. Thus, would seem to clearly make such acts of violating (or not executing) the law NOT “official”. Per the above quoted Supreme Court ruling, if the President’s acts are not official, then they MUST BE “unofficial”, and then, there is “…no immunity {from prosecution}…”.
What say you about this analysis?
Outstanding column. Thank you.
It's ironic that if Trump had actually been smart enough to relent on healthcare funding like Dems tried to get him to do and if he took their advice on how ICE should conduct their business and if he relented even a little on tariffs, his approval ratings might be a lot closer to what he says they are and the Dems chances to take over Congress would be considerably less.
If that doesn't make the case for him being a demented moron I don't know what does...
After reading the responses today from the leaders of ICE and Border Patrol testifying before congress, I wonder if civil war is the only way out of this mess. Perhaps Canada can help the northern border states and the PNW if we are forced to separate ourselves from the states enthralled by the Trump/Epstein Crime Syndicate.
It has been too long since the Pretti and Good murders without arrests...this says a lot. It tells me there will be no arrests, really, how many prosecutors and cops would like video of the murders they want to solve ??
I truly believe the Supreme Court will come to regret inventing that totally imaginary "Presidential Immunity" at some point. Probably the first time a Democratic President overrides one of their flawed decisions. Or declares by fiat that "The Supreme Court will now adhere to these Binding Rules of Conduct at all times". They're going to HATE being asked to live like every other federal judge in the country.
My Constitution includes a right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." When did that right get cut from your Constitution Richard and Thomas?
You wrote: “The Supreme Court did not rule on whether anyone other than the president is immune from criminal prosecution. But too many people in the Executive Branch are inferring that they can commit crimes, even murder, and get away with it.” I’m very disappointed by several Supreme Court justices, and I suspect that three or more of them are likely to hold that those who are “merely following orders” of the President cannot be expected to refuse to follow those orders or question the legality of those orders. Otherwise, presidential authority and efficiency would be undermined. Accordingly, under that theory, to uphold the “principle” of presidential immunity, it must be extended to those who obey and execute presidential orders. I absolutely disagree with that reasoning. But I also believe that the presidential immunity decision was an erroneous, egregious, unprecedented, unprincipled and unconstitutional decision.
On a related matter, Trump has stated that he can do anything he wants as president — but I assert that that is a misinterpretation of the presidential immunity decision. The Supreme Court MUST CLARIFY that a presidential order, action, or decision, if it is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal — e.g., an order to kill a suspect summarily without due process — IS UNENFORCIBLE. Any governmental action committed as a result of such an order, action or decision must be ENJOINED. And if conduct has already occurred, any harm that results must be REMEDIED. Presidential immunity only prohibits holding a president criminally liable. It does not “permit” a president to execute an illegal order or violate legal and constitutional rights, nor does it permit others to execute an illegal order or violate legal and constitutional rights.
One could say that the Supreme Court — in creating this brand new “presidential immunity from criminal prosecution” — is like Dr. Frankenstein creating a MONSTER. The monster is the president who knows that he can do anything he wants free from criminal accountability. Even if he knows that his order is illegal, he can order the federal government to act illegally, and the government will act accordingly UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT RULES otherwise. When a “Doctor Frankenstein” creates a monster who can act with impunity — completely free of moral restraints — that “Doctor” has a moral responsibility to ACT QUICKLY TO RESTRAIN the monster. Otherwise that “Doctor” would be “permitting” — if not “abetting” — the harm caused by the monster’s actions. And here I will note how slow the Supreme Court is acting with regard to Trump’s tariffs, his “birthright citizenship order,” and various immigration enforcement actions. JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. WHO is more responsible? The criminal who commits the crime and causes the harm? Or the judges who let the criminal get away with it? I say BOTH are responsible … albeit in different ways.