Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - The day after my prior article, explaining that the Unitary Executive (aka Unitary Presidency) is Military Dictatorship, Trump took his next step to impose military rule on the city of Los Angeles by filing DoJ vs City of LA, Mayor Karen Bass, and council president Marqueece-Harris Dawson, June 30th. See DoJ. The only surprise in the DoJ lawsuit is that it came so fast. On June 12th, Secretary of Homeland Security Noem had explained that the purpose for the military being in Los Angeles was to “liberate the city from the socialist and burdensome leadership.” see Liberate LA She made her statement on June12, 2025 and the DOJ lawsuit set the process in motion on June 30, 2025.
Unitary Executive Theory aka Unitary Presidency
Within the last few decades, Unitary Executive Theory been resurrected as the form of government to replace our Constitutional Republic. “Unitary” refers to power being in one person’s hands, which was an anathema to the Founding Fathers. The theory that the President should run the country as he sees fit has plagued us since the writing of the US Constitution. Back in the 1780's, there were still Americans (formerly colonists) who favored the monarchy. The difference between a monarch and a dictator is that the kingship usually inherited, while dictators often seize power. The US Constitution rejected the concept of a Unitary Executive when it created the Republic, where power was distributed between three branches of government. Since the branch most likely to try to become the sole leader was the Chief Executive (President), the Constitution placed a lot of checks and balances on his power.
The founding fathers rejected forming a democracy because democracies too easily become dictatorships. Since the Declaration of Independence said that a government “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed,” however, the Republic had to incorporate some voting to ascertain the consent of the governed. Creating a mechanism for the governed to express their views about who shall represent them did not mean their votes constituted any sort of mandate. After all, elections are won/loss by a few percentage points. The idea of ignoring 49.5% of voters was ludicrous. In fact, voting was seriously restricted; only the House of Representatives were directly elected, while the President, the Senator, and the Supreme Court Justices were doubly removed from the will of the voters. Above the power of Congress to enact the laws and the President’s duty to enforce the laws, stood the judiciary which could nullify any statute or action if it conflicted with the Constitution.
Under a pure democracy, the will of the people is the highest law of the land which is the reason the Constitutional Convention created a republic where the Rule of Law supersedes the Will of the people, of Congress, and of the President. No matter what Congress may decree, and the President may desire, any law which violated the Constitution was null and void.
The Constitution’s most severe checks and balances were placed on the Executive branch since that branch of government could most easily become a tyranny. the President does not make the laws. If President’s polices contravened Congressional statues or the Constitution, the courts could strike down his actions as illegal or unconstitutional. The oath of office for everyone in the government to the Constitution and not to any branch of the government or to any person.
Since FDR, the government has evolved so that the President has a role larger than that envisioned by the Framers, or should I say, it has become what the Framers feared; the Presidency has crept towards becoming a Unitary Executive, who claims that his power comes from the Will of the People, and not from the Constitution. The Unitary Executive claims that he has a mandate from the voters, as if the US were democracy, and his interpretation of the Will of the People controls. Thus, the President may ignore or change Congress’s enactments, and he may abolish agencies which only Congress had the right to create and abolish. Both the Woke Dems and the MAGA GOP strive to create a Unitary Executive, but only while they themselves are in office.
The US Supreme Court has provided Trump all the legal authority he needs to impose military rule on Los Angeles or any other portion of America which does not voluntarily do as he wishes. Trump v United States held that the President may commit criminal acts to support his core duties. In Trump v Casa, he may call out the national guard and presumably the US Marines if he declares an emergency. As one sees from reading the Casa Case, the President can be totally wrong about the emergence and the court will go so far as to adopt the President’s blatant falsehoods as accurate facts. The Court will also ignore that Trump’s real motive to calling out the National Guard and deploying the US Marines is not that we have a bona fide emergency, but rather Trump’s purpose is to seize control of governments where his enemies are the elected officials. Trump clearly identify New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles and the basis of his threat was that they were Democrat cities who thwarted his immigration policies.
Trump Pretends That We Are Not a Republic but a Democracy
Both Wokers and MAGA insist that America is a democracy so that when they win an election, they may declare a mandate which supersedes prior laws and the Constitution. The DoJ lawsuit states:
“Days after now President Trump won the November 5, 2024 election, the Los Angeles City Council, wishing to thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations, . . . “As one reads more of the garbled complaint, it is clear that Trump is not attempting to enjoin the City from violating any statute but rather to force the city to adopt his immigration policies. Until the Casa Case, a president’s policies were not any form of law; they were not statutes and they certainly were not constitutional provisions. Policies are how the President will carry out his duties. Terrorizing innocent people and deporting US citizens are policies; they are not part of any US law or the Constitution. After Trump vs. United States, however, the President, under the Unitary Executive theory, may intentionally engage in criminal acts in furtherance of a core constitutional duty. Assault and battery on California’s senior US Senator Alex Padilla is OK as long as Trump asserts a core constitutional duty, e.g., immigration, and hence he, or his Secretary, who acts in his place as a cabinet member, may have the Secret Service physically assault the Senator to prevent him from asking a question at a press conference.
One can see the DoJ’s game plan by reading the Prayer for Relief at the end of the Complaint (20:25 to 21:7). Long story short, when the Court decides that the City’s behavior is wrong, it will enjoin the city from its behavior, and then at a subsequent hearing, Court will find that the city failed to abide the court’s orders. Then, Trump may order the US Marines [to] do what the city would not do. When the US Marines show up at LAPD headquarters and demand to know the identities of all the immigrants which it has arrested and sent to jail, will the LAPD tell the US Marines, “No”? Actually, the LAPD will say, No, since the LAPD has no records about citizenship.
Because the LAPD does no inquiry about citizenship, it has no names to provide the US Marines. May the Marine then go to the county jail and demand entrance so that it may conduct its own investigation. Will the Sheriff say “No,” and if he does, what will the US Marines do? The Sheriff will say “No.”
Why will Sheriff Luna say No? The DoJ did not sue the County, Sheriff Luna, or the Sheriffs’ Department. Thus, the county, its officers and its agencies are beyond the district court’s jurisdiction in DoJ vs Los Angeles Case. Will that matter to the US Supreme Court? Probably not!
(Richard Lee Abrams has been an attorney, a Realtor and community relations consultant as well as a CityWatch contributor. You may email him at [email protected])
