Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - America’s decline to lawlessness has been a slow erosion of the Declaration of Independence’s core values that all persons have the same inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and that government’s legitimacy arises from its protection of those individual inalienable rights. The Declaration’s key words are:
“. . . all men are created equal, . . . with certain unalienable rights, . . . among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [To] secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”\
Chief Justice John Roberts nullified individual inalienable rights, which can be traced back to Alfred The Great’s Code ( 893 AD) which was based on earlier Saxon codes and selected portions of the Torah, e.g. “Judge thou very evenly; judge thou not one doom to the rich, another to the poor, nor one to one to thy friend, another to thy foe.” (From Leviticus 19:15) “Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.” (2 Samuel 5) Civilization’s battle to stop any person from being above the law requires constant vigilance. Roberts’ opinion itself is an abrogation the millennia old precept that the King is not above the law. When Charles I tried to rule on the basis of Divine Right of Kings, he was beheaded. The same fate met Louis XIV who declared, “I am the state.” When one person is above the criminal law, everyone else’s inalienable rights are erased.
In Trump vs. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), Chief Justice Roberts held that Trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his core duties.
If, for example, Trump should arrest and shoot dead Senator Mark Kelly due to his PSA reiterating the Unified Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Trump may be not prosecuted. If Trump orders Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to murder Sen. Kelly, Trump has the absolute right to pardon Hegseth and everyone else who participates in the murder.
Trump Has Already Exercised His Immunity to Murder
Because Trump has absolute immunity, he has impunity to order the murders of the boat people in the Caribbean. While virtually everyone in Washington pretended not to notice the murders, that collective cowardice was harder sustain after the leak that Hegseth had ordered that no one be left alive, and when two boat people survived, a second strike was used to murder them.
Except for Chief Justice Roberts’ decision in Trump vs. the US, there is no domestic or international law which exonerates Trump for ordering these deaths. Even if they had been enemy combatants, they were helpless and posed no threat. The initial September 2d attack was a war crime, but the second was the more morally egregious.
Trump’s and Hegseth’s Bizarre Reaction to The Public Service Announcement
Sen. Kelly repeated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that service members may not follow illegal orders. The UCMJ is rooted in the millennia old value that no one is above the law, and thus, an illegal order from a superior must not be followed. The UCMJ is stricter about not following an order when it targets civilians. If an order is manifestly illegal such as targeting civilians or helpless enemy combatants, the service member is to refuse when the order is given. If the order is ambiguous and time allows such as engaging in civil police actions against US citizens in American cities, the service member is to ask higher ups for clarification.
Hegseth’s response is almost childlike, similar to some of the dumber murderers on 48 Hours, “You can’t prove I did it.” Forgetting that destroying military records is also a crime under UCMJ, Hegseth thinks that because he can destroy the records, no one can prove his role. Hegseth who is not the brightest clog of Trump’s sycophants forgets that after Trump is out of office, the statute of limitation on murder will not have run and unless Trump has pardoned him, Hegseth faces several years in prison. However, it is doubtful Hegseth can even spell Nuremberg.
The Deeper Constitutional Issue
When the Supreme Court repudiates thousands of years of jurisprudence that no person is above the law and grants the President immunity to commit murder, there is no law except law of the jungle. Trump v United States was not the first Supreme Court case to deny citizens’ inalienable rights. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization 597 U.S. 215 (2022) is based on the philosophy that women do not have inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, but rather their abortion rights rest solely on the transitory whims of voters in each state. BTW, under Dobbs, states can make abortion mandatory. If women have no federal inalienable rights and must reply solely on state voters, then whatever the voters decide is the law.
Other Supreme Court Cases Trash Individual Inalienable Rights
According to Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission 588 U.S. 50 (2010), corporations, which are fictitious persons, have inalienable rights greater than natural people. Corporations’ free speech rights allow them to make unlimited financial contributions to politicos, but “We the People” do not have that right. In the mid 1950's, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), which harkened back to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), finding that Blacks did not have federal inalienable rights. Similarly, Brown refused to hold that de facto segregation violated the inalienable rights of Blacks. In 1896, in his Dissent from Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896), Justice Harlan showed in elaborate detail that “separate but equal doctrine” was an unconstitutional violation of Black’s inalienable rights including the First Amendment rights of free association. All the Brown Court had to do was adopt the Justice Harlan’s dissent. Instead, the Brown Court plunged us into decades of Group Rights, which totally repudiate individual inalienable rights, so that today the nation has Wokeism and the DSA’s support of Hamas. See Donald Trump vs Nancy Pelosi - Who’s More Dangerous?
To use prison argot, when the Supreme Court ruled that Trump is above the criminal law, the Court became Trump’s bitch. Suppose Trump takes a dislike to the Chief Justice and invites him to dinner in the White House basement.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a former Los Angeles-based attorney, an author, and political commentator. A long-time contributor to CityWatchLA, he is known for his incisive critiques of City Hall and judicial corruption, as well as his analysis of political and constitutional issues. Abrams blends legal insight with historical and philosophical depth to challenge conventional narratives. A passionate defender of civic integrity and transparency, he aims to expose misuse of power and advocate for systemic reform in local government. You may email him at [email protected])
