Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - “They have eyes yet they do not see; they have ears let they do not hear.” (Mark 8:18 based on Isaiah 6:9-10) When Chief Justice John Roberts, a huge supporter of the anti-Constitutional Unitary Executive Theory, authored Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), he held that Trump has immunity from prosecution for violating criminal laws if the act is done as part of Trump’s core constitutional duties. Roberts had to go back before the Code (Doom Book) of Alfred the Great in 893 in overruling all precedents in English Common law in order to grant the President immunity from violating criminal law. Deuteronomy 17:18-20 (7th to 5th B.C.E.) holds that the king is not above the law. After King Charles I asserted that the king was above the law, he was beheaded in 1649. Roberts’ decision destroys the legal principle that no man is above the law.
“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute” . . .We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” Trump vs. US In an instant, Chief Justice Roberts magically makes thousands of years of Western jurisprudence disappear.
Did Chief Justice Roberts Intend to Allow Trump to Murder with Impunity?
In construing a legal opinion, a general term, like criminal law, includes all the items which generally were understood to fall under the term. Chief Justice Roberts stated the case’s issue as “We consider the scope of a President’s immunity from criminal prosecution.” Federal law and all state laws hold that murder is criminal. Because Roberts framed the issue so broadly, there was no need to individually specify each crime. Thus, when the Chief Justice grants Trump absolute immunity from criminal laws, the Chief Justice is including immunity for murder. If Justice Roberts did not want to give immunity to cold blooded murder, his opinion had to specify that exclusion. He did not.
When referring to the President’s duties, Roberts qualified the scope of the word “duties,” and held that Trump has absolute immunity only when performing his “core constitutional duties” or his “exclusive constitutional authority.” When performing lesser duties, the President has presumptive immunity – that means one presumes the President had immunity but it may be possible to establish that Trump did not have immunity when performing lesser duties. Since Chief Justice Roberts knew how to distinguish sub-types of duties and accord them a different level of immunity, he knew how to distinguish different types of criminal acts and accord them varying degrees of immunity. He could have excluded murder completely or accorded all murders qualified or presumptive immunity. He did not. Thus, Chief Justice Roberts and the other justices who joined in his majority opinion (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) were granting Trump absolute immunity for murdering anyone including US citizens when performing a core constitutional duty. No Due Process is allowed, nor does the person have to have committed any crime as long as the President claims he is doing the murder as part of a core duty.
Murdering Innocent Caribbean Boat People
Because American jurisprudence holds that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reason doubt in a court of law, all the boat people are legally innocent. Trump’s murder of over 80 Caribbean Boat People is a tad more complicated, but the results are the same. Because criminal laws are generally applicable only within the jurisdiction for which they were enacted (a rule called, “extraterritorial construction of laws”), US laws do not apply outside the US. The Caribbean Boat People are outside US territory. US criminal law may be applicable when its laws are extended by international agreements. 18 U.S. Code § 2441 d, The US adoption of The Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, outlaws intentional murder. Moreover, no one in a boat thousands of miles from the USA in a boat which is not seaworthy enough to reach the USA shores and which may have no intention of coming to the USA poses any imminent danger to the US. Thus, their murder is a crime. Chief Justice Roberts grant of absolute immunity for murder extends to Trump’s murder of boat people. In brief, 18 U.S. Code § 2441 d makes Trump’s blowing up of the boats murder, but Roberts grants Trump absolute immunity.
Six Democrats Dare to Publicly State the Law
After six Democrats correctly stated that members of the US military have a duty not to obey an illegal order, Trump tweeted, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH." One of Trump’s core duties is Commander and Chief of the Military. Thus, Trump has absolute immunity to have those six Democrats murdered. Ironically, Chief Justice Robert’s opinion does not extend immunity to anyone who carries out Trump’s murder orders. While Trump could then pardon the murderers, that person better be sure that the victim is on federal soil as Presidential pardons do not operate as to state law. Thus, the least safe place for the Six Democrats is on Capitol Hill. If Trump orders Sen Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) to murder Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and/or Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), while they are on the floor of the US Senate, Trump is immune and Tuberville will be pardoned.
In light of the January Sixth rioters’ searching for Vice President Mike Pence in order to hang him, it is conceivable that Trump will order the murder of his political opponents and then claim his absolute immunity. More likely, Trump will use his absolute immunity against regular US citizens such as protestors in Chicago whom he has named as “the enemy within.”
First people say, “It will never happen,” and then people say, “Who could have foreseen that it would happen?”
(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])
