On Monday, July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court in one of its last decisions of the 2023-2024 term, did what good Courts always do. They reversed a lower Court’s ruling that was contrary to the established law. In Trump v. U.S., the Court did not – repeat, did not – carve out new exceptions for Donald Trump on the question of Presidential immunity. What did happen was a restoration that no person is BELOW the law, that the long standing and necessary principles of immunity for official Presidential acts applied to Reagan, to Clinton, to both Bushes, to Obama, and indeed, now to Donald J. Trump. Nothing more, nothing less.
By the hysterical reaction from Democrats - who no doubt have not read the decision - you would not think so. Baseless charges of a virtual “James Bond- like 007 license to kill” given only to Trump.
From the Senate Majority leader to the House Minority Leader to even the President - all lawyers themselves - the attack on the Court is both unwarranted, unprecedented and unwise. In a less hyper environment, such reckless fear mongering would and should be sanctionable. But alas, comments on immunity can be delivered with impunity. Even the dissents by the Democrat Supreme Court appointees chose political demagoguery rather than legal argument. In life, too often we choose the path of least resistance.
“Under our Constitutional structure of separation of powers, the nature of Presidential powers entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive Constitutional authority. He is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts…Enduring separation of powers guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. …He is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for his official acts. That immunity applies to ALL occupants of the Oval Office.”
If the hysterical mob only read the sage words of Chief Justice Roberts, they would see how foolish they now sound. But like all mobs, they need a leader, one to stir up, one who can also quiet the herd. That man is number 44, Barrack the Hussein. IF, a really big if, he were to speak in rational tones that the decision is nothing like being reported, the civic temperature would lower automatically. But he will not, although he should, if for selfish reasons if no other.
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen, born in New Mexico. He was killed by a drone strike ordered by President Barrack Hussein Obama on September 30, 2011. It happened in Yemen, a country with which the U.S. was not at war. Obama placed him on the CIA “kill“ list in April of 2010, more than a year before his death.
No evidence exists of al-Awlaki taking up arms against his native country. He was targeted for his rhetoric and speech that allegedly inspired the members of al-Qaeda. The killing was justified by a Memo written in 2010 under the auspices of the Attorney General. The memo, when made public, was called by the NY Times “a slapdash paste of legal theories that was clearly tailored to achieve a predetermined result.” The ACLU described the Obama CIA’s actions “ultimate proof to the argument that the President can order the killings of Americans on foreign soil without ever having to account to any one but the executive branch.” It was termed an “extrajudicial execution.”
The killing of an American citizen on foreign soil without full and proper legal justifications is termed murder. All up the chain, up to the oval office, could be charged. There is no Statute of Limitations on Murder. The denial of guaranteed due process is also criminal. The blanket of immunity reinforced by the recent decision protects the Hussein if and only if it were to be classified as an official function of the Office. It would be a very close case. Nevertheless, Obama is still protected from liability for acts ironically condemned by the uber liberal ACLU and NY Times.
Placing Country over party is the essence of Leadership. Very few political types can claim the mantel. But Obama can now. Staying silent and letting the Mob stir anti Supreme Court, anti-Trump venom is the smart election play, but keeps the State of turmoil permanent. On the other hand, affirming the Court’s decision, if for no other reason than self-protection is the statesman-like move. Calming the crowd with the facts is rare for Obama, but it is now his chance to shine on the big stage.
Rightly or wrongly, he will be listened to. His track record notwithstanding, he can rise to the occasion. Let us HOPE for the CHANGE. Be not afraid.