TRUMP HAS A NAPOLEON COMPLEX. The difference? Trump is taller. Trump on X 2/26/2025 compared view of law-abiding; he is above it and does not need to comply. He referred to Napoleon, who asserted: “He who saves his country does not violate any Law" as Napolen'ss rationale for doing what he needed to do to be an Emperor. Since then, short people who bully to reach the unsatiated need for power have a Napoleon complex. It is not meant as a compliment but a damnation'. What Trump is implying: he is above the law and has immunity beyond the Supreme Court limiting it to criminal prosecution for what he does in official duties.
What should those who support the rule of law instead of the rule of a person fear the most? What if the Trump regime defies court orders? It is a real possibility. In fact, he is already doing it: Judge Rules That Trump Administration Defied Order to Unfreeze Billions in Federal Grants - The New York Times and n the USAID shuttering. The Trump regime ignored the orders and kept the agencies closed. Now what? There are some effective measures brewing to counter this.
https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2025/03/whats-big-deal-about-rule-of-law.html
The red flag was raised as Trump pushed back on a judge's ruling denying Musk access to the Treasury Department's personal data on nearly everyone in the US. Musk railed against the judge and indicated that no judge should get away with that, as Musk calls for the impeachment of the judge: “No judge should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a decision.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/vance-and-musk-attack-judicial-authority-as-trumps-agenda-gets-pushback-from-courts The implication was that when judges make decisions that go against the Trump regime, they should be impeached. The strongest voices around Trump are telling Trump what he wants to hear. VP J D Vance had already announced earlier he believes Trump can ignore judges's rulings. https:ld //www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jd-vance-trump-can-ignore-judges-1235261430/. Now opines Vance "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-comment-questioning-court-authority-sparks-backlash-2028651. The hitch, of course, is what is "legitimate" and who decides that? Per Vance, it is the one grabbing power but not the courts.
So far, only one institution has been attempting to uphold the rule of law. It is the judicial system, except for the Supreme Court, which ruled that the president is above the law and cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed as part of official duties. Congress has been so co-opted that they seem willing to give up what powers they once had: to hold Trump to the rule of law. Impeachment is a non-starter. Been there, done that anyway.
Individual lawyers were reminded they also had to abide by the rule of law and due process as well, and the Bar Association would take action. The https://www.mediaite.com/politics/american-bar-association-rips-trump-and-musk-for-acting-contrary-to-the-rule-of-law/ Left unstated was whether the Bar would seek disbarment. There were attorney disbarments in the wake of January 6 and election denial, including Rudi Guiliani.
The real-life, real-time concern now is that Trump has just ignored our decisions that go against the Trump agenda and continues the forbidden actions as if they never heard the court orders. The rule by presidential executive order is legitimate, claims some powerful voices in the Trump regime. They are defying the part of the Constitution that defines the role of the executive branch's primary role is to" take care that the laws be faithfully executed," meaning it is responsible for carrying out the laws passed by Congress and the power is given to the President to do so. Article II. (per Google AI)
Some are talking about a class action civil suit against the administration, per Rep. Jamie Raskin. .https://www.msnbc.com/the-weekend/watch/can-you-sue-elon-musk-rep-raskin-lays-out-class-action-lawsuit-theory-after-treasury-data-accessed-231499333877 The Supreme Court's granting immunity to Trump from criminal prosecution, but civil suits were not covered, as of yet.
There is another way, too, per Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Rachel Maddow 2 10 2025. No need to wait fo these cases to get to the Supreme Court. It can happen immediately and in the lower federal courts. Courts can hold the administrator of the agency in contempt and send them to the clinker or fine them. The lower echelons do not have presidential immunity for criminal behavior nor are they protected from civil liability. Trump appointees may just find themselves personally in legal and financial hot water. Let's see how that plays out. If the judge rules there was contempt of court and issues a jail sentence as punishment, who escorts the accused to jail? Usually it is done by the marshall's service, but Trump appoints them. There could be appeals filed by the Trump regime as part of their delay game. You can see how this could evolve into the constitutional crisis of our lifetime over the preservation over the rule of law instead of the rule of an autocrat. This could get ugly. Only pressure from within MAGA and their senator loyalists could convince Trump to back off.
So, ignoring the judicial system and defying rulings is now what is in store for us. The MAGA coup would now be complete, and the bedrock of democracy, the rule of law, would now be the rule of Trump, and we have lost our republic. The people, the voters, are no longer governing themselves or have the power to shape laws they expect to be obeyed and are now at the mercy of the president. The very essence of what defines democracy as ruled by the people has been de facto lost and placed in the hands of an aspiring dictator.
If all else fails, the fallback is the voters themselves. They still have the ability to do it through free and fair elections, and fair and free elections have not been destroyed by MAGA yet. The first chance is in the midterms for Democrats to win back the majority, and the target should be the MAGA congresspeople from purple and blue districts. Be aware that the billionaires now supporting Trump can buy elections with enough money to drown out the voices of the opposing Democrats.
The 'more sinister' reason behind Musk's attack on consumer protection | Opinion
Deep in the political philosophy weeds for those who seek a perspective to understand why MAGA is such a danger to democracy as we have known it for 250 years.
In a discussion with a grandchild who was so disillusioned with the government that he lapsed into nihilism and embraced anarchy, I countered with some political philosophy on my own. His point was that both Republicans and Democrats were equally corrupt and evil. My response: it's humanity that's the problem. Government can keep the worst of its nature in check. It is those checks that the supporters of Trump and Project 2025 want to tear down and give their lack of morality and their evil designs of greed and lust to rule unlimited.
My answer is that our founders, especially James Madison, believed that humanity was also morally evil, but reason could overcome that. A government, if constructed properly, could help reason and immorality beat down the passions that plague humanity. The problem is humanity itself and the nature of humanity. The tragedy today is that there are forces who want those "passions" unchecked, using a wrecking ball to the constraints provided in the Constitution, removing and destroying checks and balances and, individual rights, and more.
The political philosophy behind the Constitution recognized man had passions that could be held in check by reason and moral conscience, and government could help that reason and morality keep these passions in bounds. In simple terms, men have "passions" (basically evil and immoral) that reason can balance out and overcome. Government can support that reason. Here are the concepts that Madison's philosophy permeate the form of democracy we have enjoyed for 250 years and what the radical right views want to destroy, reflected in Project 2025. They want to remove any checks on balances that keep "passions" in check. Princeton educated many of our country's founders and shaped their political beliefs. James Madison in particular took his lessons in philosophy at Princeotn and the Constitution reflects much of it. As a practicing Presbyterian, Princeton was its mothership, the shaper of its religious preachers, and the views I have reflect the same Scottish philosophers taught by the Scottish professors at Princeton that eventually shaped our country and the form of Madisonian democracy we have today. (My youth pastor was an immigrant Scotsman, and at that time, Presbyterian ministers had to have a Ph.D. from Princeton). Dr. Latham was 100% Scots, born and bred in Scotland, complete with the brogue. Fate somehow found his flock being the First Presbyterian church in Muskkogee, Oklahoma)..
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/essay-witherspoon-madison-moral-philosophy-and-constitution#:~:text=President%20Eisgruber%20'83's%20focus%20on,and%20put%20it%20on%20display.
"So each entity – whether individual or government – has an interest in keeping passions within bounds set by reason and a moral conscience. This is likely the lesson Madison learned from Witherspoon’s lectures on moral philosophy. We see this lesson applied everywhere throughout the Constitution, e.g., checks and balances, separation of powers, Senate veto over the House, presidential veto over Congress, the implied power of judicial review over everyone, indirect election of senators by state legislatures (changed to direct election by the 17th amendment), and indirect election of the president by the Electoral College. We see it also in the Bill of Rights, which is to prevent the trial and conviction of another Socrates, a prophet, or even Jesus himself."
No comments:
Post a Comment