“In courts of law men literally care nothing about truth, but only about conviction.”
(Plato in the voice of Socrates¹)
In “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty,” (7/4/2022) I argued that Justice Alito used the ill-informed history of the 19th century jurisprudence and specious arguments to support his conviction that Roe V. Wade was an “egregious error” which the Supreme Court must overturn—even though its precedent had been re-established many times over its 50-year lifespan. As referenced in the same blog, “what legal penalties will be necessary to punish egg/sperm donors, doctors, and lab technicians for the hideous crime of imprisoning humans in test tubes or worse, freezing them until surrogate wombs become available.” My hyperbole here was meant to highlight the inevitable—though absurd—outcome of Alito’s ill-fated summation. His error has not only increased women’s deaths during pregnancy but now thwarts the pregnancies made possible by IVF technology—as my hyperbole intimated. He unwittingly illustrated the truth of Plato’s accusation that implies legal discourse can be so distorted that truth and thereby the innocent can suffer the errant consequences of its conviction.
Our former President also commented on the relation of legal discourse to truth: in an all-cap screed, he began, “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION. ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENDED, WOULD BE MET WITH ALMOST CERTAIN INDICTMENT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT TERM END. EVEN EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE’ MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD. THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY” (sic, as quoted from Trump’s Truth Social account).² Although his grammar school use of language can be ignored, the sense of his all-caps demand for “full immunity” is ridiculous. Events “that ‘cross the line’” should be identified as either good or bad, as determined by a moral code, rather than by Trump’s political benefit. For, in America, even political acts are and must be governed by the moral imperative expressed in the words and intent of its Constitution. The bedrock underpinning of America’s entire judicial system is derived from principals pre-established in our Constitution. We Americans hold these principals as self-evident and should act accordingly. Personal “intent” alone cannot and should never justify an immoral act, though it can mitigate accountability or lessen its pre-established penalties. Therefore, no President has a license to create a personal moral code that intentionally defies our Constitutionally based system of laws for he/she must and “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (reference Article II, Section 3, Constitution of the United States). In other words, no President should be above the law but instead be its oath-bound enforcer.
Donald Trump’s difficulty in discerning “good from bad” is the result of his inability to distinguish his petty self-interests from the common good (reference “The Swamp versus the Promise” (9/30/2019)). He recognizes no value in promoting the general welfare, as specified in the Constitution’s Preamble, rather than serving himself foremost. Morality, for him, is a transactional exercise in which he primarily must benefit. Consequently, his demand for “total Presidential immunity” is a self-serving political statement that distorts America’s legal system. For his self-declared “immunity” is cryptic legalese that would condone his attempt to overthrow an election and defy any judicial accountability for his incitement of the January 6 insurrection. He unwittingly illustrates the truth of Plato’s accusation that legal discourse can be so distorted that truth and the innocent can suffer its errant consequences. And that distortion is a harbinger of fascism and the rule of a dictator (reference “Post Inauguration Thoughts on Power and Government” (1/26/2021)).
But America’s founders established a democratic republic. And its Constitution forms the basis for our justice system, insures our liberties, and the general welfare of all its citizens as a human birthright. All our elected representatives must take an oath to that very same Constitution. For most of my school-aged youth, “I pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Under the auspices of my citizenship, I also served during wartime in our military. What I learned from my citizenship is the same as every other American citizen, specifically, we each have a responsibility to uphold the values expressed in our Constitution and, most especially, in the exercise of our informed and thoughtful vote to support those very values that so identify us as Americans (reference “How to Make America Great Again” (10/15/2016)).
At this moment in American history, we are experiencing an unfamiliar and dangerous syndrome that is infecting our national conscience. It has spawned a constellation of corrosive agents that are eating away at our democratic republic. Its core motivation is our former President’s attempt to defy his oath to our Constitution by inciting an insurrection to invalidate a fair election and obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. He effectively defied the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Section 3, in his attempt to stage a coup and effect the demise of our democracy.
Donald Trump supports his attempt to overturn our Constitutional democracy in many nefarious ways. He incites his followers in political rallies, corrupts his Republican Party with his incessant lies that spread self-aggrandizing disinformation (reference “Will Republicans Kill Republicanism?” (1/13/2020)), ridicules his dissenters—often in concert with rightwing media, and threatens violence against all who oppose his will. These are the actions of a wanton dictator. While serving in office he had attempted to politicize the independent institutions of our government, marginalize vulnerable communities, and deport migrants at our border without due process. Then, while being voted out of office, he directed a national effort to undermine and overrule a free election. To that end, he authorized the creation of false electors, demanded certification of an illicit vote count, and actively incited a violent insurrection against the American Capital— exhorting his followers that “you have to fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore.” His treasonous plan was to maintain his Presidency unlawfully by stopping the vote count and the peaceful transfer of power, thereby invalidating the voting rights of American citizens. With the help of congressional sycophants, he had stacked the courts with judges whom he hoped would support his policies, to include the outlawing of abortion, the dissemination of combat weapons, the closure of borders to lawful migrants as well as illegals, and the legalization of his personal claim to absolute immunity before the law.
Now, facing a multitude of Federal and State indictments, his lawyers are not just defending Donald Trump in a court of law. Instead, they are making the case to overturn the American legal system and the suffrage rights of the American voter. Trump wants to turn our democratic system against itself and the American people. He condemns the institutions of government, most especially the Department of Justice, which he attempted to control while in office. He has so infected our legal discourse that both truth and the innocent can now suffer its errant consequences, which include both the demise of our democracy and the rights of American citizens. It is not truth that he serves, but its paradoxical conviction in our courts via his judicial appointees.
The word “conviction,” according to Webster’s Dictionary has a dual meaning: “the state of being convinced of error or compelled to admit the truth.” The Latin root word convincere, meaning “to conquer, refute, convict, prove” presumes a process, but without any assurance of uncovering truth. Applied to jurisprudence, “conviction” implies a very specific intent. The quote attributed to Socrates above intimates there should be a higher legal bar than merely winning a case in a court of law. And that legal bar is discovery of the truth. But Donald Trump has never been about truth. He lies incessantly and about everything, including his Presidential authority, his wealth, his incessant grifting, his acumen, his prowess on the golf course, his knowledge of history, geography, or even the common semantic use of words in our English language. Currently, his sole ambition is to be President for life, whereby he will conquer America, refute all political opponents, convict his enemies, and prove the rightness of his will. His army of lawyers has just one goal, namely, to assure Donald Trump wins in the courts of law so that he can continue his pursuit of a permanent Presidency. Thereby, he hopes to complete his conquest of America and refute its adherence to truth and justice. For “the Donald,” winning is his only truth and at any costs.
My fellow Americans, what are the lessons we have or should have learned from the last Presidential election? First, if Trump fails to win this next election, America will likely suffer another insurrection of some sort. According to Trump, there “will be a bloodbath.” Secondly, if Trump wins, he will surely attempt to be President for life—for his life’s ambition has never deviated from self-aggrandizement. The Presidency may not even be enough for a “man who would be king.” How might he use the economic and military power of the Presidency in dealing with other nations? More than American democracy would be at stake—so might be a peaceful world order.
History would then judge us, the American citizen/voter, guilty of the demise of the American democratic republic and its role in maintaining peace and the territorial integrity of all nation states. And that is a verdict neither we nor our posterity should suffer. For it could be irreversible—like a death sentence.
_______________________________________
¹ Plato,” Dialogues on Love and Friendship,” Easton Press, p.199
² My word processor noted multiple issues with this quote, highlighting both grammar, spelling, and issues of clarity. Welcome to the world of “Trump speak.”