Monday, April 29, 2024

The U.S. Constitution: No Presidential Immunity

By Roger Armbrust

The U.S. Supreme Court this past week took on the historic question of presidential immunity.

Specifically, they addressed whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal charges that he tried to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.


The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court


Past all the jawing back and forth, Justice Elena Kagan hit on the specific vital nerve regarding presidential immunity. She went straight to the wording, or lack of it, in the U.S. Constitution itself:

“The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution,” she told Trump’s attorney. “They didn’t provide immunity to the president, and you know, not so surprising. They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law…Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?”

So, there it is. The U.S. Constitution provides NO immunity to the President of the United States. Which means the president, like every other American citizen is not above the law. So if breaking a law, he or she is liable, and must suffer the legal consequences.

The one limited immunity that is in the Constitution: legislative immunity to members of Congress through the Speech and Debate Clause. Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 states that Senators and Representatives “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” 

And you see from the wording there are limits to that immunity. Treason is a crime. Felony is a crime. There are legal arguments both ways on Breach of Peace, but the Constitution’s framers list it as a crime.

The Constitution provides no such limited immunity for the President, and clearly no absolute immunity, including criminal.

Whence Presidential Immunity?

So why is there any question about presidential immunity now? Where did the idea, the illusive precedent, of presidential immunity come from? Basically it has evolved since the 19th century through judicial and political rationalizations: i.e., rulings from judges and government officials for what they thought should be in the Constitution, but is not.

The problem with judges ruling on what they think should be in the Constitution: they set a legal precedent, and future judges tend to rely on legal precedent when making their own decisions.

That brings us to Trump’s current case. For precedent, his attorneys cited the 1982 decision on Nixon v. Fitzgerald. This was a civil suit dealing with presidential immunity. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a president "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts" and "the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office." The defense attorneys also cited other decisions basically supporting the idea of absolute immunity.

Trump’s prosecutors, however, have argued that the Nixon v. Fitzgerald decision dealt with a civil suit, not criminal charges, and does not apply to federal criminal prosecutions. As far as “absolute immunity”, they cite as precedent the 1974 unanimous Supreme Court decision in United States v. Nixon. That decision rejected Nixon's claim of "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

How Will It End?

The current Supreme Court heard those arguments last week, and will now move toward a decision. But will they base their decisions on the prosecution’s or defense’s arguments? Or on Justice Kagan’s reasoning that the Constitution provides no presidential immunity, period?

Or will politics come into play?

One major problem: Three of the court’s justices were appointed by Trump. They have chosen not to see any conflict of interest in their appointments to lifetime posts with salaries of $298,500 a year. They have not recused themselves.

In their discussions last week, they seemed to want to kick the can down the road: send the case back to a lower court. That would probably delay any decision until after the November presidential election.

Then Newsweek on Monday, April 29, ran an article about Justice Brett Kavanaugh having written an article over a decade ago saying he had long held the opinion that presidents should be protected from prosecution. Why? The difficulties of the job, and he believed there were other methods of holding a president accountable.

This seems to jive with Trump attorneys’ opening paragraph of the brief to the Supreme Court: “The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office.”

One, of course, may argue that neither the President nor any elected official should be independent from the will, and the judgement, of the people. After all, the first words of the Constitution read, “We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Also, as far as politics, press reports have shown Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife to have actively sought to oppose the 2020 presidential election results in which Trump lost. Ginni Thomas, a Republican activist, sent emails urging Republican lawmakers in Arizona to choose their own slate of electors, arguing that Biden’s election was a fraud. But Justice Thomas hasn’t chosen to cite any conflict of interest or to recuse himself either.

Stay tuned.

 

U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Presidential immunity in the United States - Wikipedia

Salaries for Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and the President - Foundation - National Taxpayers Union (ntu.org)

When do Supreme Court Justices recuse themselves from cases? | Constitution Center

Ginni Thomas’ emails deepen her involvement in 2020 election | PBS NewsHour

Trump's three US Supreme Court appointees thrash out immunity claim (msn.com)

Read Brett Kavanaugh's Opinion on Presidential Immunity (msn.com)

2024-03-19 - US v. Trump - No. 23-939 - Brief of Petitioner - Final with Tables (002).pdf (supremecourt.gov)

U.S. Supreme Court floats return to trial court for Trump in presidential immunity case  • Arkansas Advocate

 

 You'll find my views on fighting fascism and other vital issues in my book published by Parkhurst Brothers, Publishers:

The Vital Realities for 2020 and Beyond: Writings on Water Wars, Nuclear Devastation, Endless War, Economic Revolution, and Surveillance Versus Freedom - Kindle edition by Armbrust, Roger. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.




 

Thursday, March 21, 2024

BIG OIL: CAN IT BE CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE?

By Roger Armbrust

The world’s major oil and gas company executives met in Houston this week at their annual Cera conference, loudly putting their mouths where their money is.

As the British daily newspaper The Guardian reported:

The bosses of the world’s leading oil and gas companies have poured scorn on efforts to move away from fossil fuels, complaining that a “visibly failing” transition to clean energy was being pushed forward at an “unrealistic pace”.

The translation: Big Oil has been investing more heavily over the past year in mega-merging, exploration, production, and lobbying in direct conflict with global efforts to fight destructive climate change. Their statements at Cera this week simply mirror their actions to basically scorch the earth for profit.



Here’s just one example:

At Cera, Amin Nasser, chief executive at Saudi Aramco – the world’s biggest of Big Oil -- told the gathering, to applause, “We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas, and instead invest in them adequately.”

“Adequately,” of course, is a loaded adverb to an industry that has made $281 billion in profits just since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. An industry that is predicting a growing global hunger for oil and gas, and encouraging it.

Charges of Homicide?

Meanwhile, away from the Big Oil voices, environmental advocates are measuring the possibilities of U.S. civil and now criminal prosecutions to make the industry legally pay for its words and actions.

They were, believe it or not, encouraged last year in a ruling by the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court.

In April 2023 the high court ruled in favor of anti-oil plaintiffs, allowing them to sue at the state level, where oil companies feel odds favor the public over industry.

So, it’s no coincidence that also last year, Public Citizen, a consumer-advocacy nonprofit, introduced a new legal theory: fossil fuel companies could and should be tried for homicide for causing climate-related deaths.

The nonprofit’s cause is gaining support in progressive legal circles.

One reason is that science has taken vocal stances critical of oil companies. One example: In October 2022, The Lancet medical publication issued an annual report from over 100 contributors. In it, doctors placed blame on the fossil fuels industry for the world’s most dire health problems.

The opinions coming from the Supreme Court and the medical community have widened the eyes of progressives wanting to criminally sue the oil companies, and prosecutors who might take the criminal cases.

“We’ve been really excited to see the curiosity, interest and support these ideas have garnered from members of the legal community, including from both former and current federal, state and local prosecutors,” Aaron Regunberg, senior policy counsel with Public Citizen’s climate program, told The Guardian this week.

Prosecution vs. Conviction

However, a prosecution does not necessarily a conviction make. Oil companies have the cash to hire top defense attorneys, and the legal system itself can be costly and full of delays that can frustrate less cash-flush plaintiffs in civil suits, and even prosecutors in criminal cases.

Most, but not all, U.S. states require a prosecutor to take a case before a grand jury to decide if it should go to criminal trial. So a prosecutor has those two legal obstacles to get a conviction.

Also, a criminal conviction for homicide logically can be harder to prove, considering the variables of climate change. You can have witnesses who see a murderer pull a gun and shoot a victim. But how do witnesses convince a jury that the victims of hurricanes were murdered by oil companies? That can be very tricky, when talented defense attorneys confuse the issue with their own scientific data and witnesses.

Too, if a prosecutor did struggle past all that and get a conviction, you can be sure the appeal process would immediately click in. Eventually it might even make it all the way to the Supreme Court. And while conservative justices might allow environmentalists to sue at the state level, getting those judges to stay a murder conviction on climate-change crime seems a tough call.

Also, in this oligarchy of America where money means power, it seems an equally tough call to get a sitting prosecutor to take on Big Oil, if he or she has future political ambitions. The decider, of course, to every politician – including elected prosecutors – is in the polls. If voters show a lawsuit against Big Oil can help get you elected, then go for it. If not…well…

But if environmentalists can find an ambitious prosecutor who truly cares about the public, and who can garner a highly knowledgeable team to take on big corporate lawyers, then two things might happen:

First, fossil fuel giants would have to turn over records they’d rather keep secret, especially in a sensational criminal trial. That could help environmentalists win in the court of public opinion, even if the court of law sides with Big Oil.

Second, that public knowledge and hopefully outrage, in turn, might lead to election of environmentally concerned legislators who could take on Big Oil.

But if you want a change that great in America’s oligarchy, you’ll need to get organized, get educated to the environmental issues, and get active in finding and electing those caring candidates.

 

Major Oil Companies Make Moves in Megamerger Frenzy | OilPrice.com

U.S. oil & gas lobbying spend by party 2024 | Statista

Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 • OpenSecrets

World’s top fossil-fuel bosses deride efforts to move away from oil and gas | Fossil fuels | The Guardian

At CERAWeek, dueling visions on climate change on oil's home turf (axios.com)

World’s largest oil companies have made $281bn profit since invasion of Ukraine | Commodities | The Guardian

Big Oil Strikes Out At Supreme Court | OilPrice.com

Doctors decry 'record profits' for fossil fuel companies as climate change weighs on global health (nbcnews.com)

Fossil fuel firms could be tried in US for homicide over climate-related deaths, experts say | Law (US) | The Guardian

DOJ reaches multimillion-dollar settlements against oil and gas companies it says were failing to control harmful leaks | CNN Politics

You can find much more global environmental news in my new World Energy Gazette on Facebook.

You’ll find my views on world water supply and other vital global issues in my book:

The Vital Realities for 2020 and Beyond: Writings on Water Wars, Nuclear Devastation, Endless War, Economic Revolution, and Surveillance Versus Freedom - Kindle edition by Armbrust, Roger. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

EARTH'S WATER CONDITION IN HOT WATER

 By Roger Armbrust

In January, the World Economic Forum reported Earth’s serious water condition:

The global water cycle is spiraling out of balance, with climate change aggravating torrential rains and intense droughts. The assumption that water supplies are stable, predictable and manageable is no longer true.



As we move through March, reports from around the globe support that view.

On March 15, the United Nations’ top official warned that growing regional conflicts and a warming planet make it vital that the world both guard and share its limited water supplies.

“Conflicts are raging, inequality is rife, pollution and biodiversity loss are rampant, and, as humanity continues to burn fossil fuels, the climate crisis is accelerating with a deadly force — further threatening peace,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

“Our planet is heating up — seas are rising, rains patterns are changing, and river flows are shrinking.  That is resulting in droughts in some regions, and floods and coastal erosion in others.  Meanwhile, pollution and overconsumption are imperiling the availability of fresh, clean, accessible water on which all life depends.  Dwindling supplies can increase competition and inflame tensions between people, communities, and countries.  That is increasing the risk of conflict.

The world is also seeing a rise in cases of cholera, the deadly disease resulting from tainted water.

Action Against Hunger’s 2024 Water Funding Gap report notes:

Despite dwindling aid, the need for assistance is intensifying – 3.6 billion people worldwide lack adequate sanitation, and are susceptible to water-borne diseases, rendering them even more vulnerable to life-threatening malnutrition.

In the U.S., the Western states continue to vie over how to divide up water from the Colorado River.

“Seven Western states are starting to plot a future for how much water they’ll draw from the dwindling Colorado River in a warmer, drier world,” CNN told us on March 6. “The river is the lifeblood for the West – providing drinking water for tens of millions, irrigating crops, and powering homes and industry with hydroelectric dams.”

“Severe Drought Increases Mortality Risk in the Northern Rockies and Plains,” was a March 6 headline on drought.gov.

But dwindling water supply isn’t America’s only problem. The Weather Channel reports that two-thirds of Chicago’s children under six are exposed to lead in their water. It’s a national problem the Biden administration began addressing last year with $6.5 billion in funding for safe water infrastructure.

North of the U.S., Canada is seeing its own water problems.

Alberta’s already parched condition has led farmers and oil drillers to brace for even drier times this summer. Meanwhile, U.S. and Canada officials have agreed to review pollution of U.S. waterways caused by British Columbia coal mines.

South of the U.S., Mexico City is running out of water. It’s forced rationing, and is expected to affect voting in the upcoming mayoral election.

At the Panama Canal, drought has caused halts in traffic, affecting global supplies. And the canal’s efforts to solve the problem and increase water has negatively affected the supply of drinking water there.

Latin America’s water problems are summarized in news headlines like these: “This region of Brazil feeds billions of people. But its ecosystem needs better protection.” And this: “Police fire pepper spray on food crisis protesters in Argentina.”

Elsewhere, allafrica.com gives us the continent’s dire straits in one head: “Africa: Water and Sanitation Still Major Challenges in Africa, Especially for Rural and Poor Citizens”.

Why should it be any different in Asia, where an Asia Society headline says, “Asia’s Next Challenge: Securing the Region’s Water Future”. And more than one news source echoes phys.org’s “India’s water problems set to get worse as the world warms”.

 As for Europe, the Associated Press on March 11 headlined, “Europe is not prepared for the growing climate extremes it faces, its first risk assessment finds”.

What are the solutions? You’ve probably read about them all before: desalination; rationing; decarbonization; less consumption.

You can read the specifics on all the above stories in my World Water Supply Digest on Facebook.

Facebook

You’ll find my views on world water supply and other vital global issues in my book:

The Vital Realities for 2020 and Beyond: Writings on Water Wars, Nuclear Devastation, Endless War, Economic Revolution, and Surveillance Versus Freedom - Kindle edition by Armbrust, Roger. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

 

Sunday, March 10, 2024

Hey, America! Ready for a Dictatorship?

By Roger Armbrust 

It’s intriguing, isn’t it, how far we’ve come and how little we’ve changed in America.

In 1782, Col. Louis Nicola wrote the Newburgh Letter to George Washington on behalf of the Revolutionary Army’s officers. It proposed Washington be king of a new constitutional monarchy. Washington said no.

In 2024, polls show at least 40 per cent of American voters think we should have an “authoritarian” leader, also known as a dictator. Donald Trump has said yes.



What do you think?

What do you think about the Republican Party becoming the American Fascist Party as it continues efforts to quell women’s rights, minority rights, voting rights, public education, urge book bannings, and press on with endless war and quest for entitled empire?

What do you think about the Democratic Party becoming more embedded as the American Corporate Party, forsaking many liberal ethics, and also continuing expansion of the military-industrial complex and the growing dangers of nuclear war?

What do you think about both major political parties’ and Big Media’s history of blocking any third parties from the democratic process of presidential debate? I still recall writing in 2012 about how -- while the major networks aired the Democratic and Republican presidential debate -- only the American TV program “Democracy Now” and RT, the Russian-controlled TV channel, carried the debate of the other, media-ostracized American parties including the Conservative, Green, Liberal, and Libertarian presidential candidates. And I recall writing about how orderly and sensible their debate was.

I also recall in 2020, after Biden’s lawful election, I told happy friends, “Congratulations, we’ve moved away from a dictatorship back to an oligarchy. Maybe one day we’ll have a true democracy, but I don’t see it in my lifetime.”

Four years earlier, a week after the 2016 election, I wrote a column entitled “Prepare to Fight Fascism, 2017 and Beyond”. 2017, of course, was when Trump would take office. As expected, he immediately went after the press, the courts, and the U.S. Constitution. He then added Congress to that assault, capping it on Jan.6, 2021 when he encouraged his followers to attack the U.S. Capitol. And they did. Remember?

Even before that, he spent a year denying the severity of the Covid pandemic to try to save his re-election. Remember when he later admitted to Bob Woodward that he knew Covid’s lethalness, but didn’t want the public to “panic”? So he hid the reality, leading to a million American deaths. Remember?

Biden came in to office having to respond to Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, and to a deadly virus in full swing worldwide, and a stifled economy and work force. Calling on the medical community who Trump opposed, Biden was able to oversee reasonable containment of the virus, and we saw the economy slowly begin to accelerate.

This shows in recent news headlines: “US economy grew solid 3.2% in fourth quarter,” AP wrote last week, along with another story, “Another Burst of Hiring Shows off the Resilience of the US Job Market”.

There are still problems with high rents and housing costs stirring inflation. And recent polls show Americans’ top worry remains the economy, particularly high food and housing prices.

Let’s add that Biden has been no hero when it comes to stopping wars or freeing the press. He’s accelerated weapons supplies with the Jekyll-Hyde syndrome of helping defend Ukraine but encouraging genocide in Gaza. And he clearly wants to punish Australian publisher Julian Assange for exposing U.S. war crimes.

Still, these sins might be considered endurable, if not acceptable, when you weigh a future president who will continue oligarchy or cement dictatorship. And that’s where we are.

It's early March, and the election campaigns are in full swing. Come November, you’ll choose America’s direction as your world continues to respond, or not, to climate change, endless war and possible nuclear war, and suppression of individual rights as authoritarian governments grow globally.

How will you vote?

 

Trump ‘dictator’ comment reignites criticism his camp has tried to curb - The Washington Post

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

The People and Critics Putin Likely Had Assassinated, Killed (businessinsider.com)

Trump acknowledged seriousness of COVID-19 privately to Bob Woodward in early February | CBC News

Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills (bbc.com)

Attorneys Warn Biden's Support for Israeli Assault on Gaza Could Make Him Complicit in Genocide (commondreams.org)

Biden says 'Putin and his thugs' caused Navalny's death | Reuters

CIA Discussed Assange Assassination With Trump Officials: Report (businessinsider.com)

Trump and Biden both want to punish Julian Assange for exposing U.S. war crimes – Orange County Register (ocregister.com)

Newburgh letter - Wikipedia

Trump Is an Authoritarian. So Are Millions of Americans - POLITICO

RealClearPolitics - 2024 General Election Polls

The modern Republican party is hurtling towards fascism | Robert Reich | The Guardian

Democrats and Business Are Increasingly Allies - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Thinking about the Unthinkable: Five Nuclear Weapons Issues to Address in 2024 (csis.org)

You’ll find my views on dictatorship, oligarchy, nuclear war and more in my book:

The Vital Realities for 2020 and Beyond: Writings on Water Wars, Nuclear Devastation, Endless War, Economic Revolution, and Surveillance Versus Freedom - Kindle edition by Armbrust, Roger. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.