Thank you for this sharp piece. I’ve written extensively on how power systems reward loyalty over law, and how institutional incentives are quietly restructured to serve personal vendettas. This isn’t just corruption, it’s behavioral engineering.
The Trump era didn’t just rewrite norms. It rewired the reward system. It’s conditioning. It signals to future appointees that loyalty is currency, and hesitation is punishable.
— Johan
Professor of Behavioral Economics & Applied Cognitive Theory
This is true. He’s reshaping the DoJ and FBI to avoid investigation into his favorite crimes—white collar, civil rights, sexual misconduct, government corruption …
What should be terrifying is that he probably meant this to be an instruction sent via DM on his dime-store social media platform. That he is conducting executive business on a platform that I would bet my bottom dollar that all the major countries have broken into the databases of, and now are reading what he is instructing his inner circle to do.
But as you mention, the Supreme's have elevated Trump (and the presidency, at least when a Republican occupies that chair) to be untouchable.
Lisa, you're absolutely right that this is a very big deal. We are living through an experience that provides perhaps the most compelling circumstances of American history since the American Revolution to prompt Americans to learn why our Constitution says what it does.
Part of the reason that this is a big deal is that Trump is, as you say, pretending that the U.S. attorney General is "his attorney general" and that he can order her to "prosecute his opponents." Precisely because Trump pretends that other federal public servants are "his" servants, it's especially important that everyone else understand how our Constitution proves and commands the opposite.
Part of the significance of the following is that it proves the utter irrelevance of the decision of the SCOTUS majority in Trump v. United States. The contention that Trump had absolute immunity for performing "core" duties and might have immunity for performing "official" duties was is virtually irrelevant. The president's oath establishes conclusively that nothing for which Trump was being prosecuted even possibly could have been a core or official duty. The SCOTUS decision merely confirms that presidents cannot be prosecuted for fulfilling their oaths of office. It did not say (and it could not mean without violating our Constitution) that presidents cannot be prosecuted for committing crimes that violate their oaths of office.
Article VI emphasizes that our "Constitution" is paramount (and federal "Laws" and "Treaties" are below it) as "the supreme Law of the Land," and it commands that "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." That governs Trump and all other employees of the executive branch (and even Trump's private attorneys as judicial officers of the court).
Trump's oath is prescribed by Article II, so the oath of office in federal law (5 U.S.C. 3331) governs every executive branch employee below Trump. The president's oath in Article II emphasizes that the People vested power in the president (and imposed the duty on the president) to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and take ONLY other actions that are necessary and proper to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability." The president's powers necessarily are constitutionally limited to the foregoing.
The oath in 5 U.S.C. 3331 emphasizes that the People vested power in every other executive branch employee solely to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our "Constitution."
The point of the Constitution commanding such oaths is that by taking the foregoing oaths of office, each such public servant acknowledges that their first, foremost and constant duty is to fulfill their oaths.
Chief Justice John Marshall (writing for SCOTUS) in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) highlighted the significance of the oath required by Article VI and its emphasis on our Constitution as the supreme law of the land. His pronouncements necessarily are equally relevant to the oath required by Article II and 5 U.S.C. 3331 and any oath in any other federal or state law acknowledging the duty to support our Constitution.
"[I]t is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature," that is precisely why "it direct[s] the judges" (and every other state or federal public servant) "to take an oath to support it." Every such "oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character."
Any person violating the oath in Article II, Article VI, 5 U.S.C. 3331 or other federal or state law prescribing an oath to support our Constitution commits “worse than solemn mockery” of our Constitution, and any person who dares “take this oath” without believing it commits “a crime.”
“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of [any] legislature" (ANY act of ANY public servant) "repugnant to the constitution, is void.”
Obviously, "the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law," so courts cannot "close their eyes on the constitution, and see only" some purported "law" that might appear (at first glance) to justify their violation of our Constitution. Any purported "doctrine" to the contrary "would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory." It "thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions—a written constitution."
No public servant can possibly justify violating their oath of office. Absolutely every public servant whom our Constitution says can be impeached for criminally violating their oaths of office ("The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States") can be prosecuted for criminally violating their oaths of office. Nothing in our Constitution vested power in any judge whatsoever to decree otherwise.
Nixon thought big *for his time*. His time was more than 50 years ago. Time has moved on. The backlash against civil rights and women's rights helped bring about Reagan, from whose administration we've never really recovered. The backlash kicked into higher gear with the election of our first Black president (the horror! the horror), assisted by Bush II's appointment of Roberts and Alito to SCOTUS, which contributed greatly to Citizens United (2010), which was basically a 5–4 decision. The backlash, with a big assist from Mitch McConnell, solidified the Court's reactionary majority. And the (mostly white) leadership of the Democratic Party didn't catch on till earlier this year. Judging by the vote on the Charlie Kirk resolution, some of them still don't get it.
What’s more American than demanding your attorney general (and recipient of contributions to look the other way on your pedo BFF and Trump U scam - use her office to punish … “my fellow Americans”?
Thank you for this sharp piece. I’ve written extensively on how power systems reward loyalty over law, and how institutional incentives are quietly restructured to serve personal vendettas. This isn’t just corruption, it’s behavioral engineering.
The Trump era didn’t just rewrite norms. It rewired the reward system. It’s conditioning. It signals to future appointees that loyalty is currency, and hesitation is punishable.
— Johan
Professor of Behavioral Economics & Applied Cognitive Theory
This is true. He’s reshaping the DoJ and FBI to avoid investigation into his favorite crimes—white collar, civil rights, sexual misconduct, government corruption …
What should be terrifying is that he probably meant this to be an instruction sent via DM on his dime-store social media platform. That he is conducting executive business on a platform that I would bet my bottom dollar that all the major countries have broken into the databases of, and now are reading what he is instructing his inner circle to do.
But as you mention, the Supreme's have elevated Trump (and the presidency, at least when a Republican occupies that chair) to be untouchable.
Lisa, you're absolutely right that this is a very big deal. We are living through an experience that provides perhaps the most compelling circumstances of American history since the American Revolution to prompt Americans to learn why our Constitution says what it does.
Part of the reason that this is a big deal is that Trump is, as you say, pretending that the U.S. attorney General is "his attorney general" and that he can order her to "prosecute his opponents." Precisely because Trump pretends that other federal public servants are "his" servants, it's especially important that everyone else understand how our Constitution proves and commands the opposite.
Part of the significance of the following is that it proves the utter irrelevance of the decision of the SCOTUS majority in Trump v. United States. The contention that Trump had absolute immunity for performing "core" duties and might have immunity for performing "official" duties was is virtually irrelevant. The president's oath establishes conclusively that nothing for which Trump was being prosecuted even possibly could have been a core or official duty. The SCOTUS decision merely confirms that presidents cannot be prosecuted for fulfilling their oaths of office. It did not say (and it could not mean without violating our Constitution) that presidents cannot be prosecuted for committing crimes that violate their oaths of office.
Article VI emphasizes that our "Constitution" is paramount (and federal "Laws" and "Treaties" are below it) as "the supreme Law of the Land," and it commands that "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." That governs Trump and all other employees of the executive branch (and even Trump's private attorneys as judicial officers of the court).
Trump's oath is prescribed by Article II, so the oath of office in federal law (5 U.S.C. 3331) governs every executive branch employee below Trump. The president's oath in Article II emphasizes that the People vested power in the president (and imposed the duty on the president) to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and take ONLY other actions that are necessary and proper to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability." The president's powers necessarily are constitutionally limited to the foregoing.
The oath in 5 U.S.C. 3331 emphasizes that the People vested power in every other executive branch employee solely to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our "Constitution."
The point of the Constitution commanding such oaths is that by taking the foregoing oaths of office, each such public servant acknowledges that their first, foremost and constant duty is to fulfill their oaths.
Chief Justice John Marshall (writing for SCOTUS) in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) highlighted the significance of the oath required by Article VI and its emphasis on our Constitution as the supreme law of the land. His pronouncements necessarily are equally relevant to the oath required by Article II and 5 U.S.C. 3331 and any oath in any other federal or state law acknowledging the duty to support our Constitution.
"[I]t is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature," that is precisely why "it direct[s] the judges" (and every other state or federal public servant) "to take an oath to support it." Every such "oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character."
Any person violating the oath in Article II, Article VI, 5 U.S.C. 3331 or other federal or state law prescribing an oath to support our Constitution commits “worse than solemn mockery” of our Constitution, and any person who dares “take this oath” without believing it commits “a crime.”
“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of [any] legislature" (ANY act of ANY public servant) "repugnant to the constitution, is void.”
Obviously, "the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law," so courts cannot "close their eyes on the constitution, and see only" some purported "law" that might appear (at first glance) to justify their violation of our Constitution. Any purported "doctrine" to the contrary "would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory." It "thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions—a written constitution."
No public servant can possibly justify violating their oath of office. Absolutely every public servant whom our Constitution says can be impeached for criminally violating their oaths of office ("The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States") can be prosecuted for criminally violating their oaths of office. Nothing in our Constitution vested power in any judge whatsoever to decree otherwise.
Nixon thought big *for his time*. His time was more than 50 years ago. Time has moved on. The backlash against civil rights and women's rights helped bring about Reagan, from whose administration we've never really recovered. The backlash kicked into higher gear with the election of our first Black president (the horror! the horror), assisted by Bush II's appointment of Roberts and Alito to SCOTUS, which contributed greatly to Citizens United (2010), which was basically a 5–4 decision. The backlash, with a big assist from Mitch McConnell, solidified the Court's reactionary majority. And the (mostly white) leadership of the Democratic Party didn't catch on till earlier this year. Judging by the vote on the Charlie Kirk resolution, some of them still don't get it.
Thank you, Ms. Needham. Is SCOTUS supposed to use common sense when deciding cases?
The corporate media response - “feh” - is a sure indication that the public has become numb to its daily indignations.
What’s more American than demanding your attorney general (and recipient of contributions to look the other way on your pedo BFF and Trump U scam - use her office to punish … “my fellow Americans”?