Date: Tuesday, 22 April 2025
https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/law-in-trumps-america
https://theduran.com/law-in-trumps-america/
Law in Trump’s America
21 April 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
——
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIh0ftjzVMP
Definitions
By “a good human” on 17 April 2025
The people Trump sent to prison in El Salvador were not deported, because deportation requires due process. They were captured, against their will, with no due process. You know what that’s called? Kidnapping. And, again against their will, with no due process, to a foreign country. Do you know what you call that? Human trafficking. And, then, they were put in a squalid prison, with no way to get out. Do you know what you call it, when the people who aren’t given due process and therefore haven’t been proven to have committed a crime, are in a prison with no way to get out? A concentration camp.
joel.horton73
False narrative but hey maybe if you screen the LIE loud enough and long enough it might become the truth😂😂😂
dstaff.68
Do you know what they call it? whhhaaaa illegals !
Dammit603
Don’t care get those criminals out of our country
dammit603
OP has diarrhea of the mouth.
josebrod13
Why don't the fight against the system
thiscatispissed
Deported
samaniego.danny
Illegal criminal from another country don’t deserve due process, Where was due process for those involved in January 6?
——
After “a good human” gave, in that instagram, her pithy and entirely accurate legal analysis of what America’s head-of-state is now doing, her audience (insofar as there is any public expression of her audience) appears to approve what that head-of-state is doing. They certainly do NOT condemn it.
This approval of Trump’s actions in this matter appears to be entirely unforced, and might reasonably be understood to be democratic expressions of the public’s will, though it is not reasonably to be interpreted as being (i.e., interpreted as-if it were) a scientifically designed and professionally administered random sampling of public opinion, a “poll,” which CAN reasonably be interpreted as reflective of the public instead of ONLY the opinions of each one of the individual respondents. Nonetheless, those viewer-comments — especially because they were (to the extent that they were comprehensible at all) unanimous in rejecting what she had said — provide some indication that her audience don’t agree with what she had said. Unfortunately, none of the comments provides any indication of precisely what in her statement they disagreed with — much less why they disagreed with it.
The arguments that were given by the respondents ignored the argument that “a good person” had presented — the logic of her statement. (In other words: they ignored what she said; each of the comments instead merely vented what appears to be a feeling against her statement. I have found ignoring of logic to be normal (if not virtually universal). There is nothing abnormal in ignoring a person’s argument while responding to that person’s argument. Ignoring an argument that a person has presented is normal, not abnormal. (Commonly in discussions, when a person agrees with another discussant, it’s venting friendly emotion; and when a person disagrees with another discussant, it’s venting hostile emotion; but, in either case — agreement or disagreement — a discussion is normally far more of an emotional interaction than it is a discussion of the topic-at-hand.) So: the fact that all of those respondents ignored her argument does NOT indicate anything abnormal about any of the respondents.
However, it is important to recognize that viewer-comments don’t necessarily provide a representation of the public’s opinion on the matter. The vast majority of viewers (or readers) issue no comment at all — and the ones who do are NOT (like a POLL is) a random sample of the public. Instead, such comments display how the members of the audience who DO comment publicly respond to the video or article. And THOSE people might NOT respond to it, at all, in the way that most of the audience do. Nonetheless, they do display how individuals who feel strongly enough to express publicly an opinion about the given topic feel. And people with strong feelings about a given topic can be expected to vote on Election Day; so, these people’s opinions often determine election-results.
Based upon the entirely factual and entirely logical argument that “a good person” had presented, can America reasonably be called a “democracy”? Of course, that would depend upon how one defines “democracy.” If one gives a false definition to it, then the answer to that question might be “Yes.” But the true definition of “democracy” would be (however expressed):
A democracy is a country and its Government, in which the Government’s policy-priorities, at present and for at least many decades prior, have adhered closely to the public’s policy-priorities, and NOT merely to some minority’s policy-priorities — in other words: a democracy is a Government that can REASONABLY be said to have the same policy-priorities that its public do. That is what a democracy IS (or at least is SUPPOSED TO BE).
This is a definition that can be clearly applied, in an empirical and fully scientific manner, in order to determine whether or not, and the extent to which, any given country is a “democracy,” or, if not that, then a “dictatorship” (which would mean a country in which the policy-priorities reflect ONLY a minority (i.e., fewer than 50%); and the extent of that dictatorship would then be reflected by how SMALL a percentage of the public DO have that Government’s policy-priorities).
And THAT is the definition I used in analyzing (upon the basis of only the relevant scientific data on this matter) most especially the U.S., but also four other countries, to determine whether or not, and the extent to which, it is a “democracy,” or instead a “dictatorship.” When I concluded there that America is, to an extreme extent, a dictatorship, I then analyzed further to find the basic reasons WHY it is what it is, and then linked at the end of that article to my proposed entirely new system (which would require some Amending of the U.S. Constitution) in order for the U.S. to have any realistic hope of BECOMING a democracy (which it definitely is NOT).
I cited the instagram by “a good person” at the start of the present article in order to display as simply and quickly as possible America’s dictatorship, so as to introduce the questions (and link to the relevant evidences) that this article then discusses. Her argument encapsulates with stunning clarity the police-state that today’s America — and actually all of America ever since 25 July 1945 — is, but which Trump’s second term makes unprecedentedly obvious (even though none of the viewer-comments to her instagram noticed it, at all — all of them ignored it). If she isn’t describing a dictatorship, then what IS a “dictatorship”?
And if you still think it’s not a police-state, then, for example, check this out, from an American immigration lawyer:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DG5qaS8OwWB/
That’s obviously violating the U.S. Constitution. Other U.S. Presidents in the post-WW2 era prior to Trump, were less bold about it, they were secretive about it, but it, this unConstitutionality, goes back at least to Truman, who started — and all U.S. Presidents after him have continued — going to war against foreign countries without adhering to the U.S. Constitution’s declaration-of-war clause. Ever since the end of WW2, the Constitution has been consistently ignored. The U.S. regime uses its regular propaganda-techniques so as to ‘justify’ this, such as by saying that “The U.S. Constitution's Declare War Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, gives Congress the sole power to formally declare war” and thereby insinuating that it’s a mere “formality” — declaration of war (just about the most important power that a Government has) is merely a formality — Oh, the U.S. Constitution is “formalities,” a President and Congress and courts don’t really need to adhere to “formalities”? Well, the declaration of war is merely a formality because “declarations of war have become anachronistic in modern international law and relations.9” However, the U.S. Constitution isn’t international law; it is NATIONAL law — pertaining ONLY in this country, and anyone who interprets its MEANING on the basis of what OTHER COUNTRIES TODAY are doing, is NOT intepreting this Constitution — they are VIOLATING it — they are violating the authors of the U.S. Constitution (including of its Amendments), the individuals who collectively wrote it. Furthermore: only under President Truman did the U.S. start to IGNORE its Constitution so blatantly. ALL of the foreign wars that the U.S. had waged PRIOR to Truman DID have a Declaration of War BY the U.S. Congress. So, the U.S. Constitution is now — and ever since Truman has been — mere words, nothing more, at least when the U.S. Government (the billionaires who control it) want to violate it. All they have to do is to place into power the President and the members of Congress that they have purchased to do their bidding — NOT what the Constitution’s authors INTENDED when they WROTE the document.
Furthermore: ever since 9/11, the custom in the U.S. Government has been that an ‘informal’ declaration of war (something that didn’t even exist prior to Truman), which they call a congressional “Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” has increasingly empowered the President to do what previously had been thought to be what he can do ONLY if Congress issues a ‘formal’ Declaration of War, such as that this fictitious ‘informal’ declaration of war “creates a state of war under international law and legitimates the killing of enemy combatants, the seizure of enemy property, and the apprehension of enemy aliens. While a formal declaration was once deemed a necessary legal prerequisite to war and was thought to terminate diplomatic and commercial relations and most treaties between the combatants, declarations have fallen into disuse since World War II.” And this in only one amongst the MANY ways in which the post-WW2 U.S. Government is a dictatorship and increasingly becoming one. Over the decades since 25 July 1945, it has been consistently becoming even more so, and especially after 9/11. Anybody who still calls THIS country a “democracy” is either a fool or else a liar.
It’s a police-state now. “The West” is headed by a police-state, and has been ever since 25 July 1945. The U.S. Constitution is mere words now. America’s Founders would be twisting in their graves if they knew today’s U.S.A.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
