By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Recent court rulings signal a growing resistance to the Trump administration’s actions. Judges are pushing back against the federalization of the National Guard, with one judge stating that the president cannot punish those with opposing views. Furthermore, another judge issued a temporary restraining order to prevent ICE agents from violating First Amendment rights, including ordering agents to wear visible identification. However, not all courts are in agreement, as a panel of judges, including Trump appointees, have shown a willingness to give the president unchecked discretion in deploying the National Guard. These legal battles highlight the critical constitutional questions at stake, specifically the balance of power and the protection of civil liberties.
Read the original article here
Trump’s Plan for a Secret Police Force Loyal to Him Alone Isn’t Playing Well in Court
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the idea of a secret police force, designed to be exclusively loyal to Donald Trump, isn’t exactly thriving in the legal arena. This concept, often compared to historical examples of oppressive regimes, seems to be facing some serious headwinds in the courts, and that’s probably a good thing for anyone valuing the rule of law.
The core issue here is the potential for such a force to operate outside the bounds of established legal frameworks. The historical examples referenced—like the Gestapo or the Stasi—were instruments of unchecked power, used to suppress dissent, intimidate opponents, and enforce the will of the leader. The courts are, or should be, the guardians against such overreach, holding power accountable and ensuring that the government operates within the confines of the constitution. So, a plan for a personal police force, answerable only to Trump, naturally runs afoul of these principles.
The legal challenges likely center around the question of authority. Where does this new force get its power? What legal justifications are there for its existence? If it’s intended to circumvent existing law enforcement agencies or operate with impunity, it’s a direct challenge to the established order. This also ties into the question of due process. How would this force operate? What safeguards would be in place to protect individuals from abuse of power, and would these safeguards even be meaningful if the force is ultimately accountable only to Trump?
It seems that there are concerns that this isn’t simply a hypothetical scenario. Existing agencies like ICE, are already being used in ways that could be perceived as overstepping legal boundaries. The idea of an additional, dedicated force, specifically designed to be loyal to a single individual, raises serious questions about the integrity of the legal system.
It’s a topic with a clear historical resonance. The “Hitler Oath,” where loyalty to the leader superseded all other considerations, serves as a chilling reminder of the dangers of a personalized power structure. The courts, at least in theory, are intended to resist such tendencies.
Of course, it’s important to consider the implications. If such a plan were to move forward, it would likely face significant resistance. The courts, even with potential challenges, could become a major battleground. The potential for public outcry, and protests, would also be substantial. In addition, there are also questions about how this force might operate in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, creating potential for conflict, overlapping authority, and confusion.
The idea of this secret force has deep roots in the history of authoritarianism. From the Tsarist Okhrana to the Cheka, and the KGB, secret police forces have been fundamental tools of control for repressive regimes. The idea of a force, loyal to an individual rather than the law, is a direct threat to democratic principles.
It’s safe to assume that such a plan, if it were to materialize, would face resistance from various sectors. The military is also likely not to play along. The whole concept goes against the most basic tenets of a democratic society, where power is supposed to be distributed and accountable.
At its core, the problem is simple. The legal system is built on the idea of checks and balances. It is designed to prevent any one individual from accumulating too much power. Trump’s plan for a secret police force, loyal only to him, is a direct assault on that principle.