Readers Write: Presidential immunity, the Constitution, Rue the injured cat

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Regarding “Trump gets delay in felony sentencing” (July 3): Well, that didn’t take long. The ink is hardly dry on the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision, and the conservative justices get a real, live demonstration of the folly of their position. Donald Trump’s lawyers have invoked this shiny new decision to argue that their client’s felony conviction has been invalidated by dint of the fact that his crime was partially committed while he was president. Well, of course. Every American who has the slightest inkling of our system of government knows that paying a porn star hush money and reimbursing a lawyer for it are official presidential duties. But wait. All is not as crazy as it might appear at first glance. Maybe those conservative justices weren’t so myopic after all. All the prosecution has to prove is that paying off a porn star is not official presidential duty. It’s as simple as that.

As if all the legal process involving all the misbehavior of the former president isn’t taking long enough, we can now witness an additional hurdle as the prosecution has to prove the obvious. But what about the next case?

Right now, our country is focused on the question of who will be the Democratic candidate for president. Maybe we should add an additional national question: Can the U.S. Supreme Court, clearly shown the consequences of a bizarre decision, undo the damage by reversing itself?

Richard Masur, Minneapolis

•••

Philip M. Ahern, Shorewood

•••

Regarding the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity: Our society has decided that the argument that “I was only following orders” does not remove personal accountability for one’s actions. But apparently the argument that “I was only giving orders” does remove personal accountability. How strange.

Joel Schwartz, Minneapolis

•••

I was thinking about his oath on the day we celebrated our nation’s founding. Coincidently, the same week the Supreme Court overturned the principles of our Declaration of Independence from a country ruled by the monarchy my great grandfather swore to renounce in defense of our Constitution.

Deciding on the case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court summarily overturned the fundamental principle on which our nation was founded: that all people in the United States of America should be equal before the law. They renounced the bedrock conviction that our nation should rest not on the arbitrary rule of a single man and his hand-picked advisers but on the rule of law.

Moreover, this supermajority of supposed originalists hypocritically made up their ruling out of thin air. There is absolutely nothing in our Constitution that provides the president absolute immunity over any action, official or unofficial. In fact, the founding fathers specifically chose not to include any such executive powers.

No celebratory fireworks, please.

John Gunyou, Minnetonka

There are additional misstatements in the letter, such as the attempt to imply a linkage to the Declaration of Independence, a document that some people still think is part of our country’s legal framework. It is not.

The declaration was a political manifesto written for — and delivered to — King George III and Parliament, created while the colonists were still legally British. Its wording was designed to reflect the conventions and realities of its time, specifically to a country that promoted a single, official religion where the king was the “Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.” The real direct ancestor of our Constitution is not the Declaration of Independence but the Articles of Confederation, our first official constitution. The Articles of Confederation also use the convention of “in the year of our Lord” when citing its date of origin, yet nowhere does it state that our country is a religious state, inspired and governed by God, or based on the Bible.

It matters not a tiddle what personal beliefs people held at that time, nor under what general understanding people had with regards to divine inspiration. The United States Constitution was written to deliberately separate our government from any religious strictures or influence. It is why the Constitution begins with “We the people,” not “In the name of our Lord.” The secular foundation of our Constitution is, in large part, what made it and our government both unique and praiseworthy throughout the world. People may practice whatever beliefs they want, but our government is not your church, temple or mosque. This separation has always been its foundation and our strength.

George K. Atkins, Minneapolis

The story of Rue the cat is both tragic and heartwarming (”Cat survives toss from 12th-floor balcony of Minneapolis apartment,” StarTribune.com, July 2). I am not going to repeat the story, but given the extent of this young cat’s injuries, it would have been far more humane and cost effective to simply put her to sleep. Instead, some people are doing everything possible to save this cat and asking for donations to pay for it.