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

•••

Last week we learned that the sentencing for an ex-president’s felony convictions has been delayed until the courts can decide whether falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to an adult-film actress constitutes an “official act” of the presidency for which the Supreme Court has ruled he has immunity. Having celebrated the 248th anniversary of the birth of our country, let’s all take some time to reflect on how our founding founders might have reacted to this news.

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

•••

When my namesake emigrated to these United States in 1885, he swore to renounce all allegiance to any foreign prince or potentate, to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

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

The writer of the letter to the editor “There are some signs after all” might believe he has been clever or “original” in his letter to the editor of July 1, wherein he cites a formal closing statement in the U.S. Constitution as evidence for the presence of God in its text (“in the year of our Lord”). It’s a worthless and fallacious point, as the wording is simply part of a formal dating convention of the time (the same way we have used “B.C.” and “A.D.”). It is not a testament of faith nor an invitation to Christian intent.

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.

Hello? There are healthy cats at the Humane Society that need new homes, and it could use those donations to care for a lot of other abandoned cats and dogs. I know this is a tragic situation, and these are tough decisions, but this story begs for a counterpoint on that issue. That said, if this was in fact a crime, I hope this story leads to the arrest and conviction of the person responsible for Rue’s injuries, and I would hope the court would order that person to pay for Rue’s medical and dental care as part of their punishment.

David R. Witte, Plymouth