As of April 12, according to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration must file a daily declaration as to the location of one Kilmar Abrego Garcia, along with details of what steps have been, and are being, taken to “facilitate his immediate return to the United States.”

Garcia’s case is an open and shut matter.  The administration freely and openly admits that the Maryland resident’s deportation to El Salvador was illegal and “mistaken.” The court has therefore ruled that he must be returned.

But that doesn’t mean he will be.

Trump and El Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele publicly smirked their way through an April 14 meeting at the White House, denying that Trump could or would demand Garcia’s return, or that Bukele would comply if he received such a demand.

On April 13, the US Department of Justice filed a retort to the court’s ruling, claiming that “exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations” supersedes that ruling.

That language comes from the court’s ruling in a 1936 case, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., and feels rather odd given Trump’s past disdain for the notion that SCOTUS precedent shouldn’t be overturned lightly.

Let’s talk about where that language DOESN’T come from: The US Constitution.

According to that document, the president has strictly limited powers of any kind,  especially over foreign policy.

He can only enter the United States into treaties with the approval of 2/3 of the Senate.

He’s only commander-in-chief of the armed forces when they’re called into the “actual service of the United States” via congressional declaration of war.

He doesn’t get to levy taxes, on Americans or anyone else. That power belongs to Congress.

Neither he nor Congress have any constitutionally enumerated power to regulate immigration.

As for states of “emergency,” the word appears nowhere in the Constitution which includes no magic presidential power to usurp any of the aforementioned powers by declaring one.

Presidents love to point out that they’re “chief executives,” but the emphasis always seems to be on “chief.”

What is an executive? One who executes.

What does the president execute? The law, as passed by Congress.

The president, according to the Constitution, is “chief of doing whatever Congress says to do” on everything, foreign policy included.

The Supreme Court serves as referee when arguments arise as to the constitutionality of Congress’s instructions or the president’s execution of those instructions.

Congressional abdication of responsibility and judicial abdication of authority have, over time, given us an “imperial presidency” of which Donald Trump is just the current instance.

Which brings me back to that Lysander Spooner quote I share with you several times a year:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

We should stop pretending it DOES exist in any meaningful way — and act accordingly.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In 1862, Abraham Lincoln doubted his authority to free slaves held in the Confederate states by executive order (the Emancipation Proclamation), and, according to then-congressman George W. Julian of Indiana, “used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ‘Five, ‘to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.”

That line, usually quoted using a dog rather than a calf, comes to mind for me every April as millions of Americans arrive at line 37 of the standard US federal income tax return form, the 1040:

“This is the amount you owe.”

Calling a demand for payment a debt doesn’t make it one.

Under threat of violence, you might well decide to  pay “protection” money to an extortionist, but you don’t “owe” that money.

Even if the extortionist belongs to a gang which happens to have marked out some turf other people own and live on as its territory, we’re not talking about a real debt. You neither borrowed money from, nor entered into any kind of honest and voluntary exchange with, that gang.

When the gang calls itself a “government,” the situation differs not at all in kind, whatever pageantry and trappings the extortionists may drum up to justify their demands.

The claim that you “owe” a government your respect or money per a “social contract” you’ve never seen, let alone signed, is just a prettified version of “nice place you got here — be a shame if anything happened to it.”

If anything, governments are worse than the run-of-the-mill criminal organizations they otherwise resemble.

Sure, the guy who doesn’t want his bodega to burn down some dark night hands over an envelope full of cash every week to wise guys in cheap suits … but he probably doesn’t spend 13 hours a year filling out paperwork for them, like the average American does with La Cosa IRStra.

And should the envelope come up light some week, his robbers probably don’t engage in a bunch of moral posturing and self-praise. They just deliver a beat-down and a warning. The whole thing may be just as brutal, but it’s at least a little less dishonest.

You’ll probably fill out tax forms this year as always, but don’t let the government convince you that you “owe” it anything.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Confession: I’m not much of a gardener.

I try, but I’m only able to get a few things — cucumbers, green onions, tomatoes, etc. — to grow reliably to ripeness so that they end up on my family’s menu. A lot of the stuff I’ve tried either dies off before it’s ready even if I treat the soil the way my sources recommend, or gets eaten by bugs despite my best efforts to protect it with “safe” pesticides.

When I say I try, well, not every year. But I’m definitely trying  THIS year. I started tilling this morning and have seeds arriving soon. And you should too.

Why? Because over the next few months, two things will almost certainly make food more expensive and less available at your local grocery store.

Thing one: Donald Trump’s cockamamie tariff schemes mean that imported food is about to get both scarcer and more expensive while domestically produced food will likewise go up in price because it can (that’s what happens when producers don’t have to compete for your business).

Thing two: Donald Trump’s cockamamie immigrant deportation schemes mean that farmers are going to have a harder time getting this year’s harvest in. Nearly three of four farm workers in America are immigrants, many of them “undocumented” and probably all of them afraid of getting caught up in ICE’s scattershot “abduct, cage, deport” dragnet. Some will “self-deport.” Others will seek work in fields (pun intended) less likely to attract government attention.

Don’t just put in a garden. Stock up on canned food. If you can, get and keep a chicken or three. Consider buying a “whole cow” package from your local butcher shop (and, if need be, a chest freezer to store it in).

I try my best to avoid predictions of imminent catastrophe, and I still hold out hope that we can get through all this nonsense with nothing more than a mild to moderate recession before cooler heads prevail.

But it’s not a “no pain, no gain” situation. The hammer isn’t just cocked on the upcoming craziness; the gun has been fired. It’s a “pain, no gain” situation, and all we can do is act preemptively to minimize the pain.  How badly you’re hurt when the bullets hit your household depends on your ability to dodge.

Hopefully, you’ve already started attending to your longer-term food requirements.  If not, time to get moving.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY