Articles Tagged with rule of law

by

On August 12, 2026, Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College, published a commentary in Verdict, Justia’s legal analysis and commentary publication. Sarat’s commentary is titled “Trump’s Arresting State,” where he examines what he regards as an increasingly consequential feature of the Trump administration: the use or threatened use of arrest, prosecution, fines, and other criminal penalties not simply against political opponents, but as a means of pressuring state and local officials to cooperate with federal policy objectives.

Sarat’s article is strongly critical of the administration. His central concern is that the threat of criminal enforcement may be moving beyond conventional law-enforcement situations and into disputes involving government authority and public policy, particularly immigration enforcement and the administration of elections. Because Sarat’s article is commentary rather than a neutral news report, it is useful to examine his arguments alongside the administration’s own statements, relevant government documents, and other primary sources. Doing so provides a fuller context within which readers can evaluate both Sarat’s concerns and the federal government’s stated legal and policy justifications.

From Political Rhetoric to Governmental Power

Continue reading

by

Introduction

On June 17, 2026, representatives of the United States and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intended to halt escalating hostilities and establish a framework for broader negotiations. The agreement attracted immediate international attention because it touches upon several of the most consequential issues in Middle Eastern and global politics: military conflict, nuclear proliferation, economic sanctions, energy security, and freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

Although some commentators have described the document as a “peace agreement,” it is more accurately characterized as an interim political understanding. It does not fully resolve the longstanding disputes between the two countries. Instead, it creates a temporary framework within which negotiators hope to reach a more comprehensive settlement.

Continue reading

by

Introduction

The purpose of this essay is not to criticize leadership itself. Every society requires leaders. Effective leadership can inspire, unify, and guide communities through difficult circumstances. Rather, the focus here is on a recurring historical phenomenon: the tendency of some societies to elevate leaders into figures of redemption and the tendency of some leaders to embrace that role.

 Temptation of Political Salvation

Continue reading

by

The following exchange explores an intriguing and often overlooked dimension of the famous Kurt Gödel citizenship anecdote: whether Gödel’s concerns about the vulnerabilities of the U.S. Constitution may have reflected not simply a fear of formal amendment under Article V, but a deeper concern about how constitutional systems can gradually transform themselves through interpretation, logic, and institutional evolution. After posting my articles about Kurt Godel I asked GPT-5 what I thought was a routine question but it responded with much more. This exchange is the original version, independently reviewed and verified by a reliable outside source as completely accurate.

BADERTSCHER

Thinking about Godel as a preeminent logician, has anyone considered that in his statements expressing his concerns about vulnerabilities in the U.S. Constitution, he might have been thinking of the possibility of reinterpreting various provisions of the constitution through logic, theorems, etc. in a manner that could bring us closer to a dictatorship over time by bypassing Article V and any form of standard amendment process altogether?

Continue reading

by

I have chosen to write about this remarkably rich topic because it sits at the intersection of constitutional law, political theory, logic, and history, precisely the kind of issue that invites thoughtful discussion among lawyers, judges, scholars, and legal information professionals.

Although Kurt Gödel never publicly explained the precise “proof” he believed he had discovered, scholars, constitutional theorists, historians, and legal commentators have spent decades trying to reconstruct what he meant when he warned that the U.S. Constitution could legally evolve into a dictatorship.

The story itself is well documented. While preparing for his U.S. citizenship examination in 1947, Gödel intensely studied American constitutional law. According to his friend Oskar Morgenstern, Gödel became alarmed after concluding that there was an “inner contradiction” in the Constitution that could permit a democratic republic to transform legally into an authoritarian regime.

Continue reading

by

The President’s clemency authority is among the most expansive powers granted under the U.S. Constitution. Rooted directly in the constitutional text, the power to grant reprieves and pardons has long been understood as broad, flexible, and largely insulated from judicial or legislative interference. Yet, as both historical practice and Supreme Court precedent make clear, the pardon power is not without meaningful limits. For legal researchers, practitioners, and law librarians, understanding these boundaries is essential to placing executive clemency within its proper constitutional and institutional context.

At its core, the pardon power extends only to “offenses against the United States,” meaning federal crimes. This jurisdictional limitation is fundamental. A presidential pardon cannot reach state prosecutions or convictions, which remain within the authority of state governors or other state level clemency bodies. In an era where parallel federal and state investigations are increasingly common, this distinction has taken on renewed practical importance.

The Constitution also draws a clear textual boundary in cases of impeachment. While a president may pardon individuals for federal criminal offenses, that authority cannot be used to halt or undo impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Representatives or judgments rendered by the Senate. This exception reflects the Framers’ intent to preserve Congress’s role as a check on executive misconduct, ensuring that the pardon power cannot be deployed as a shield against political accountability.

Continue reading

by

As artificial intelligence rapidly enters the criminal justice system (shaping everything from policing strategies to judicial decision-making) the need for clear guidance has become increasingly urgent. Two recent publications from the Council on Criminal Justice provide a timely and authoritative response:

Continue reading

by

From ABA News and Insights , January 26, 2026.

CHICAGO, Jan. 26, 2026 — Our nation is hurting. People are mourning the loss of two lives at the hands of immigration agents in Minneapolis. There is confusion and fear as to the legalities at hand. Let’s be clear: This level of violence is not normal.The gravity of these incidents cannot be overstated. The American Bar Association emphasizes the need for a fair and open government investigation into the shooting deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, both U.S. citizens. Only through a full and proper investigation will the facts of these incidents come to light.
Beyond the investigations, as the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA underscores the important constitutional rights that are at stake. The constitutional rights at issue must be protected. These include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press.
Continue reading

by

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate July 9, 2025.

In the context of the US Congress, SOPRA refers to the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. It’s a legislative proposal aimed at amending the Administrative Procedure Act to change how courts review agency actions. Specifically, SOPRA seeks to eliminate the practice of “Chevron deference,” where courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law if it’s deemed reasonable, and instead require courts to review legal questions de novo, meaning without deference to the agency’s interpretation. 

COST ESTIMATE LETTER JULY 9 2025

Continue reading

by

Introduction

The post referenced below is an adapted excerpt from “The ‘Seizure of Power’ 2025: An Historical Reflection,” authored by Professor Matthew W. Finkin, Research Professor of Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Originally delivered as a comprehensive lecture at Mander Hall in London on March 18, 2025, this version has been condensed and selectively edited for publication by Justia Verdict, where it appeared on June 5, 2025 .

In this incisive analysis, Professor Finkin draws a compelling historical parallel between actions undertaken by President Trump in 2025 and the early methods of consolidation used by the National Socialist regime in 1933. He examines significant developments such as the purging of civil servants, the creation of loyalty-driven structures like the Office of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and mounting judicial and institutional threats to underscore the risks surrounding democratic erosion in what he terms a possible “seizure of power.”

Continue reading
Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2026, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design