Donald Trump and the Illusion of Justice

"No one is more dangerous than he who imagines himself pure in heart; for his purity, by definition, is unassailable."- James Baldwin

Americans suffer from illusions of purity. That is why many Americans find it unpalatable that a "felon" will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025. We never think about the devasting impact of felonious behaviors that presidential candidates and presidents were involved in before swearing into office and during their tenure in the White House. This illusion only allows us to be preoccupied with epithets and labels, something Black people in America know all too well.

The recent sentencing of Donald Trump has ignited a fervent debate regarding the nature of law and its application within the socio-political landscape of the United States. This case, emblematic of broader systemic issues, raises critical questions about the relativity of law and the disparate standards that govern individuals based on race, class, and political affiliation.

The events surrounding the January 6th insurrection further complicate this discourse, as they revealed stark differences in the treatment of participants based on their identities. In this context, Trump's sentencing as a "convicted" felon serves as a poignant reminder of the malleability of legal definitions and the extent to which they are shaped by the interests and perspectives of those in power- predominantly affluent white individuals.

At its core, law is often perceived as a set of immutable codes grounded in timeless truths about human nature and social order. However, the reality is that law functions as a social construct, one that is frequently redefined by the narratives and values expoused by the powerful. Here is an assertion many people will not like: the law is, in essence, a reflection of what rich whites assert it to be. This reveals a troubling dynamic where legal standards are not universally applied but rather contingent upon the social and economic status of the persons involved. The implications of this assertion are profound, as they challenge the very foundation of equality and justice that the legal system purports to uphold.

The disparities in legal outcomes for individuals based on race and class are well-documented. For example, the leniency shown towards certain defendants in high-profile cases starkly contrasts the harsh penalties often imposed on marginalized communities. This discrepancy is not merely a byproduct of individual cases but rather indicative of a broader systemic bias that privileges the narratives and interests of the wealthy and powerful. Trump's case exemplifies this phenomenon, as his status as a former/future president and a wealthy businessman has afforded him a high level of legal protection and public support that is not extended to many others facing similar charges.

The public's perception of law and justice is heavily influenced by media portrayals and political rhetoric, which often align with the interests of billionaires who are actively vying for governing power. Framing legal issues through the lens that favors affluent white people perpetuates a cycle of inequality, where the law devolves into an instrument of privilege rather than a mechanism for justice.

The Law as a Tool of Power: A Brief Look at History

The concept of law is often idealized as a universal set of rules that govern society, ensuring justice and equality for all. However, history provides numerous examples where the law has been manipulated by those in power, particularly autocrats and the wealthy elite, to maintain their dominance and suppress marginalized groups. We must look more closely at the notion that law has frequently served as a device to protect the ruling elite, and we must question its intellectual and emotional validity in the context of the law as the ultimate social contract.

To better comprehend American law, we must also consider the influences of racism, slavery, genocide, and colonialism to the extent to which the law has been shaped by the interests of powerful white elites. The idea that law serves to protect the status quo is not new. Throughout history, legal systems have been designed to maintain existing power structures. This is evident in the feudal systems of medieval Europe, where laws were explicitly crafted to preserve the privileges of the nobility and the monarchy. The Magna Carta of 1215, often hailed as a cornerstone of the American legal system, was primarily a document that protected the interests of the barons against the king, rather than a charter of universal human rights.

In the context of colonialism, the law was used as a tool to legitimize the subjugation of indigenous peoples and the exploitation of their resources. The Doctrine of Discovery, a legal principle originating in the 15th century, provided European monarchs with the justification to claim lands inhabited by non-Christians. This doctrine was used to legitimize colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia, which led to the displacement and extermination of indigenous populations.

One of the most egregious examples of the law being used to uphold the status quo is the institution of slavery. In the US, slavery was not only legally sanctioned- it was constitutionally protected. The infamous Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of 1857 is a gross illustration of how the law was used to dehumanize African Americans and deny them basic rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. This decision reinforced the legal notion of racial inequality and strongly supported the extent to which the law was shaped by the interests of white slaveholders.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is another weighty example of how the law was manipulated to protect the interests of slave owners. This federal law required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners, even if they were found in free states. It imposed heavy penalties on anyone who aided runaway slaves, effectively criminalizing acts of compassion and resistance against the institution of slavery.

The legal system had been used to institutionalize racism and discrimination long after the abolition of slavery. The Jim Crow laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries enforced racial segregation in the Southern US, ensconcing a system of white supremacy. The laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which established the doctrine of "separate but equal." This legal framework provided a fiction of legitimacy to racial discrimination and inequality, demonstrating how the law was manipulated to serve the interest of a powerful white elite.

The historical examples mentioned above raise important questions about the credibility of the law as a genuine social contract, The social contract theory, as articulated by philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, posited that individuals consent to be governed by a set of laws in exchange for protection and the preservation of their rights. However, when the law is used to exploit and oppress certain groups, its legitimacy as a social contract is called into question.

For marginalized communities, the law has often been a source of injustice rather than protection. The historical manipulation of legal systems by powerful elites undermines the intellectual and emotional credence of the law in the minds of those who have been oppressed. Donald Trump's "sentencing" should provide a new opportunity to analyze the broader implications of law as a social construct. By understanding the law, as an interpretation of what rich whites assert it to be, we can begin the hard and necessary work of pursuing a more equitable legal system that truly embodies the principles of justice.