The Pandora’s box of punishing Trump using lawfare

American Thinker ^ | 03/19/24 | Quentin Quill

[SeekAndFind]

As former president Donald Trump battles a $464-million bond requirement from New York’s attorney general amid appealing the state’s $355-million punitive damages award, alarming constitutional questions lurk. These questions relate to the potential premature seizure of Trump’s property and the excessive nature of the gargantuan financial punishments themselves.

One potential worst-case scenario gives New York authority to unilaterally seize and liquidate Trump’s real estate assets and businesses. This could happen before appellate courts including potentially the Supreme Court — render their final decisions on the matter. If Trump prevails and has the colossal penalty deemed unconstitutionally excessive, he may find it legally impossible to re-acquire properties already liquidated and sold to new owners. No amount of court-ordered restitution could make him truly whole again after such deprivation of property absent due process.

This prospect creates a Pandora’s box. Civil rights lawsuits against the state alleging violations could become futile endeavors if sovereign immunity shields New York from enforcing federal court orders over its assets and funds.

The implications become even more catastrophic if Trump secures an Eighth Amendment “excessive fines” victory at the Supreme Court while actively serving as president. In this extraordinary scenario, the federal government could initiate legal actions against a defiant New York to compel compliance. Almost certainly, this would provoke howls of “authoritarianism” and allegations of politically motivated overreach from the state’s Democrat establishment.

Options could include presidential deployment of entities like the FBI to seize state property or funds as de facto restitution. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could order New York’s legislature to directly compensate Trump via state appropriations. Either scenario seems poised to catalyze a constitutional crisis, pitting issues of state sovereignty against federal supremacy.

[Eagle Forgotten]

“And THIS makes him whole???

I can not disagree with you more!!!”

What I actually wrote (see #7 in this thread was) “That’s a loss to him....” So I certainly didn’t say it made him whole. You and I are in agreement that he’d suffer a loss.

What I said was that the properties wouldn’t be outright confiscated. There are cases where the government proves that a car or even a house is being used for drug dealing. The result is that the convicted criminal loses that property with no compensation. I’ve seen some writings that seem to assume that’s what would happen to Trump’s properties. That assumption is wrong.

It would still be a loss to Trump, which is why his lawyers are asking the court to stay enforcement even if he doesn’t meet the normal requirement of posting a full bond.