Hello Downriver,
It says it right there in the preamble to the Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice…”
Notice that it doesn’t say anything about establishing freedom or democracy or DEI or palatial ballrooms or gilded Oval Offices or pardons for felons or excusing insurrection.
Nope, the first words of our Constitution says our hope to form a “more perfect union” can be found first in our commitment to “justice.”
But do you really know what the word means?
I’m sure some of you might, but it’s clear that many do not — especially those currently working with and for Donald Trump.
So I asked AI to define the word: “The real meaning of justice is the fair and impartial treatment of all individuals and the assignment of what is deserved, which can involve the administration of just punishment or rewards.”
Then it continues, that justice “encompasses righteousness, equity, and the application of moral rightness to legal and social systems — aiming to provide a just resolution for conflicting claims and TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.”
My emphasis.
Getting into the weeds — the all-important weeds — the AI definition continues that justice “fundamentally involves treating people impartially and equally, without bias based on feelings or interests.”
And that justice means “‘the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due’ — meaning people get what they merit, whether that’s a benefit or a punishment.”
In short, justice is about fairness, equity (and equality), about due process, about having laws — and enforcing them — that support the very concept of justice.
And that’s a distinction with an important difference: laws and justice are NOT synonymous; we create laws to manage society, but that has often proved to be at odds with justice.
One only need look at such Supreme Court rulings as Dred Scott to see how justice has failed to be served by ignoring the very tenets of the Constitution itself; in this case, that those born in the United States were free citizens, not slaves.
(Dred Scott was born in Virginia around 1799 — 11 years after ratification of the Constitution.)
Then there’s the indefensible 2025 case of Trump v. United States, in which six right-wing justices said a president is essentially above the law itself; granting a level of immunity never envisioned by our Founders.
But this isn’t the only recent miscarriage of “justice.”
In its “City of Grants Pass v. Johnson” ruling of 2024, the same six justices ruled that the homeless could be arrested and fined for sleeping in public spaces, criminalizing the very status of being homeless.
And yet to come before the high court this year is yet another challenge to the 60-year-old Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.
In our system — ever since Chief Justice John Marshall, in the groundbreaking ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the concept of “judicial review” — the U.S. Supreme Court has been viewed by most as the final arbiter of legal disputes.
But for some, over the years the high court has been viewed as a usurper of powers Constitutionally ascribed to Congress or the Executive.
Or, in the case of the current court, an enabler for a president seeking to exercise unilateral power — and a shield against legitimate justice.
Which means none of this is “justice” — although it might be the law.
Indeed, it brings to mind for me the movie “The Beekeeper,” in which the main character asks of an FBI agent, “Do you serve the law, or do you serve justice?”
And later, the character — who is a deep cover “defender” of justice — says this about egregious behavior by corrupt individuals: “There are laws for that. Until they fail. Then they’ve got me.”
But we don’t have beekeepers; and sadly, we have few left in the halls of Congress (and certainly not in the White House) who see justice as being a goal in their pursuits of office and power.
As a result, we get this:
The glorified murder of unidentified boaters in the Gulf of Mexico. The administration says they were drug runners, but offer no proof. Our laws say to arrest and charge — to provide due process under the law — not to summarily execute; instead, Trump ignores the law.
And provides nothing that remotely resembles justice.
Then there’s Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1789, claiming it grants him the authority to remove people without due process.
If you didn’t know, the AEA has been invoked only three times in American history and requires a “declared war” or an “invasion or predatory incursion” by any foreign nation or government for its invocation.
None of that existed when Trump issued his executive order to use the AEA to detain and deport Venezuelan migrants suspected of being gang members — treating them like they were enemy combatants, even though only Congress can declare war.
But such important, legal nuances are mere gnats to be ignored.
Then, of course, there’s Trump’s retribution campaign: He has literally ordered his Attorney General to punish his political opponents, destroying the long-established independence of the Department of Justice — and using a power that our Founders explicitly rebelled against in 1776.
And destroying the reputation of the DOJ. But he doesn’t care.
There are other examples, of course, but the most ironic — and comical (under other circumstances) — has to be Trump’s issuance of an executive order designating “Antifa” as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization.”
Antifa isn’t an organization; it’s a belief. A commitment to oppose fascism at every turn.
The irony (and comedy)?
Trump’s very administration is fascist in its actions — requiring a national anti-fascist movement to protest his excesses.
Hence the second “No Kings” protests over the weekend, attended by about 7 million Americans of every stripe.
In the end, it’s important that we care about justice, that we value its importance to the success and future of our society — even when it seems to defend those whose views and actions are diametrically at odds with our own.
In the Bible, Matthew says it was Jesus who told his followers that “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
Although many interpret the line as meaning to take care of the poor, the marginalized and the vulnerable, in terms of justice, it means that if we apply our laws fairly to those who might be the “worst” of our society, then we can be assured of fair treatment for the rest of us.
I couldn’t be there on Saturday to walk with my placard (picture), but consider me Antifa — and someone who says laws must serve justice.
And contrary to the opinions of six inept and arguably incompetent justices on the Supreme Court, the president is not immune from that principle.
For without justice for all — including the consequences for your actions — we have justice for none.
To read the author’s other essays, check out Substack.com and look for me at “Farrandipity.” It’s free. Craig Farrand is a former managing editor of The News-Herald and can be reached at craig.substack@gmail.com.
