Speak Up For Justice founder Paul Kiesel discusses the Supreme Court, Trump’s immunity, National Guard and Marine deployment, defective Constitution, and more.
Paul Kiesel, Speak Up For Justice founder, on courts.
Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
Summary
Paul Kiesel, founder of Speak Up for Justice and a nationally recognized trial attorney, warns that America faces an unprecedented constitutional crisis as the rule of law comes under attack. Speaking on Politics Done Right, Kiesel emphasizes that while the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision grants significant executive flexibility, it does not provide unlimited authority. He argues that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles represents a dangerous precedent that threatens democratic institutions, particularly when combined with attacks on federal judges and the legislative branch’s abdication of its constitutional responsibilities.
- Presidential Immunity Has Limits: While the Supreme Court granted presidents substantial immunity for official acts, Kiesel argues this authority is not “unfettered” and has constitutional boundaries that may have been crossed with the California National Guard deployment.
- Unprecedented Executive Overreach: Kiesel emphasizes that no sitting president in American history has ignored federal court decisions, calling the current situation a “flex point” that could lead to the “deconstruction of democracy” if judicial authority is undermined.
- Institutional Collapse: The attorney warns that with the legislative branch failing to serve as a check on executive power, the judiciary remains the only “guardrail” protecting American democracy from authoritarian collapse.
- International Perspective: Kiesel plans to host federal judges from Venezuela, Poland, and South Africa to discuss how legal systems collapse, noting that the United States has historically served as a “lighthouse” for international rule of law.
- Citizen Engagement Critical: The founder of Speak Up for Justice stresses that protecting democracy requires active citizen participation, as “we the people” must defend constitutional principles when institutions fail to do so.
Kiesel’s warnings reflect broader progressive concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the concentration of executive power. His analysis underscores how the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, while not granting absolute power, creates dangerous precedents when combined with legislative inaction and judicial intimidation. The progressive movement has long advocated for robust checks and balances, making Kiesel’s call for citizen engagement particularly resonant as traditional institutional safeguards prove insufficient against authoritarian tendencies.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
Paul Kiesel’s recent appearance on Politics Done Right illuminates a critical moment in American constitutional history, where the delicate balance of power between government branches faces unprecedented strain. As founder of Speak Up for Justice and a veteran trial attorney, Kiesel brings both legal expertise and urgent concern to his analysis of how executive overreach threatens the foundations of democratic governance.
The Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision, while significant, represents only one piece of a larger constitutional puzzle that progressives have long warned about. The Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump is at least presumptively immune from criminal liability for his official acts, and is absolutely immune for some “core” of them, but Kiesel correctly notes that this immunity comes with limitations that may have been exceeded through recent actions.
The deployment of military forces to Los Angeles exemplifies how executive power can be stretched beyond constitutional bounds. Trump ordered the National Guard to Los Angeles on Saturday after protests broke out in response to federal immigration officers raiding work sites, with a U.S. appeals court allowing President Donald Trump to maintain his deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles amid protests over stepped-up immigration enforcement. This action represents a fundamental shift in how federal power intersects with state authority, particularly when Gavin Newsom and state Attorney General Rob Bonta said Trump’s activation of the Guard violated the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because Newsom did not ask for the troops.
The legal framework governing such deployments reveals the complexity of the situation. To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the president to call on federal service members when there “is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States”. However, the standard to dispatch the military to a state is not simply in the eye of the beholder, as there are limited legal circumstances in which a president is supposed to deploy the military domestically.
Kiesel’s analysis becomes particularly prescient when considering the broader pattern of institutional degradation. His observation that America has reached a “flex point” where presidential authority could ignore judicial decisions represents a fundamental threat to the separation of powers. The progressive movement has consistently advocated for strong institutional checks on executive power, recognizing that democracy depends on the rule of law applying equally to all citizens, including presidents.
The attorney’s warning about the legislative branch’s abdication of responsibility resonates with progressive critiques of congressional dysfunction. When one branch fails to serve as a check on another, the entire system becomes vulnerable to authoritarian capture. Kiesel’s metaphor of guardrails is particularly apt – with the legislative branch stepping aside, only the judiciary remains as protection against executive overreach, making attacks on judges and courts especially dangerous.
The international dimension of Kiesel’s analysis provides crucial context for understanding America’s current crisis. His planned forum featuring judges from Venezuela, Poland, and South Africa who have witnessed democratic collapse firsthand underscores how quickly institutional norms can erode. Venezuela’s transformation under Hugo Chávez, Poland’s near-loss of judicial independence in 2020, and South Africa’s ongoing struggles with rule of law demonstrate that American democracy is not immune to authoritarian capture.
Progressive activists have long recognized that citizen engagement remains the ultimate safeguard against democratic backsliding. Kiesel’s emphasis on “we the people” standing up for constitutional principles aligns with grassroots organizing strategies that have proven effective in other contexts. The planned “no kings” rally he mentions represents the kind of mass mobilization that can pressure institutions to fulfill their constitutional roles.
The deployment of 700 Marines on Monday after 4,000 National Guard members were already activated to Los Angeles represents an escalation that should concern all Americans regardless of political affiliation. Military deployment on domestic soil for law enforcement purposes violates foundational principles that separate democratic governance from military rule. Progressive organizations have consistently opposed the militarization of domestic policing, recognizing that such actions normalize authoritarian control mechanisms.
Kiesel’s call for judicial independence gains additional urgency when considering recent attacks on federal judges. His point about Judge Boasberg facing impeachment calls for issuing legal decisions reflects a broader pattern of judicial intimidation that threatens the rule of law. Progressive legal organizations have documented how such attacks undermine not just individual judges but the entire concept of an independent judiciary.
The constitutional crisis Kiesel describes requires immediate action from multiple fronts. Legal challenges to military deployment, congressional oversight of executive actions, and sustained citizen engagement all play crucial roles in defending democratic institutions. His organization, Speak Up for Justice, represents one model for how legal professionals can organize to protect constitutional principles.
The broader implications of this crisis extend beyond any single administration or political party. The precedents being set today will shape how future presidents understand their authority and how institutions respond to executive overreach. Progressive movements must continue advocating for robust institutional checks, transparent governance, and active citizen participation in democratic processes.
Kiesel’s analysis ultimately demonstrates that protecting democracy requires vigilant attention to constitutional boundaries and immediate action when those boundaries are crossed. His warning that America faces a choice between rule of law and authoritarian collapse should motivate all citizens to engage in the democratic process while institutions still function. The stakes could not be higher, and the time for action grows shorter with each passing day.
