Tag Archives: Constitution

Words to Survive By

Leave a reply

The following are excerpts from recent speeches by Governor Jay Pritzker of Illinois. He is a Democrat. He has balanced the budget (Republicans, take note of what used to be an article of faith for you). He is intelligent. He is articulate. He is terrified at what is happening to his country. And, yes, he is rich.

In reading them, recall that while the Democratic presidential ticket carried the state comfortably in 2024 (54.37% for Harris/Walz), there was a 6-point shift toward Republicans compared to Biden’s 2020 result.

For perspective, Governor Pritzker notes that “Our [Illinois] economy is over $1.1 trillion and growing – the fifth largest in the United States and the 18th largest in the world.” I had no idea.

State of the State and Budget Address — February 19, 2025 – end of the speech
[Watch on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGTFzW4Oj4J/?igsh=MWd2Ym13aW5hN3BndA%3D%3D]

 “As some of you know, Skokie, Illinois once had one of the largest populations of Holocaust survivors anywhere in the world. In 1978, Nazis decided they wanted to march there.

The leaders of that march knew that the images of Swastika clad young men goose stepping down a peaceful suburban street would terrorize the local Jewish population – so many of whom had never recovered from their time in German concentration camps.

The prospect of that march sparked a legal fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court. It was a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU who argued the case for the Nazis – contending that even the most hateful of speech was protected under the first amendment.

As an American and as a Jew, I find it difficult to resolve my feelings around that Supreme Court case – but I am grateful that the prospect of Nazis marching in their streets spurred the survivors and other Skokie residents to act. They joined together to form the Holocaust Memorial Foundation and built the first Illinois Holocaust Museum in a storefront in 1981 – a small but important forerunner to the one I helped build thirty years later.

I do not invoke the specter of Nazis lightly. But I know the history intimately — and have spent more time than probably anyone in this room with people who survived the Holocaust. Here’s what I’ve learned – the root that tears apart your house’s foundation begins as a seed – a seed of distrust and hate and blame.

The seed that grew into a dictatorship in Europe a lifetime ago didn’t arrive overnight. It started with everyday Germans mad about inflation and looking for someone to blame.

I’m watching with a foreboding dread what is happening in our country right now. A president who watches a plane go down in the Potomac – and suggests — without facts or findings — that a diversity hire is responsible for the crash. Or the Missouri Attorney General who just sued Starbucks – arguing that consumers pay higher prices for their coffee because the baristas are too “female” and “nonwhite.” The authoritarian playbook is laid bare here: They point to a group of people who don’t look like you and tell you to blame them for your problems.

I just have one question: What comes next? After we’ve discriminated against, deported or disparaged all the immigrants and the gay and lesbian and transgender people, the developmentally disabled, the women and the minorities – once we’ve ostracized our neighbors and betrayed our friends – After that, when the problems we started with are still there staring us in the face – what comes next?

All the atrocities of human history lurk in the answer to that question. And if we don’t want to repeat history – then for God’s sake in this moment we better be strong enough to learn from it.

I swore the following oath on Abraham Lincoln’s bible: “I do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Governor …. according to the best of my ability.”

My oath is to the Constitution of our state and of our country. We don’t have kings in America – and I don’t intend to bend the knee to one. I am not speaking up in service to my ambitions — but in deference to my obligations.

If you think I’m overreacting and sounding the alarm too soon, consider this:

It took the Nazis one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours and 40 minutes to dismantle a constitutional republic. All I’m saying is when the five-alarm fire starts to burn, every good person better be ready to man a post with a bucket of water if you want to stop it from raging out of control.

Those Illinois Nazis did end up holding their march in 1978 – just not in Skokie. After all the blowback from the case, they decided to march in Chicago instead. Only twenty of them showed up. But 2000 people came to counter protest. The Chicago Tribune reported that day that the “rally sputtered to an unspectacular end after ten minutes.” It was Illinoisans who smothered those embers before they could burn into a flame.

Tyranny requires your fear and your silence and your compliance. Democracy requires your courage. So, gather your justice and humanity, Illinois, and do not let the “tragic spirit of despair” overcome us when our country needs us the most.

Thank you.”

****

Later, on April 28, 2025, Governor Pritzker spoke at a Democratic fundraiser in New Hampshire. The video can be seen here if that is your thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMndfvxVeRo Transcript excerpts follow [the transcript was AI-produced; I have fixed typos when possible]:

“… we need to knock off the rust of poll-tested language and decades of stale decorum. It’s obscured our better instincts. We have to abandon the culture of incrementalism that has led us to swallow the cruelty and the callousness with barely a cowardly croak.

It’s time to fight everywhere and all at once.

Let’s start with something that should be easy to say: it’s wrong to snatch a person off the street and ship them to a foreign gulag with no chance to defend themselves in a court of law. I want to be clear this is not an argument about immigration. This is an argument about the Constitution.

Remember Trump just last week arrested and deported three children under 8 years old, all US citizens, all of them, one of them a four-year old with Stage 4 cancer. Let that sink in. This country was founded on the idea of habeas corpus. It’s a fancy legal term that in plain words means no government has a right to arbitrarily take your freedom away from you. Preserving habeas corpus is not some fever dream of the left-wing echo chamber. It’s a fundamental concept of justice that people have fought and died for dating back to the Middle Ages. It was in the Magna Carta. It was considered by our nation’s founders to be so vital to our liberty that they wrote it right into the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson called it the essential principle of government. Benjamin Franklin opined that those who would give up habeas corpus for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security, and Alexander Hamilton wrote that the practice of arbitrary imprisonments has been in all the ages the favorite and most formidable instrument of tyranny.

Franklin, Jefferson, and Hamilton standing for the idea that the government doesn’t have the right to kidnap you without due process is arguably the most effective campaign slogan in history. What do we think that Colonel Stark was talking about if not this when he said, “live free or die?” Today it’s an immigrant with a tattoo. Tomorrow it’s a citizen whose Facebook post annoys Donald Trump.

There are plenty of people in this country who hold opinions that I find abhorrent, but my faith and our Constitution dictate that I fight for their freedoms as loudly as I defend my own. As a Ukrainian-American Jew who built a Holocaust museum, whose family immigrated here as refugees from the Russian pogroms, let me say this to Donald Trump: stop tearing down the Constitution in the name of my ancestors. Do not claim that your authoritarian power grabs are about combating antisemitism. When you destroy social justice, you are disparaging the very foundation of Judaism.

When the pendulum swings back, and it always does, you will have contributed to the climate of retribution that will inevitably follow, so let’s dispel another myth from the MAGA Republicans: that we Democrats believe that undocumented people who are convicted of violent crimes shouldn’t be allowed to stay in this country. We want public safety just as much as Republicans do and when we get back in control of Congress, and we will, and when we get the White House back, and we will, Democrats need to make it a priority to pass real sensible immigration reform. We need to secure our border. We need to keep and attract hardworking taxpaying law-abiding people and give them a path to citizenship. Immigration with all its struggles and its complexities is part of the secret sauce that makes American great always. Immigrants strengthen our communities, enrich our neighborhoods, renew our passion for America’s greatness, enliven our music and our culture, and enhance understanding of the world. The success of our economy depends upon immigrants. In fact, 46% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants.

The return on investment for America’s 250-year commitment to immigration is incalculable, but because of Donald Trump’s xenophobia, we’ve seen foreign students already choosing not to attend our universities and being told to leave. Businesses from overseas are afraid to invest their money here and to bring their executives to our shores. Scientists are choosing to innovate in European laboratories instead of American ones already in just 100 days. If the best and the brightest around the world no longer flock to this shining city on a hill, then the US economy is likely to fail.

But failure is starting to look like that’s the point of all this, doesn’t it? We have a Secretary of Education who hates teachers and schools. We have a Secretary of Transportation who hates public transit. We have an Attorney General who hates the Constitution. We have a Secretary of State, the son of naturalized citizens and a family of refugees. on a crusade to expel both from our country. We have a head of the Department of Government Efficiency, an immigrant granted the privilege of living and working here, a man who has made hundreds of billions of dollars after the government rescued his business for him, who is looking to destroy the American middle class to fund tax cuts for himself.

And we have a president who claims to love America, but who hates our military so much that he calls them losers and suckers, and who can’t be bothered to delay his golf game to greet the bodies of four fallen U.S. soldiers. And we have a Grand Old Party  founded by one of our nation’s bravest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who today would be a Democrat I might add, a Grand Old Party so afraid of the felon and the fraud that they put into the White House that they would sooner watch him destroy our country than lift a hand to save it.

Democrats, we may have to fix our messaging and our strategy, but our values are exactly where they ought to be, and we will never join so many Republicans in the special place in Hell reserved for quislings and cowards. It’s time for us to be done with optimism about their motives or their objectives, time to stop wondering if you can trust the nuclear codes to people who don’t know how to organize a group chat. It’s time to stop ignoring the hypocrisy wearing a big gold cross while announcing the defunding of children’s cancer research, and time to stop thinking we can reason or negotiate with a madman. Time to stop apologizing when we were not wrong. Time to stop surrendering when we need to fight.

Our small businesses don’t deserve to be bankrupted by unsustainable tariffs. Our retirees don’t deserve to be left destitute by a Social Security Administration decimated by Elon Musk. Our citizens don’t’ deserve to lose health care coverage because Republicans want to hand a tax cut to billionaires. Our federal workers don’t deserve to have a 19-year-old Doge bro called Big Balls destroy their careers. Autistic kids and adults who are loving contributors to our society don’t deserve to be stigmatized by a weird Nepo baby who once stashed a dead bear in the backset of his car, Our military service members don’t deserve to be told by a washed-up Fox TV commentator who drank too much and committed sexual assault before being appointed Secretary of Defense that they can’t serve their country simply because they’re Black or gay or a woman.

If it sounds like I’m becoming contemptuous of Donald Trump and the people he has elevated, it’s because I am. You should be too. They’re an afront to every value this country was founded upon.

But there’s a way out of this mess. I know because I’ve been to this movie before. When I was elected Governor in 2018, it was after four years of a very destructive Republican chief executive. He had run on the idea of shaking things up as Governor, and he promptly started defunding key government agencies, slashing state benefits, and refusing to pass a state budget. Illinois’s credit rating took a dive. Companies fled. State social service agencies closed, and government services that the poor and elderly and sick relied upon vanished.

Does that sound familiar? Illinoisans hated it, even the ones who voted for the guy. They hated it so much that four years later they elected me.

Here’s the lesson that I learned. When we emerge from this, and we will emerge from this. our democratic agenda must be bold and our ideas fearless. We must be willing to slay sacred cows and allow the courage of our actions to match the immediacy of our words. We must deliver on that agenda for working families and for the real people who truly make America great.

I understand the tendency to give in to despair right now, but despair is an indulgence that we cannot afford. In the times upon which history turns never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption, but I am now.

These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soap box and then punish them at the ballot box. They must feel in their bones that when we survive this shameful episode of American history with our democracy intact, because we have no alternative but to do just that, we will relegate their portraits to the museum halls reserved for tyrants and traitors. And when the courage of our civic leaders waivers, when they fail to stand up for our country in its moment of greatest need, then we should remind them that cowardice always comes at a cost in the world’s most successful republic.

No generation of Americans has escaped our true inheritance, the test that we are given that asks how hard we are willing to fight to keep our society free. It was selfish to think that ours would be the first but the fact that we are still here debating the question tells me our predecessors never failed this test in the past. Often in situations just as dire as the one in front of us cowardice can be contagious, but so too can courage. Courage born during times when complacency beckons like a siren call is the most important kind of all. Just as the hope that we hold on to in the darkness shines with its own special light these days, I cling to the courage and the hope demonstrated by Andy and Gavin and Lucy. Courage and hope that risks limbs and livelihoods to go to the most visible place possible to wave a sign or to post an upside-down flag and remind everyone that what we do and what we don’t do matters.

So, tonight, I’m telling you what I’m willing to do and that’s fight for our democracy, for our liberty, for the opportunity for all of our people to live lives that are meaningful and free. I see around me tonight a room full of people who are ready to do the same. So, I have one question for all of you Granite Staters. Are you ready for the fight for real? Granite Staters, are you ready for the fight? Good night, New Hampshire. God bless you, and God bless these United States.”

                                                            ####

Words

Leave a reply

Call me a quibbler if you like. I don’t mind. I believe that how we use words is very important and can reveal hidden meanings of intention of which the writer may be unaware. I expect, however, that the Editorial Board of the New York Times would be particularly conscious of the meaning of their statements. Recent experience suggests I am wrong about that, and I suspect I know the reason.

Some background. The Times describes its editorial board as “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.” Fine as far as it goes although a bit vague on details.

On May 1 a digital version of the Editorial Board’s position titled There Is a Way Forward:  How to Defeat Trump’s Power Grab was published in the Times. On May 4, “A version” of the article appeared in print, Section SR, Page 2 of the New York edition with the headline: Fight Like Our Democracy Depends On It. Having not seen that version, I address here the digital version. The printed version at least has a title more accurately stating what the battle is really about.

Note first that the article is introduced by a probably-AI generated depiction of an American bald eagle, our national symbol, struggling to free itself from a green, goo-like substance adhering to its wings and claws. I read that image to mean that democracy is in serious trouble, an assertion that I and many others have made in multiple posts, and which I believe cannot rationally be denied.

I was intrigued to see the Times standing up for democracy this way. Then I read it.

The opening was very strong:

The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have done more damage to American democracy than anything else since the demise of Reconstruction. Mr. Trump is attempting to create a presidency unconstrained by Congress or the courts, in which he and his appointees can override written law when they want to. It is precisely the autocratic approach that this nation’s founders sought to prevent when writing the Constitution.

The opening was followed by recognition that the Trump challenge is not ephemeral:

Mr. Trump has the potential to do far more harm in the remainder of his term. If he continues down this path and Congress and the courts fail to stop him, it could fundamentally alter the character of American government. Future presidents, seeking to either continue or undo his policies, will be tempted to pursue a similarly unbound approach, in which they use the powers of the federal government to silence critics and reward allies.

But wait. Let’s look more closely:

Mr. Trump has the potential to do far more harm in the remainder of his term. If he continues down this path and Congress and the courts fail to stop him, it could fundamentally alter the character of American government. Future presidents, seeking to either continue or undo his policies, will be tempted to pursue a similarly unbound approach, in which they use the powers of the federal government to silence critics and reward allies.

The piece continues with “It pains us to write these words” …. The patriotic response to today’s threat is to oppose Mr. Trump. But it is to do so soberly and strategically, not reflexively or performatively.”

The strong opening has thus been diluted with reference to the “potential” for future harms that will occur “if he continues down this path,” suggesting there is a reasonable chance Trump will suddenly transform into a person different than he has been his entire life. And the article makes clear that the writers don’t like having to criticize Trump. The solution they propose is implicitly critical of what many people have been doing and thinking in response to Trump’s unhinged blast through the federal government. The authors slip-slide into a description of a “coalition” of damn near everyone who isn’t a committed Trump cultist. A coalition of the willing so broad and encompassing that it will seem, because it is, a bridge too far.

I am encouraged in my cynicism about the position being advocated by what comes next:

 The building of this coalition should start with an acknowledgment that Mr. Trump is the legitimate president and many of his actions are legal. Some may even prove effective. He won the presidency fairly last year, by a narrow margin in the popular vote and a comfortable margin in the Electoral College. On several key issues, his views were closer to public opinion than those of Democrats. Since taking office, he has largely closed the southern border, and many of his immigration policies are both legal and popular. He has reoriented federal programs to focus less on race, which many voters support. He has pressured Western Europe to stop billing American taxpayers for its defense.

The reference to the southern border and other Trump policies is apparently based on a poll of 2,128 Americans crafted by and analyzed by the crafters for another article in the Times.

In the interest of fairness, I note this closing of the paragraph arguing that Trump has been doing what the American public wants:

Among these policies are many that we strongly oppose — such as pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, cozying up to Vladimir Putin of Russia and undermining Ukraine

But even that qualification comes with a qualification: “but that a president has the authority to enact. Elections have consequences.”

Then:

Mr. Trump nonetheless deserves criticism on these issues, and Congress members and grass-roots organizers should look for legal ways to thwart him.

Just criticism? Is the Times Editorial Board unaware that the Republican Party has majorities in both Houses of Congress and that the Congress thus constituted is incapable of judgment independent of whatever madness Trump wants, including an astonishing array of unqualified and incompetent cabinet and agency appointments?

The equivocation continues throughout the article. Under “Pillars of democracy,” the writers felt it necessary to point out that Presidents Biden and Obama had “tested these boundaries [separation of powers] and at times overstepped them.” While the Editorial Board strongly criticizes Trump/Vance about their attitude toward the judiciary, in my view there is no question that the approach used undermines the full impact of the Trump story. They note, for example, that Trump/Vance “seem to have defied clear [court] orders.”

Regarding Congress, the Board says, “Mr. Trump’s steamrolling of Congress involves more legal complexity, many scholars believe.” The obvious implication is that “many scholars dispute the view being stated. More equivocation subtly inserted at every turn. Another example:

Other attempts to assert power over previously independent parts of the executive branch seem more defensible, however. The executive branch reports to the president, after all, and parts of it have suffered from too little accountability in recent decades.

It is true, I admit, that the Editorial Board’s article contains much damning information about Trump’s conduct of the presidency. It could not be otherwise.

Yet, again and again, the subtle equivocation creeps in:

It remains possible that our concerns will look overwrought a year or two from now. Perhaps Mr. Trump’s shambolic approach to governance will undermine his ambitions. Perhaps federal courts will continue to constrain him and he will ultimately accept their judgments.

Sure, it’s “possible” that a lot of unexpected things may happen, but why in an article ostensibly designed to expose the President’s violations of the Constitution and his oath of office, to name just a few, are these constant “on the other hands” inserted?

Maybe I am just quibbling, but, as the Editorial Board notes near the end of its article:

our constitutional order depends to a significant degree on the good faith of a president. If a president acts in bad faith, it requires a sophisticated, multifaceted campaign to restrain him. Other parts of the government, along with civil society and corporate America, must think carefully and rigorously about what to do. That’s especially true when the most powerful alternative — Congress — is prostrate.

Yet, while noting that Trump’s political support seems to be waning, the Board warns us to avoid:

“exaggeration about what qualifies as a violation. Liberals who conflate conservative policies with unconstitutional policies risk sending conservatives back into Mr. Trump’s camp.”

In the end, the Board gets one thing right:

The past 100 days have wounded this country, and there is no guarantee that we will fully recover. But nobody should give up. American democracy retreated before, during the post-Reconstruction era, Jim Crow, the Red Scare, Watergate and other times. It recovered from those periods not because its survival was inevitable but because Americans — including many who disagreed with one another on other subjects — fought bravely and smartly for this country’s ideals. That is our duty today.

Having beat this dead horse, I point the Times Editorial Board and my readers to a video that nails it. The woman in the video understands how language usage matters as she states ways to avoid equivocation and ambiguity. You can see the video here: https://www.threads.com/@debbieelledgeofficial/post/DJb2YEIN-pg?xmt=AQF0BLloj6EmrkRVS8pzJFTxn8QHvGWYkz2cHHWwynWmrA

The Problem of Pledging Allegiance to a President Over the Constitution

Leave a reply

For those who don’t know ….

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No State shall … pass any ex post facto Law….

Pam Bondi (Attorney General) and Stephen Miller (White House Deputy Chief of Staff) maintain that since the gang to which Kilmar Abrego Garcia allegedly belonged to was declared a terrorist organization by President Trump, that since Mr. Garcia belonged to the gang back in 2019, he is now a terrorist and subject to immediate removal from the United States and return to his native land of El Salvador, at which point the United States is free to wash its hands of him and leave him to his fate at the hands of rival gangs in the CECOT Prison.

As Ms. Bondi, the US Attorney General robotically recited recently, “Mr. Garcia does not belong in this country.” Bondi and Miller must not have been paying attention during that part of constitutional law class. You can see where I’m going with this.

Even if it is absolutely true that Mr. Garcia is a bad guy, a gang member and all the rest of the allegations made against him by Bondi, Miller, and Trump, his kidnapping and removal from the United States after a federal judge ordered that he not to be removed cannot be justified because:

  • Garcia did not receive an indictment for a crime committed in the United States,
  • was not presented with the details of an alleged crimes,
  • received no Miranda warnings,
  • had no opportunity to retain and consult counsel and, therefore,
  • no opportunity to contest the “findings” on which the government purported to act in arresting and deporting him.

In short, whatever else Mr. Garcia may be, he is a “person”, and he received nothing resembling “due process of law” to which the Constitution entitles every “person.” He was secretly snatched from the street and forcibly removed from the country. Just like what the Nazis and other totalitarian regimes have done in the past. The faux anger displayed by AG Bondi and Stephen Miller in the White House video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv4HjZmiueo] are no excuse for this outrageous behavior. By comparison, the student who killed two people and wounded six others at Florida State University will receive the full panoply of opportunities guaranteed by the law and the Constitution.

What is the main difference between Mr. Garcia and the Florida State shooter? You know it without my spelling it out. The Trump regime is a foul collection of racist idol worshippers committing daily crimes against humanity, among other offenses to our Constitution, laws, and culture. Performative yelling at a White House press event that Mr. Garcia is bad person is no excuse for depriving him of the rights every other person in this country is entitled to receive.

Trump’s followers had better realize that if the government can do this to Mr. Garcia, it can do it to anyone. And it is.

NBC News reported on Senator Van Hollen’s visit to Mr. Garcia in El Salvador this way:

Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador on Wednesday to push for Abrego Garcia’s release after the Trump administration did not demonstrate any efforts to “facilitate” his return, despite a Supreme Court ruling last week requiring just that.

The legal battle continued Thursday, when a federal appeals court rejected an effort by the administration to put the requirement on hold. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel said the administration was trying to assert “a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process.”

In a statement Thursday night, the White House called Van Hollen’s efforts in support of Abrego Garcia “disgusting” and said Trump will “continue to stand on the side of law-abiding Americans.”

In addition to its other offenses against the Constitution and laws of this country, the Trump administration has decided it’s perfectly acceptable to try and convict individuals in the press without even a semblance of due process. We insist that murderers get full due process, but the President of the United States is allowed to assert the guilt of individuals without any process whatever? Trump has obviously learned nothing from his multiple court defeats in defamation cases. Read any history book about totalitarian regimes, and you can see where this is headed. Americans better wake up and put a stop to this.

Duplicity at the Washington Post

1 Reply

I was planning to name this post “Out-Snarking George Will’s Snark” but in the event, the bigger issue loomed larger. Following Jeff Bezos’ incoherent and logically deficient decision to withhold the endorsement that the editorial staff had prepared, the Post has continued its “both sides are equivalent” approach to what it thinks of as journalism.

The prime example that leapt to mind as the election looms is the continued publication of George Will’s “Opinion” articles. I have no insight as to why the Post has felt for decades now that Mr. Will’s “opinions” have such merit as to warrant regular presentation to what was once the Post’s vast audience. Mr. Will is, we know, a stalwart “conservative,” and a bastion of “conservative thought.” How this came to be I don’t know and don’t much care.

I address this now, on the eve of the most important election in, most likely, the history of the country, because Mr. Will’s latest exercise in verbal chicanery caused a hormonal overload of angst that I am helpless to control. I can exorcise it, if at all, by writing about it. Doing so will not change anything except perhaps bringing my heart rate back to safe levels.

Mr. Will’s “opinion” at issue here is entitled, “Voters face the worst presidential choice in U.S. history.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/01/donald-trump-kamala-harris-worst-choice/

One might think that he was both-sides-ing again (“There have been mediocrities and scoundrels in the 59 previous presidential elections. But nothing like this.”), but that would be wrong. Mr. Will’s duplicitous article, presumptively acceptable to the Post that published it, is, properly understood, an endorsement of Donald Trump.

A snarky aside: George Will is 83 years old, older even than I am. The photo accompanying his opinion articles is either Photoshopped or from decades ago. Compare the Getty Images at https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/george-will-columnist or in this idolatrous piece in the National Review wherein Mr. Will is lionized as a “dazzling writer and political thinker.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/george-f-will-an-appreciation/ Return now to the main point.

Mr. Will’s gift for word play is on full display in this piece: “Why prolong this incineration of the nation’s dignity?” While accurately describing Trump as a “volcano of stray thoughts and tantrums” who is “painfully well known,” he immediately pivots to insulting Kamala Harris by defining her exclusively by “her versatility of conviction” that “means that she might shed her new catechism as blithely as she acquired its progressive predecessor.”

Mr. Will pivots again to attacking the Democratic Party’s “reckless disingenuousness regarding the president’s frailty” followed by “the nimbleness of those without the ballast of seriousness about anything other than hoarding power … foisted on the electorate a Play-Doh candidate. Her manipulators made her malleability into her platform. Prudence is a virtue, so do not fault her handlers for mostly shielding her from public interactions more challenging than interviews with grammar school newspapers.” That is followed by more insults of Tim Walz whose “achievement during his pirouette in the spotlight has been to make his counterpart, JD Vance, resemble Aristotle.” Aristotle? I think not. More like Marcus Junius Brutus who conspired to murder Julius Caesar.

Mr. Will pivots again quickly to undermining Vance: his “stories,” or “fairy tales” claimed to be didactic, “might be if he, a bristling porcupine of certitudes, candidly demarcated his fictions from reality.” Pivot again to stating that Biden and Trump are equally guilty of bad choices of running mates. Mr. Will purports to prove his “both sides are bad” argument by outlining each side’s “pitiless exposure of the candidates’ peculiar promises and reprehensible silences.”

Mr. Will thus compares Trump as “pithy” when promising the impossible to “settle” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 24 hours to Harris as “loquacious” in an interview about the US role in trying to influence events in the Middle East. He says, rightly, that Trump will not state, “Putin is an enemy” and Harris will not defend what he describes as Israel’s “right to fight as fiercely against genocidal enemies next door as the United States fought in World War II against enemies oceans away.”

I interject here if Mr. Will knew a tenth as much as he presumes to know about the Middle East, he could comment with authority. But it’s apparent to me he has either not read Bob Woodward’s new book, War, or simply refuses to understand the inconvenient realities of possibly the most complex political, cultural, ethic, and religious situation in modern history.

Mr. Will pivots again to whining about what he calls “entitlements,” referring to the large sums of my, and your, money withheld from your pay over your lifetime to assure you had a fiscal lifeline in retirement by returning your money to you. Entitlement? Nah. And Medicare, the other subject of Mr. Will’s angst? We might not need it if our health and related insurance systems weren’t such a pathetic joke.

I will here skip over some of Mr. Will’s further distortions of stated positions to the real beauty in this article. He purports to claim that the award for “most embarrassing voice” this year goes to an unnamed “Idaho Republican who, in a public forum, told a Native American to “go back where you came from.” Mr. Will concludes that part with “Let’s do go back to where we come from: the nation’s founding of a limited government.”

Ah! So, there it is. Mr. Will believes “where we came from” as a nation is “the founding of a limited government,” the siren song of the traditional, now long lost in the miasma of Trumpism, “conservative” understanding of what the country is all about and how it got there. Unwittingly, perhaps but likely not, Mr. Will gives us the “big reveal” by failing/refusing to grasp the parts of our national history that inconveniently ignore the “Americans” who were here before us and the abject inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation that failed to produce a national government that could manage even the rudimentary nation that emerged in the immediate aftermath of the American Revolution.

The Articles were the “limited government” of Mr. Will’s fever dreams. They are close to the most likely model for the “government” that Trump/Vance promise to give us and that the Supreme Court has to some extent already ordained as the preferred method of managing our more than 330 million people spread over more than 3.7 million square miles of contiguous territory. Trump/Vance promise to eviscerate the federal government, returning us to the fantasy land of yesteryear when a confederacy of states each of which will be in charge of its own destiny (at least until the next hurricane strikes) and the “United” States will withdraw from most international relationships in favor of an isolationist “America First” that in the past has led straight to war.

Thus, in the end, while purporting to argue that the two presidential candidates of 2024 are deficient in all and mostly mutual respects, Mr. Will ultimately buys into Trump/Vance’s “vision” of a country consisting of 50 separate entities, each acting as its “locals” prefer with a national government populated by political loyalists of the President and free from the inconvenient constraints of the Constitution and criminal laws.

You would think Mr. Will has not read or understood much of American history, modeling Trump’s “don’t tell me, don’t ask me to read it, I already know everything I need to know to benefit me.” Mr. Will’s opening suggestion that both candidates are equivalent and deficient is overwhelmed in the end by his implicit recognition that his historical understanding fits neatly with Trump/Vance’s ravings. Thus, although Mr. Will claims the 2024 candidate have been “greeted … by grimaces from sea to shining sea” (sorry, but I had to include it), in the end only one will be victorious and if it’s Mr. Will’s “favorite among equals,” the nation is in for a disastrous end. See, for example, https://shiningseausa.com/2024/10/25/america-trump-wants-for-you-your-children/ and https://shiningseausa.com/2024/07/02/another-day-that-will-live-in-infamy/

Stefanik Admits She Would Sabotage the Constitution

Leave a reply

While the media have lost their minds over the gratuitous political hit job by the Special Counsel investigating President Biden’s possession of confidential government documents, the story about Elise Stefanik’s repudiation of her oath of office has all but disappeared from CNN.com where reports indicate her remark was made.

The story is that Stefanik said she would not have done what VP Pence did on January 6 – she admitted she would not have certified the election of Joe Biden. She declared this despite the fact that virtually all legal scholars worthy of the name agree that refusing to certify would have violated the Constitution.

Stefanik has thus admitted she is unfit for office. She is a fascist who places submission to the Great Leader Trump ahead of her fealty to the Constitution. Such a person cannot be trusted to honor her oath of office or to act in the public interest.

Stefanik’s rejection of the Constitution to seek the favor of Donald Trump is consistent with some other behavior related to the January 6 insurrection incited by Trump. In the moment, Stefanik posted on Twitter:

Then, Stefanik, revealing her true colors, said that the DOJ probes into those involved were “baseless witch hunt investigations.” Stefanik has also called those convicted and jailed for their actions “hostages.” http://tinyurl.com/mry7fkkc

In a typical Stefanik response, she had an advisor attack Liz Cheney for pointing out the flip-flop, accusing Cheney of “having a mental breakdown looking at archives of years old press releases.” The response was a pathetic deflection but not a response to the substance of the fact that Stefanik has changed her position 100 percent to align with Trump’s preposterous claim that the entire January 6 episode was just a peaceful demonstration by concerned citizens.

When challenged repeatedly to address her turnaround, Stefanik deflected to rant about other issues and other aspects of her speech, raving about Hunter Biden and repeating Republican talking points divorced from reality. http://tinyurl.com/49dw7dky

Stefanik has made clear she cares nothing about the truth and has no sense of responsibility to follow oaths she takes as a public official. Stefanik is an enemy of the United States, a traitor to its values as reflected in the Constitution to rejecting her obligations to the Constitution are not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6.

The oath of office taken by Congressional representatives is clear:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Stefanik has now rejected that oath and on that basis alone should be removed from Congress and barred from any future ballots for federal office.

The Fork in the Road to Democracy or Dictatorship

Leave a reply

An article published in The Hill suggests that Donald Trump’s promises that if re-elected he will engage in violent retribution against his enemies have inspired members of Congress to breach protocol and almost come to blows. Trump’s violent talk shows signs of taking over Congress  https://tinyurl.com/djbp5rss Those threats are, of course, among many other Trump/GOP assaults on the centuries-old system of American democratic government.

The article was inspired by a first-term Republican Senator from Oklahoma challenging the president of the Teamsters union to a fistfight in a hearing. The article also reports that Mitt Romney had much to say about the situation, noting the self-evident fact that “the Republican Party has become the party of Trump.” Romney, the master of understatement when it comes to criticizing looney Republicans, said the fight challenge was “clearly unfortunate.” Bold stuff from the man who in 2016 had said that Trump was “worthless”, a “fraud”, and that “he’s playing the American public for suckers: he gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.” https://tinyurl.com/5dsvuy5x

Romney, you will recall, promptly bent the knee to president-elect Trump to seek a Cabinet post – which was, of course, denied. Trump knows how to treat “disloyal” people.

The article notes that “Trump’s use of violent rhetoric has since become almost routine,” accurate except for the “almost” modifier. Trump now engages in violent talk every day, using language identical to that made famous by Adolf Hitler and other dictators of the past. GOP Trump loyalists aren’t concerned. Their plan to steal the 2020 election and stay in power didn’t work as they imagined but the playbook remains valid for their purposes. The 2024 election is just another chance for them.

When a politician tells you he wants to “take over” your country, you should believe him. Trump aspires to fascist domination of the entire federal and state government apparatus. Republican politicians are so busy trying to avoid Trump’s wrath that they continue to make “both sides” false equivalencies and to equivocate about what is really happening. One example is Republican Senator Mike Rounds:

 It’s not the route that I’d like to see any of us go,” … I understand the reason why there was anger.

both individuals should have had a different approach to resolving it.

you’re seeing folks on both sides of the political spectrum being less respectful of other people.

I don’t know if he changed [norms] or simply responded to what he saw from other people. I think he sensed that the American people were allowing this to go on, and he’s taken advantage of it, but it’s not the direction that I think our country should go.

Powerful stuff, those Republicans speak. I’m sure you didn’t miss the “both sides” he snuck in there. Brings to mind Trump’s comment about the Nazi march in Charlottesville: “very fine people, on both sides.” The Post article goes on to cite other incidents including one in which former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was accused of elbowing another Republican representative in the back.

The First Amendment and the associated long history of American acceptance of “free speech” allow for this kind of violent rhetoric in the absence of an imminent threat of violence by the speaker or someone in league with him. That is what happened on January 6. We now learn from Mediaite.com that Republicans are cheering the release of previously withheld security footage from January 6 because they have somehow reached the conclusion that it shows police collusion and thus sustains their belief that the entire episode was an “inside job” by the “left.” Trump Supporters Cheer Release of Jan. 6 Footage Showing Trump Supporters Storming the Capitol  https://tinyurl.com/bderutcr

Republicans have learned nothing. And some of the January 6 Capitol-desecrators have recanted their professions of error and remorse that were used performatively for compliant judges to secure lesser sentences. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66169914

Many questions leap to mind. One of the most prominent is whether American corporations are going to continue playing deaf and dumb while spraying advertising dollars and PAC contributions on rightwing Republican candidates. Historically, American corporations, armed with “personhood” by the Supreme Court Citizens United case, have tried to have it both ways. Those days must end now. If the corporate community is indifferent to the fate of American democracy, consumers must show them the consequences by withholding purchases.

Donald Trump and his supporters have made clear their intention to destroy the American administrative state that accounts for massive amounts of economy-stimulating expenditures while assuring that the worst short-term instincts of capitalism are at least to some degree regulated in the public interest. Trump has, for example, made clear he will wreck the civil service system to assure that only workers completely loyal to him have federal jobs.

The United States is not alone in the world. Among numerous others, Russia, under the complete control of dictator Vladimir Putin, is waiting for an opportunity to strike a fatal blow against this country. Trump has previously subordinated himself to Putin in open displays of obsequious submission. Once Trump is back in power, Putin will have a free hand. At the end of the day, Putin, whom Trump openly admires, is no different than Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

I had occasion recently to be reminded of some of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton’s more salient observations about government in the Federalist Papers that helped secure ratification of the Constitution. Some of the more relevant ones include:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
― James Madison, Federalist Papers

It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

Trump Confesses

Leave a reply

When you hire a lawyer to represent you, it is presumed that when the lawyer speaks or files pleadings in court on your behalf, he is speaking and/or presenting positions with which you concur. He is, after all and in fact and in law, your representative.

Sometimes, lawyers are forced to make arguments that seem preposterous on their face and are in fact preposterous. They normally do this when they are “out of ammunition” in the form of well-reasoned and at least plausible arguments. They do this when the client is desperate to present a defense when none exists. Those lawyers feel duty-bound to not only the zealous representation that legal ethics required of them, but, one might say, to throw something at the judicial wall and just hope against hope that it sticks.

It is thus with the latest Trump effort to escape responsibility for his treasonous insurrection against the government of the United States. Reports state that Trump’s attorneys have thrown such stuff at the wall in the Colorado case brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) seeking to bar him from the 2024 presidential ballot. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-wont-support-constitution/

Recall that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone who has “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve. I quote the Rawstory article:

Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to “support” the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

“The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,” said the filing by Trump’s attorneys. “Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to ‘support’ the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President.”

My guess is that Trump’s lawyers don’t expect the trial judge to buy this nonsense. They are instead laying the foundation for an appeal, eventually, to the U.S. Supreme Court where, they hope, the “originalist” thinkers led by Clarence Thomas will “strictly construe” the Constitutional language and hold that “support” is not the same as “preserve, protect and defend” such that the Framers left a gaping hole for people like Trump to walk through while toppling the very structure the Framers worked so hard to establish.

But, you ask, why is this argument nonsense? Here’s why.

We could go on with this for hours, but I think it suffices that Oxford Languages (the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages) has solved the puzzle for us.

“Preserve” is defined as “maintain (something) in its original or existing state.” Synonyms include: conserve, protect, maintain, care for, take care of, look after, save, safeguard, and keep. Antonyms include: damage and neglect.

“Protect” is defined as “keep safe from harm or injury.” Synonyms include: keep safe, keep from harm, save, safeguard, shield, preserve, defend, cushion, shelter, screen, secure, fortify, guard, mount/stand guard on, watch over, look after, take care of, care for, tend, keep, mind, afford protection to, harbor, house, hedge, inoculate, insulate. Antonyms: expose, neglect, attack, harm.

Finally, “defend” means “resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger.” Synonyms: protect, guard, safeguard, keep from harm, preserve, secure, shield, shelter, screen, fortify, garrison, barricade, fight for, uphold, support, be on the side of, take up cudgels for, watch over, be the defender of.”  The antonym: attack.

Being my discerning readers, I know you saw “support” in the third list as a synonym of “defend.”

Even if “support” were not listed there, it is defined as “enable to function or act” and is a synonym of: help, aid, assist, contribute to, back, succor, champion, give help to, be on the side of, side with, favor, abet, aid and abet, encourage, ally oneself with, stand behind, stand up for, defend, promote (among others).

One “rule” I always tried to follow in advocacy when I was practicing law was: don’t be stupid. Trump’s lawyers must be utterly desperate to put forward the argument that the President of the United States is not obligated by his oath of office to “support” the Constitution of the United States. Of all the implausible positions advanced for him and his  many co-indicted co-conspirators, this one take the cake.

The word legerdemain leaps to mind: deception; trickery, chicanery, skulduggery, deceit, deception, artifice, cheating, dissimulation. All seem to apply nicely to Trump’s argument. I particularly like “skulduggery” but that’s just me.

 

 

 

It’s Because He Was President

2 Replies

Members of the media continue to discuss how extraordinary it would be for the Department of Justice to indict a former President, and how disruptive it will be if he is indicted for the multiple crimes he was openly and repeatedly committed. Even while trumpeting (sorry) the line that no one in the United States is above the law.

I want to state that it is precisely because Donald Trump was president that he must be brought to justice, the same as any thug or other criminal. It may be unprecedented but being unusual or even one of-a-kind is no excuse for allowing a criminal to walk free. This is particularly true when that criminal continues to spread the same blatant lies that led to the January 6 insurrection. Trump repeats his falsehoods about the 2020 election multiple times a week. He actively endorses the candidacies of election deniers around the country.

Now he has gone the last mile. He has stated that the [false] claims of election fraud justify disregarding all the rules and regulations governing elections, including the Constitution itself. https://bit.ly/3iqMZkU and https://bit.ly/3HeSkGB and https://bit.ly/3ulG1QY

There can be no clearer indication that Trump is not an American patriot but is a self-interested traitor. He promises to continue promoting his lies about the 2020 election even as he runs in the 2024 presidential election. He literally wants to be “installed” as president, leading, obviously, to the removal of the elected President Biden, the replacement of the entire leadership of the federal government and, effectively, the collapse of American democracy. That is what Trump demands and that is why he should be indicted now.

The fact that most of Trump-endorsed election deniers were rejected in the 2022 midterms is irrelevant. That outcome may suggest that to a large extent the voters have had enough of election-denial, but the money keeps rolling in to finance Trump’s legal fees and his announced candidacy for President in 2024. Grotesquely unqualified candidates like Herschel Walker continue to be promoted by Trump and by the Republican Party and are considered serious threats against candidates like Rev. Warnock in Georgia.

Despite everything that has happened since Trump took office, MAGA Republicans and so-call Christian Fundamentalists continue their fanatical loyalty to him. They claim that the events that led to two impeachments (also unprecedented) and the insurrection were all fake. You can show them a video of the Capitol attack and they will say (1) it never happened, (2) it was staged by paid actors, (3) it was really antifa, not Trump supporters, or (4) they were just patriots fighting to correct the theft of the election (for which no evidence has ever been produced).

Trump’s supporters still say that his phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State demanding the “finding” of just enough votes, by exactly one, to give Trump the win was nothing to be concerned about. Same for his attempt to extort from the president of Ukraine an investigation of his political opponent in the 2020 election. And on and on.

Trump’s crimes are so numerous and his uses of the judicial system to stall and deflect so common and well-financed that a degree of indifference may have set in through the body politic. See MEDIAite at https://bit.ly/3Vt9Bjt  Whatever that may be, the fact remains that Donald Trump, while President of the United States, attempted to overthrow the government by preventing the transfer of power to his duly elected successor. His financial crimes and other abuses of power pale in comparison to that unprecedented attack on the very democratic process that elected him.

And that is the reason he must be prosecuted. Trump violated his oath of office, abused his power, and led an insurrection attempting to end democracy. If he had succeeded, it is likely we would never have seen another real election in this country.

So, members of the media, please just stop with the “OMG, it’s unprecedented that a former president would be indicted.” The lack of precedent simply highlights how grotesque Trump’s conduct was and is. I see now that some of his lawyers have testified before the criminal grand jury and that’s good, although we don’t know, and likely never will know the extent to which they avoided telling the truth by citing attorney-client and/or executive privilege. It is well-established law that such privileges cannot be used to shield communications involved in the planning and execution of crimes, but Trump has succeeded many times in deflecting and deferring consequences with similar claims.

There are some suggestions that Trump’s evasion of responsibility for his crimes is running out of legal room, but he still has allies in Congress and on the Supreme Court who may yet come to his aid. Whatever that future may hold, nothing should stand in the way of indictments for Trump’s many crimes. The most important, of course, is his instigation of the January 6 attack, but there are many others as well. The government should focus on the one or two that have the clearest evidentiary basis and that would certainly include the Capitol assault. Make clear to all future political leaders, in both parties, that crimes in office will not be tolerated. We are approaching the two-year anniversary of the Capitol attack.

It’s time. Past time. Indict him, arrest him, and try him.

Republican Traitors Last Try to Subvert the Constitution

5 Replies

I am sorry to start the New Year 2021 on this note, but I am unable to escape the news that Republicans, led by a senator Hawley from Missouri, will attempt yet again to undermine the constitutional system for electing national leaders by urging Congress to reject the 2020 election result. https://bit.ly/34YJecO This move, reportedly to be endorsed by at least 140 House Republicans, is, of course, doomed to failure.

It could be seen, indeed has been seen even by a handful of Republicans, as just an act of political theater to appeal to Donald Trump’s political following and to serve as the “first hat in the ring for 2024” in case Trump himself is unwilling or unable (in prison?) to run again. It could be seen that way and thus dismissed as just another act in the political play the Republicans have been staging since Trump first declared the election was going to be rigged against him. It could be seen that way even as Trump himself took steps, through the Postal Service and with the help of compliant Republican governors, to suppress Democratic votes around the country. It could be seen that way even though no complaints of election-rigging have been presented as to the down-ticket Republicans who won elections in states Biden won.

One could go on and on about what “could be seen” as harmless politicking by a group of people with no principles other than winning-at-all-costs, a group who readily align themselves with looney conspiracy theories propounded by QAnon, whatever that is. Harmless politicking by a group of unprincipled politicians who brought dozens of lawsuits around the country claiming, without evidence, that electoral fraud was responsible for Trump’s defeat and who lost all but one (insignificant) such case. Harmless politicking by a president who continues to claim that he won the popular vote, that he won states where multiple recounts found that he lost, and on and on. Harmless politicking by a group of spineless sycophants indifferent to or, more likely, intent upon inspiring acts of violence against, for example, the Governor of Michigan and others.

But, in my opinion, that is not the right way to see this. The correct way is to recognize and, in due course, to act upon this reality: a large group of elected officials from across the United States have chosen to adhere to the blatantly false, phantasmagorical ravings of a desperate and, possibly, mentally impaired, president and are threatening to overturn the lawful and proper election of that president’s opponent. These acts are, I submit, acts of treason against the United States.

To be clear, I use “treason” here in the colloquial sense, not the strict legal meaning that we are often reminded is extremely narrow and almost impossible to prove. https://nbcnews.to/3o6Uyvc Treason as defined in the Constitution, Article III, section 3 is only this: “… levying war against [he United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The U.S. Code [18 U.S. Code § 2381] implements that provision this way:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I use “treason” instead to refer to overt acts designed to, and with the potential to actually, subvert the Constitution, leading inevitably to regime after regime refusing to recognize “elections” and continuing in power with the support of the military and police despite the actual desires of the population, until, eventually, power is determined solely by who has the support of the military. Then, of course, the United States will have ceased to exist in any meaningful political or cultural sense. It will join the legions of other failed countries where the people do not get to choose their leaders. Democracy will be finished, here and, very likely, everywhere. This version of “treason” is good enough.

Political theater and political stunts are commonplace in our past. We understand that a senator standing alone with the dictionary, encyclopedia or recipe book and blathering on and on to prevent legislation from being voted upon is “just filibustering,” something permitted in some circumstances by Senate rules that enables a single senator to halt the progress of legislation even if everyone else in the United States wants it to pass. Nothing like political theater or “stuntery” is going on here. No, the president of the United States and a large group of elected Republican congressmen and senators are trying to use blunt force to simply discard the results of the 2020 election and declare Donald Trump the winner (and possibly president for life).

This action has been labeled, correctly in my view, as a “threat to the republic.” See Michael Gerson’s piece in the Washington Post (https://wapo.st/3oaRmi4),

In the cause of his own advancement, the senator from Missouri is willing to endorse the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans — particularly voters of color — and justify the attempted theft of an election. He is willing to credit malicious lies that will poison our democracy for generations. The fulfillment of Hawley’s intention — the ultimate overturning of the election — would be the collapse of U.S. self-government. The attempt should be a source of shame

Gerson goes on to note that Donald Trump,

rose to prominence in the GOP by spreading racist lies about President Barack Obama’s birthplace. Now, he is making the acceptance of conspiratorial myths about Biden’s legitimacy into a test of GOP fidelity. And Trump has made room in his party for even more extreme versions of his method, involving the accusations that Democratic leaders are pedophiles: “Stop the steal” and QAnon are on the same spectrum of vile lunacy. This is the type of politics that Hawley is enabling — a form of politics that abolishes politics. A contest of policy visions can result in compromise. The attempt to delegitimize your opponent requires their political annihilation. And a fight to the political death is always conducted in the shadow of possible violence.

I part company with Mr. Gerson regarding what should be done about this. Certainly, he is right in calling for rejection of Hawley’s self-serving treachery. Maybe, though I doubt it, he is right in suggesting we praise the handful of Republicans who, as of today anyway, indicate dissent from the Trump-at-all-costs version of politics that Hawley promotes. Republicans, like Trump himself, are all too transactional in their support, so that the likes of Romney, Murkowski and some others still vote with Trump/McConnell almost all the time. They should get no reward in public or political acclaim for doing the self-evidently right thing now.

In my view, what I have chosen to call treason should become a standard label associated with those who have made their choice of Trump over the country, over democracy and over commitment to freedom and opportunity for all Americans. It should be part of their identification in the media along with party and geographical affiliation. Their names should reside in history alongside Benedict Arnold. They should be reminded regularly in the House and Senate chambers that their traitorous conduct has been noted and will never be forgiven. And, of course, every available resource should be devoted to removing them from office as soon as possible, through election and, in appropriate cases, criminal investigation and prosecution.

The time for politics-as-usual is over. To be clear, I am not suggesting a Democratic political vendetta but an aggressive and definitive legal response to overt acts plainly intended to overturn an election judged fair by all 50 states and multiple courts (including judges appointed by Trump). The fact that the effort is being executed in the halls of Congress does not excuse it. There is no excuse. Brute force politics must be met with a brute force legal response. I leave the details to others with the skill and knowledge to do it. Enough was enough long ago.

 

 

 

Pulling on the Right Rope – ACLU

1 Reply

We are coming up on a momentous event in the form of the 2018 midterm elections. They offer the real possibility of overturning the Republican control of Congress, and thus ending the subordination of Congress to the president and the return of the checks and balances that were expected by the Founders to prevail indefinitely.

The grand scheme of the Constitution was a tripartite balance of authority and power in which each of the three pillars of the republic — Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary – would interact is a way that prevented any one of the pillars from overpowering the others. The Founders were not, of course, expecting a situation to arise in which a single political party would gain control of all three branches of the federal government and in which the members of that party would place the interests of that party above the welfare of the country. But that’s what we have and it is that which threatens the continued existence of the democracy that makes the United States a country of unequaled achievement.

Of course, the journey of American democracy has not been straight and pure. We fought a bloody Civil War to end slavery, struggled to end Jim Crow, and struggled to establish racial equality and opportunity in education, voting, employment, human relations and all the rest. Then we elected an African American man to be president. Twice. Many of us thought we had, at long last, moved past our past. We were wrong. Trump’s ascendancy has exposed the ugly underbelly of the nation’s bigotry, fear and cruelty. You know the story or you wouldn’t be reading this.

So, what to do? We don’t want to fight another civil war. Obviously, everyone needs to vote and help someone else vote. I have harped on this repeatedly and I won’t repeat it here. Instead, I suggest an additional approach: look at this as an exercise in tug o’war.

On the other end of the rope is the Trump administration. We all await, with hope and apprehension, Special Prosecutor Mueller’s action on the core issue of Trump’s illegitimate election victory as a product of Russian interference in which Trump and his campaign actively conspired. There is also a large body of evidence that Trump has committed multiple “high crimes and misdemeanors” which would support his impeachment and removal from office.

None of that is going to be resolved by November and the pull on the other end of the rope is strong. Many Americans believe that Trump is an ideal executive, disregarding his serial lying, attacks on our allies and sucking up to dictators around the world. They seem to be untroubled by his attachment to Vladimir Putin and his amateurish, schoolyard bullying of private companies and foreign countries.

On our end of the rope, we have … the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU. Think about that name: Civil Liberties Union. Since its inception, preservation of civil liberties and enforcement of the Constitution have been the singular preoccupation of this group. Sometimes the ACLU defended the rights of genuinely and widely unpopular people or groups, but they persisted because they understood that if the rights of one are disregarded, the rights of all could be next. We simply cannot pick and choose who gets protected and who does not.

If you are like me and have at one time or another made a donation to some #RESISTANCE group, you are no doubt being bombarded by requests to sign petitions and, more importantly, to donate more. Many great organizations are doing important work to resist the Trump administration’s fear-based agenda. Common Cause comes to mind. And Everytown for Gun Safety. And many others. The question is: which rope are you going to pull on?

I suppose I am prejudiced in favor of an organization that directly and forcefully challenges the illegal conduct of the administration at every turn and that wins most of its cases. The ACLU has initiated or joined most of the major legal challenges to the Trump administration’s most outrageous acts and policies and has enjoyed amazing success.

The ACLU record is genuinely remarkable. As reported in a major article in the New York Times Magazine on July 8, in the 15 months following the Trump election “victory,” ACLU membership increased by more than four times! A huge increase in funding followed, leading to the hiring of more lawyers for the 54 affiliated offices (1 in each state with 3 in California and one each in Washington, DC and Puerto Rico). But, the article notes, there are 11,000 lawyers in the Justice Department.

Since Trump’s oath of office, the ACLU has initiated 170 Trump-related actions, including 83 lawsuits. The additional resources have enabled ACLU to start two new advocacy organizations: PeoplePower.org and Let People Vote. With the new threat to the independence of the Supreme Court, the ACLU will face even more challenges.

Therefore, I make this appeal: yes, support all political and charitable organizations whose values align with yours, but also make an additional contribution to the ACLU. ACLU enlists the aid of the third and most independent branch of government, the Judiciary, to fight the incompetence and cruelty demonstrated repeatedly by the Trump administration. So far, the administration has accepted judicial decisions as binding. If that changes, we will have entered a new and perhaps final battle for the salvation of the American democracy. Until then, and, hopefully, that day never comes, the ACLU’s direct legal actions may be the last best hope for effectively resisting the Trump administration until we can remove him from office.