The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Republic’s End: Trump’s National Emergency

“Well, Doctor, what have we got–a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)

So, apparently Trump has said he will declare a national emergency to build his wall.

I’m going to make one point about this: If you have an abusable law or power, it will eventually be abused.

Wikipedia notes that:

Congress has delegated at least 136 distinct statutory emergency powers to the President upon the declaration of an emergency. Only 13 require a declaration from Congress; the remainder are invoked by an executive declaration with no Congressional input.

Maybe Congress shouldn’t have delegated those powers to the President. Let alone without oversight.

If you set up a law that allows someone to act as a dictator, someone will.

The Founders expected that Congress would be jealous of its powers, and not delegate them in this fashion.

The Founders were wrong. There is a part of humanity that wants a LEADER, so they can have no responsibility, and politicians love the ability to pass off their responsibilities to someone else so they can not be blamed.

Then one day someone picks up those powers (and perhaps the responsibilities).

The US is accelerating its slide towards despotism. That slide did not start with Trump, or even with Bush, Jr. (though the AUMF and Patriot Act, bills which were passed in a spasm of national cowardice and fear, certainly were milestones).

The Founders may have been wrong about Congress trying to guard its powers, but they did know that all Republics end—and that they usually end with a man on horseback.

That man is not Trump. He doesn’t have what it takes. He is incompetent and petty.

However, this act, should it occur, makes that day come far closer.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Previous

When Are You Guilty for the Crimes of Your Group

Next

Seven MPs Quit Britain’s Labour Party

77 Comments

  1. Aaron Armitage

    Their model of executive-legislative relations was the monarch and parliament of England. It turns out that when the executive is also elected, stably anti-executive factions don’t form.

  2. metamars

    If Trump is going to declare a national emergency, and use that to build a wall, why does he need a compromise bill on the wall?? This doesn’t add up. It strongly suggests that Trump is going to use the declaration as mere window dressing, to obscure the fact that he’s only going to put up another 50 or so miles of fencing.

    Well, I suppose one could look at things in the opposite manner. I.e., the bill will obscure the fact that Trump is going to build a wall and secure the southern border.

    IMO, it’s a bad look whatever scenario is the correct one. Both look duplicitous.

    Well, a 3rd scenario is that Trump is not too bright, and hasn’t thought this through….

    At least in the near term future, I’m more concerned about Democrats in Congress abusing their power to harass the President, using the never-ending phony “Russian collusion” story as a pretext.

    In the long run, I suppose the dictatorship scenario Ian outlines has some plausibility. Caesar’s ascent also involved a river…

    In any event, Trump’s lousy PR and non-existent “constructive propaganda” failures will not serve him well. The cartels have run amok in Mexico, and I saw a map, many years ago, of their penetration into the US. Trump has failed to educate the public, over the last 2 years, about how bad things are. What constitutes a legitimate “emergency” will be debatable, but there will be more of a debate than Trump should have sustained, given his administration’s incompetence wrt communication.

  3. NR

    I have a genuine question someone here might know the answer to: When was the last time Congress refused to give a president a war he wanted?

    Has it ever happened? If so, how long ago?

    It seems to me that the president has effectively been a dictator when it comes to use of the military overseas for a long time now, at least.

  4. Ché Pasa

    The US has been in a perpetual state of “National Emergency” for decades. Trump’s declaration, should it come, is a minor blip in the routine of declaring national emergencies over any and everything, and maintaining them in force essentially forever.

    ABC News toted up 31 National Emergency Declarations that are currently in effect, one dealing with Iran dating back to 1979, and many more that have come since, some that are 20 years old and more. For whatever reason, the emergency never ends.

    I think this is a reason why there isn’t a whole lot of angst over The Wall declaration should it come. A National Emergency status is essentially ongoing, no matter what individual presidents and congresses do or don’t do.

    In effect, the Republic ended a long time ago, if the standard of its end is the emergence of a quasi-dictator and the submergence of congressional power under the claim of a National Emergency.

    As Ian correctly notes, Trump is incompetent as are many of the idiot-mooks he surrounds himself with — if they aren’t sleeping. That doesn’t diminish the cruelty of the whole lot of them.

    A Wall declaration may or may not be thwarted by the courts — I suspect it won’t be — and yet whatever comes of it will be less than advertised. Nevertheless, the ongoing outrages at and near the southern border will continue while the northern border will continue to be the entrance-point for various nefarious interests. Such is the nature of border politics, Trump or no Trump.

    Lots of kabuki going on. The question is, what’s really going on behind the scenes that we the rabble aren’t privy to?

  5. Hugh

    I agree with metamars that this is window dressing, kabuki to placate his base. Trump declares an emergency and seeks to seize funds already appropriated for other purposes. These seizures will be contested and probably overturned in the courts. But I also agree with Ian. Functioning governments do not operate this way. You will be hearing the word “degenerate” a lot from me because it describes where our system is. There is no longer a clear path to get from A to B. You’re in the majority? Doesn’t matter. It’s all about how many corrupt politicians you own. And if you own enough, they’ll get you from A to B through trapdoors and down alleys no matter how many it hurts or how much damage it causes. And if you can flip a President, that’s even better.

  6. Will

    Good points, and I agree that it is a VERY bad idea to have these powers hanging out there waiting for someone to grab them and run. Even if, like in this case, the powers are of an enumerated type. IOW the phrases “fencing”, drug running, etc. are mentioned by name.

    But I cannot help but think how this looks so different to those you on the internet and those of us out in the hinterlands. If your family/community/town/state was seeing the kind of slaughter that the drug trade is doling out around me? And you knew where a hell of a lot of those drugs come from?

    I think you might be a bit more circumspect about what constitutes an emergency and what does not…. Upper crusters having to pay a living wage for their housekeepers and nannys might not be such a large concern.

    Will

  7. Ché Pasa

    I agree that “degenerate” is the correct way to characterize the current state of US government dysfunction. One reason why I don’t favor a “restoration” of Constitutional rule is because the Constitution — sacred text or no — got us to this point, and it cannot get us out of it.

    And why would anyone want to restore that deeply flawed, anachronistic, and basically anti-democratic form of rule anyway. It’s past time to think outside the box and come up with something better.

  8. ponderer

    Agree 100%. Well said. The powers of the executive were out of control a long time ago. Congress doesn’t want the power because it means they may have to answer to voters instead of their paymasters. As long as they pass on the responsibility they can rake in the generous donations and perks.

  9. ponderer

    @Che Pasa
    So you don’t want civil rights, freedom of expression, access to the courts or jury. What kind of world do you expect to build when you have no rights? Yes, rich men designed the constitution as a way to prevent the people from taking all they had, but it also protected the people when noblese oblige was still a thing. The greatest tyrannies of the day are all violations of the Bill of Rights, without it they wouldn’t be tyrannies, they would be permanent business as usual.
    Besides even if you had strict democracy, you would still put it in a document and that would probably be called a Constitution. It’s not a logical position, where there are faults in our application, there are also faults in demoracy.

  10. Ché Pasa

    I should have been clearer. The problem is the anachronistic, deeply flawed US Constitution, not the concept of a constitutional republic or participatory democracy or other agreed-upon form of government.

    We are where we are with regard to our degenerate federal government and many state governments as a result of the flaws and anachronisms in the Constitution of the United States. We can’t change it without enormous effort, and what changes are possible tend to be technical and reinforce the flaws.

    As for those precious rights, the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that seems to be permanently honored and expanded is the Sacred Second. All the others have long been ignored, neglected or mooted. Funny how that works, but it does.

    I’ve advocated for starting over for quite a long time; inertia is a powerful force and starting over is scary.

    But something better is necessary.

  11. ponderer

    @Che Pasa

    As for those precious rights, the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that seems to be permanently honored and expanded is the Sacred Second. All the others have long been ignored, neglected or mooted. Funny how that works, but it does.

    Isn’t it kind of a meme for the left to pan the Bill Of Rights though? Rosa Parks doesn’t get o the front of the bus without it. You don’t even get to talk about changing the government without it. There would be no war protesting, no opposition at all. There are clearly a lot of people who have benefited from it, far more than those whose rights were historically ignored even or who now fall through “the cracks”.

    Obviously I’m a fan. The reason its difficult but not impossible to change it is that every time we elect a new president or congress changes hands they could nullify it and start over. Ian’s article is about the unchecked power of the presidency. Would you like Trump to rewrite the list of Rights you can have? The resilience is a strength not a weakness. You need to benefit an overwhelming majority in order to get it changed which means buy in from many different interest groups. If you can’t trust your current elected representatives, and their approval rating is only about 11%, letting them permanently alter your future with no checks is madness. You can’t trust them to ensure you have decent health care (unless you are a member of congress), so you want them to decide what separates you from a slave?

    I think strengthening the Constitution is the only rational course of action and that means applying the rule of law to all people with the Bill of Rights at the top. Yes, make changes that benefit us all, but make sure your healthcare system functions before enshrining it out of reach of the masses.

  12. ponderer

    @NR

    I have a genuine question someone here might know the answer to: When was the last time Congress refused to give a president a war he wanted?

    I think Libya under Obama qualifies. They tried to get congressional approval but decided congress wouldn’t go along. They had to settle for Hillary’s death squads, er moderate rebels. Same problem with Syria, they had to back channel that too. It was made clear the people wouldn’t tolerate another iraq, afghanistan without flipping congress yet again.

  13. I will, of course, be denounced as a “Trumphead,” and flamed as a rightwing idiot for saying what I am about to say. I am neither, as I am most certainly no supporter of Donald Trump and am by no means an ardent advocate of any sort of border wall. I do, however, prefer that our nation be guided by something at least resembling logic.

    That being said, when Barack Obama famously said that, “If Congress will not act, then I will,” he was hailed as a visionary and a hero by the media and even, oddly enough, by much of Congress. When he created executive orders which directly overturned specific acta s of Congress, he was applauded for doing so. For example, Congress several times specifically declined to pass DACA either by declining to vote on it or by voting against it, so he created the program by executive order and it became law, to great popular acclaim.

    He redirected funding under the ACA to compensate insurance companies for losses sustained under the ACA “marketplace,” even though Congress had specifically rejected that feature in the reform bill, and was supported by his party for having done so.

    When Trump does precisely the same things, he is accused by the media and by Congress of trying to become a dictator, of usurping the power of Congress, and of creating a “constitutional crisis.” So the “it’s okay if you’re a Democrat” principle is in open display and raw political power politics is the name of the game.

  14. nihil obstet

    @ponderer

    Isn’t it kind of a meme for the left to pan the Bill Of Rights though?

    No, it isn’t.

  15. Tom

    The hand wringing over how Elliot Abrams was treated is just plain awful.

    I don’t care if he is Jewish, aiding and abetting a Genocide in Guatemala that killed over 100,000 people is alone enough to send him to the gallows.

    But wait, he also helped the El Salvador Military kill tens of thousands more with girls as young as 12 being raped for sport and babies spitted on bayonets. Catholic Priests who advocated for the poor were not spared either with more than one saint of the Catholic Church being killed by the Salvadoran Government’s death squads. Oh did I mention the Salvadoran Army raped 4 American Nuns as well and then beheaded them and the Carter and Reagan Administrations tried to cover it up?

    But wait, it doesn’t stop there. Elliot Abrams broke US law and lied to Congress about it to supply the Contras who were the ISIS of their day in Nicaragua and beheaded more people in a month than ISIS has beheaded in its entire existence.

    Elliot Abrams was deeply involved in this, turning a blind eye when even American Citizens trying to provide humanitarian aide got caught up in the violence and were tortured and killed. The guy even laughed about it.

    Yet AIPAC and ADL are defending this scumbag.

  16. someofparts

    I thought NAFTA increased the flow of drugs into this country exponentially. If you want to slow down that river of incoming drugs, renegotiate NAFTA and make it decent and transparent this time.

  17. ponderer

    @nihil obstet

    The
    internet doesn’t seem to agree with you

    Whether its actual critique from the left or the rights assumption of it (meme),

    In simple terms, in a world where progressives want government to change things and conservatives favor the status quo, a legislative body that makes legislating difficult will be a conservative force. The Senate blocked ratification of the League of Nations treaty after the First World War, civil-rights laws after the Second World War, and the Clinton health-care reform in the nineteen-nineties. “You’ve basically always had two parties in the country where one wants change and the other is more supportive of the status quo,” Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, said. “The Senate is an institution that stops change. That’s how it’s designed, and that is always going to hurt that party that wants change, the activist party. Today, that’s the Democrats.”

  18. StewartM

    Trump’s actions, in the recent US historical context Ian mentions, makes me think of Ernest Lund (1943):

    https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/erber/1943/09/fascism.htm


    Democracy is a luxury for capitalism. It can only afford it in time of prosperity. When capitalism begins slashing wages in time of crisis or rationing food in time of war, and mass discontent arises, it is necessary to dispense with the luxury of democracy.

    Especially since Reagan and Thatcher, when the Western world embraced a more ‘pure’ form of capitalism increasingly stripped of its social democratic elements, we’ve been headed towards autocracy. The antidote to fascism is social democracy; this was noticed in the 1930s how the Scandinavian countries not only recovered from the depression faster, they were also much more immune to the rise of fascism that took root elswhere. Don’t treat people like garbage, and they will respond more kindly in return.

  19. Ché Pasa

    The problem of presidential usurpation of authority did not start with Obama, oh my no. Those of you who think it did need to spend some time in the history aisle.

    No, no, no. The problem is inherent in the way the Constitution deals with authorities. The presidency is based in large part on the reduced-power kingship of the British Empire from which the US had recently separated. The President is a somewhat limited, constitutional, semi-monarch, answerable in theory to the People, but not in fact to Congress (unless impeached) or the Courts — both of which have been routinely and usually successfully defied by Presidents going back about as far as the origin of constitutional authority itself.

    Andrew Jackson comes to mind as a president who acted in defiance of law and courts and got away with it. Andrew Johnson was impeached for his defiance of a radical congress but survived in office when the Senate would not convict him. Abraham Lincoln was notorious for assuming powers and authorities the presidency had not previously had. There were the cases of presidents taking on imperial pretensions, TR among the worst of them — but he was a trust buster, no? So it evened out?

    Wilson was, well, nothing if not a great racist and propagandist. Arguably, he relished in abusing the authority of the presidency. Hoover was castigated for abusing his authority in trying to deal with the Depression, and the attacks on FDR’s usurpations and abuses of authority were relentless. They continue to this day in some quarters. Every president since FDR has been accused — some rightly — of abuse of power and worse.

    So the idea that “Obama started it” is juvenile and stupid.

    It’s built in to the structure of the US government and its venerated Constitution.

    You want something different? It’ll take much more than fussing around the edges, or blaming a previous president.

  20. StewartM

    Che Pasa:

    As for those precious rights, the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that seems to be permanently honored and expanded is the Sacred Second. All the others have long been ignored, neglected or mooted. Funny how that works, but it does.

    The NRA stands the 2nd on its head. Instead of the 2nd amendment being a means to backstop to all other rights, now all other rights must be trash-cann’ed to perserve the Sacred Second.

    In addition, the idea of the 2nd was essentially an answer to the question of ‘upon what resource should the defense of the country be based?’ not about individual ownership of guns per se. The idea that the country should avoid at all costs a large, permanent, professional military that sees itself (and is constantly moreover told that by our media) that it is more ‘noble’ than the civilian population and superior to it in about every way, and which owes its loyalty more to its superiors than that population, and moreover (and this helps justify its funding and existence) is more likely to be employed here, there, and everywhere, in aggressive foreign adventures, has been forgotten.

  21. ponderer

    the idea of the 2nd was essentially an answer to the question of ‘upon what resource should the defense of the country be based?’

    That’s a modern interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd. I would provide links but that seems to slow down the comment process. Try searching for the 2nd amendment at washings blog. You had essentially a group of people in the wilderness surrounded by hostile wildlife, the natives who’s land was stolen, and the puppets of other European powers. Ready access to firearms, dry powder (difficult to store), and shot was a matter of life and death. Not to demean your point about a militia, that’s legitimate, it just wasn’t the primary purpose at the time of the country’s founding.

    The problem is inherent in the way the Constitution deals with authorities. The presidency is based in large part on the reduced-power kingship of the British Empire from which the US had recently separated.

    This is another modern interpretation that has some merit, but misses the point. The presidency was selected by the states, this was when states rights was an actual thing. The all powerful centralized government hadn’t reared its head yet. Yes, some framers were adamant in wanting a monarchy but that doesn’t make the compromise a semi-monarchy.
    In order to properly criticize the Constitution you have to design a document or compact that would have stood the test of time just as well given the same movements and characters we faced. The extreme difficulty in doing that is why you can only stick to generalities like someone misused it, it’s “broken”, it must be “reformed” with no quantitative solution whatsoever.

  22. marku52

    The other day I drove past the fire station and the flag was at half-mast.

    “What the hell now? Some soldier got blown up in one of the un-ending wars? One of our hereditary aristocrats died? Another school shooting? Just cut the damn thing down to half height and be done with it…”

  23. StewartM

    ponderer:

    That’s a modern interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd.

    I would differ; I think the individual gun ownership ‘right’ is clearly the modern component (witness it was only ‘discovered’ by conservative judges a few years back).

    Most of the arguments over the 2nd at ratification involved questions of ‘who should fund and control the militia?” not over individual gun ownership rights. (I think it’s safer to say that, from a NRA argument perspective, that some sort of gun ownership right was assumed). The militia was not a gun owner’s club, it wasn’t an organization primarily designed to rise up to stop any tyrannical government (though ultimately, the Founders would readily agree that in some circumstance that might be necessary), it was supposed to be a cornerstone of defense for that government—but a cornerstone where its members would have stronger ties and allegiance to their communities than a professional force would have, a cornerstone that would refuse orders to fire upon their family and neighbors if ordered to do so by some commanding officer. The Founders were well aware of the practice of autocratic states to employ troops raised one region to suppress the civilian population in a region far away (Russia, for instance).

    Not all the Founders were enthusiastic about basing the defense of the US on the militia, however–particularly officers like Washington and Hamilton, who had seen with their own eyes how often just ‘guys with guns’ showing up broke and ran at first combat. Thus a compromise was worked out on the funding and equipping by Congress but the appointment of officers by the states. Still, to drive home the point about this not being about gun ownership, it was Congress who had repeatedly to buy guns and weapons for the militias to equip them. Actual militia service, while mandatory, was very unpopular so by the early 1800s many states gave men an ‘out’ for actual militia service by calling all males between 18 and 45 the ‘unorganized militia’.

    Still, the American militia continued, maintained in part to a mythology that had been built up, that had the American frontiersman with his Kentucky long rifle besting British regulars (a notion that any sober analysis of actual battles during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 would show to be false; the Americans won the Revolutionary War because Washington was able to turn the Colonial army into something like a regular force). I think a big turning point in American attitudes towards the militia came during the Civil War. By 1862-63 or so both the Union and Confederate armies were pretty much ‘veteranized’, so to speak, and hundreds of thousands of men saw with their own eyes Washington’s and Hamilton’s point, of how poorly militias generally performed as military forces (my favorite quote is the sarcastic comment from Confederate general Jubal Early, who at York, PA, during the Gettysburg campaign watching panic-stricken Pennsylvanian militia beat a quick retreat across a bridge over the Susquehanna, burning afterwards, said in feigned concern “It’s a good thing those boys ran, else some of them might have gotten hurt”). I think this is why we eventually went to the National Guard.

    But I do think, while the Second has nothing much to do about individual gun ownership, it is true that as it is to be a military force, the Second does protect “owning” any weapons of war–by the states, so to speak. A modern military force has to have weapons like jet fighters, tanks, automatic weapons, and heavy artillery to be legit, things that even many staunch NRA members say the amendment doesn’t cover (but it does!). As these weapons are impractical for individuals to own, that was another problem with the initial implementation of a militia-based defense.

    BTW, for full disclosure, my readings on this subject are largely but not completely based on the work published by Mark Pitcavage, formerly of OSU.

    Ready access to firearms, dry powder (difficult to store), and shot was a matter of life and death

    But the US had to import these very things–firearms, powder, and shot–from both Holland and France during the Revolutionary War (Barbara Tuckman’s The First Salute ) to just keep fighting, which means they couldn’t have been too common. Moreover, as I said Congress had to buy and supply the weapons for the militias well into the 19th century, in *particular for the West*, so they couldn’t have been in abundance there either.

  24. NR

    Trump says “I didn’t need to do this” as he declares a national emergency.

    A contender for quote of the year.

  25. anon y\'mouse

    i like the ensuing discussion, but are you (ponderer)seriously trying to strawman someone who says we should do away with our current Constitution (and possibly form of government) and who explicitly states for something BETTER with the idea that it will not at least provide the rights of what our current one claims to provide (but allows power to take away, at will or whim, as power always does)? seriously? when does someone saying they want something \”better\” mean that they want to promote something \”worse\”?

    these documents are not some holy and sacrosanct texts that need to be handed down like stone tablets. as far as i can tell, they were simply the \”best solution at the TIME\”. perhaps we have a better solution for THIS time. perhaps not.

    otherwise, let the elaboration continue. it\’s educating, at very least.

  26. Hugh

    Most of what we are taught about American history is mythology. The US Constitution was written to divide power among the rich and propertied and defend them from everyone else. Only about 10% of the adult population had the right to vote on its ratification. So we need to take the Preamble’s “We the People” with several handfuls of salt. And if you think that a document which ratified slavery is somehow inspired, you need your meds changed. Also the Framers didn’t give a shit about frontier folk needing to defend themselves as the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794) showed. Hamilton wanted to milk them with a whiskey tax to help Eastern distillers and pay off rich Eastern investors in his national bank. State militias sanctioned by the newly ratified Constitution with its Second Amendment were used to suppress the Rebellion. By the way, people did not run to join these militias. The state governments needed to fill them via drafts and this led to widespread draft dodging and riots. So to recap, the first major use of the Second Amendment was against frontiers people, and it did use militias as per the actual wording of the Second Amendment, and these militias were not that popular, hence the drafts and the riots.

    The Bill of Rights needs to be understood within its historical context, noting that the Framers were neither stupid nor lazy and that if they had wanted to establish an individual, militia-independent, right to bear arms they would have done so. As it is, they were pretty specific in the Second Amendment, because they were addressing a concern which had come up in the Colonial period and during the Revolutionary War itself. They did not want a standing army. This is reflected as well in the very specific Third Amendment prohibiting the forced housing of the soldiers in a citizen’s home. The Second and Third Amendments need to be seen together and together they undercut the individual right to bear arms argument.

    The Framers considered state militias to be sufficient for the national defense, and these were sanctioned by the Second Amendment. But they also saw the need for militias to suppress internal resurrections. In this regard, the quick coming on of the Whiskey Rebellion obscured a far more sinister intent of the Second Amendment. In the slave states, a “well regulated militia” was all about the obsession and fear of slave owners with slave revolts. Yes, folks, the Second Amendment was not about some divine right to bear arms, mostly it was about defending slavery. I suppose none of us should be surprised that such a malign Amendment should be even further contorted and distorted over its history: poisoned fruit from the poisoned tree.

  27. Willy

    Even Gods commandment tablets were missing slavery, child abuse, and genocidal authoritarianism. The Deuteronomic Code is a bit more detailed but it’d be hard for some to remember every stricture, especially those concerning leprosy, the transport of the earnings of prostitutes, and the daily wearing of tassels. In my better republic I’d try to make Rule of Law plutocrat resistant, have most public servant compensation based on outcomes (or punishments for negative outcomes), and make every presidential candidate pass a series of psychological, intelligence and basic common sense tests. Some of the more recent presidents have been able to figure out the more advanced concepts like constitutionality and international diplomacy on the fly, or at least fake it, but in light of the current debacle, a few basic tests along those lines might be desirable as well.

  28. Hugh

    In my comment above, resurrection should read insurrection. Sorry. But my point is that slavery was not some footnote to the Constitution but at its heart. Who wrote the Constitution, why, and for whom does not negate every aspect of it, but it should clarify our understanding of it.

  29. metamars

    Trump got rolled by the Dems and the Repub establishment: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/15/washington-post-democrats-hid-their-border-security-wins-from-trump/

    I always expected that Trump would be opposed by same, and they would collude against him. The donor class wants lots of cheap labor, so why wouldn’t they collude? However, I am surprised that Trump would be so incompetent a fighter.

    I am thankful for Ann Coulter, who isn’t willing to kiss Trump’s derriere. Her recent quote is precious: “So forget the fact that he’s digging his own grave. This is just — look the only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.”

  30. metamars

    Ann Coulter: “The goal of a ‘national emergency’ is for Trump to scam the stupidest people
    in his base for 2 more years.”

    I don’t know if this is true – Trump may actually believe he can build a wall via national emergency. But it’s impressive that somebody in the media, who is not a kneejerk hater, will rise above being a sycophant or apologist. Also, his base deserves criticism along with Trump.

  31. Olivier

    “politicians love the ability to pass off their responsibilities to someone else so they can not be blamed.” Amen. This is exactly why we have Brussels (or more precisely the Berlaymont) here in Europe. Too many people don’t understand that or don’t want to and rage at the decoy instead.

  32. ponderer

    @StewartM

    There was no NRA at the time of the Constitution. Their perspective does not apply. Applying modern standards to historical events is largely a waste of time. If you want to quibble about the here and now that’s up to you. It was the criticism of the time that I found at fault. If you and Hugh had any historical backing you would have put up a list of framers, signers, or anyone else who didn’t have or want access to firearms. It was as assumed as access to air and water. If you grew up on a farm its much easier to understand, hence the disparity between those who live in large cities and those who don’t, certainly on this topic.

  33. ponderer

    @Hugh

    ..my point is that slavery was not some footnote to the Constitution but at its heart. Who wrote the Constitution, why, and for whom does not negate every aspect of it, but it should clarify our understanding of it.

    More modern interpretation as strawmen. Slavery wasn’t in the Constitution, it was another assumed facet of life. A good number of the Europeans that came over where as criminals who were to work off their sentence (temporary slavery). This was a time when debtors prisons were popular. Slaves turned out to be cheaper. Only 5% percent of African Slaves ended up in the US. The vast majority at that time stayed slaves in Africa. There are accounts in the historical record of Freed black men selling their wife and children (slaves) back into bondage here in the US. The slaves had access to firearms as well. When the white masters went off to fight, they were left to defend the home and overwhelmingly they did so. It just wasn’t that big a deal at the time.
    In the here and now even Bernie Sanders has recognized the futility of fighting the second amendment. It’s a tool to divide the left and that’s about it. Even our israeli troll could see that.

  34. DMC

    There is another, often overlooked, aspect of the second amendment, namely that it implies(at least) that there shall be no specifically “arms-bearing” class. The English Law that they were leaving behind with the Monarchy, distinguishes between the commoner and the gentleman in a number of ways, the most visible of which was the bearing of arms. Consider every depiction you’ve ever seen of the Revolutionary period. The Gentlemen are ALL armed. Its part of the outfit that says you can’t be press-ganged into the Navy(for instance). The commoner had NO such right and could be prosecuted for it, depending on a range of circumstances. Ironically, it may be that this external signifier led to the general decline among American civilians in going about visibly armed(i.e. wearing a sword). I would guess it was thought to be pretentious.

  35. anonone

    The Constitution was written by the “Founding Fathers” to keep wealthy white men in power. It has been overwhelmingly successful at that.

    2 of the last 3 Presidents did not win the popular vote. These 2 Presidents appointed 4 wealthy white men to lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court. The current Senate Republican Majority represent only about 20% of the population, and come from mostly white rural states and southern states. A Senator from California represents about 20 million people; a Senator from Wyoming represents about 300 thousand people. We do not have a “representative republic.”

    In regards to the Bill of Rights, the government has been undermining every single right, both covertly, such as through secret FBI programs to disrupt legal and peaceful groups, and overtly such as civil forfeiture and extrajudicial Presidential “Kill Lists.”

    Now we are facing the Sixth Mass Extinction, and our undemocratic government is unable to respond to this existential event. And the mass extinction is happening; just read the latest reports of insect populations collapsing. The top of the food chain cannot survive without the bottom.

    Our Constitution is a suicide pact.

  36. StewartM

    Ponderer

    Applying modern standards to historical events is largely a waste of time.

    I don’t think I was applying modern standards, mine was a historical perspective; that is why I gave you the short version of the history of the US militia.

    What is the ‘modern standard’ is the interpretation of the Second which contends there is an individual right to own personal firearms, apart from any participation in a military unit (‘militia) and in fact it didn’t exist until conservative jurists invented it in 2008. Before then, it’s safe to say that courts either hedged or denied any such right.

  37. StewartM

    DMC

    There is another, often overlooked, aspect of the second amendment, namely that it implies(at least) that there shall be no specifically “arms-bearing” class.

    While I agree with you as a concept, in practice a ‘well-armed’ populace is a crummy means of preventing despotism. Despite of the fake Hitler quotes, the Nazis actually campaigned on (and enacted) a loosening of restrictions on personal firearms ownership (what they *did* do is to deny them to non-citizens, i.e., Jews). That’s why gun enthusiasts tended to vote National Socialist (read The Nazi Seizure of Power, which details the experience of a single town).

    An friend who also lived in Marco’s Philippines also said people toted around semiautomatics there; that didn’t stop Marcos from being a dictator. The single most effective bulwark against tyrants seems to independent labor unions, from history, but you’ll not hear that here.

  38. bruce wilder

    Re: Congress jealous of its powers

    There is an old joke about politics being show business for ugly people. The humor depended on the fact that some very powerful and prominent politicians were remarkably homely or even ugly. Not that being charismatically attractive, even by means of movie star good looks was not sometimes an asset — think Jack Kennedy (and his wife). It just was not the rule. Nixon fit the rule. LBJ. Abraham Lincoln often identified as the greatest President was remarkably unattractive (and made fun of his own appearance, even exaggerating it with ill-fitting suits and the famous tall hat — and yes, people knew basically what he looked like — he was frequently photographed and travelled to New York City to promote his prospects with highly publicized personal appearances, though he refrained from campaigning as was traditional.)

    The thing is lots of personally ambitious people desiring status used to go into politics for the honor of presiding over their community’s affairs or affairs of state. Not to do things themselves, mind, but to be there on the podium, to have their name on a highway or post office. To be important — a kind of celebrity. Which only requires a modicum of ability to look the part and tell a story. (Lincoln was a master story-teller, which turned out to be very powerful as well.)

    And, others turned to politics as a path to power: to occupy a nexus in the networks of public and private rivalry and cooperation where it becomes possible to decide what a great number will do together, to found institutions and create ways of living, to change and create the world. Or, perhaps to embezzle a bit from the flow of funds, either incidentally or as the main event. What politics has, or had (because my argument is that power has drained out of politics and that is root problem of our degeneracy), that show business lacks, is power. Show business has celebrity and for some, money, but actors are not important people. Not really. And, despite lending celebrity to this cause or that, and telling affective stories, not in the main powerful, either.

    Power is what distinguishes politics from show business. But, where is power in American politics? And, why has power flowed to where it now lodges?

    I think power has long since flowed out of Congress, leaving behind a motley crew of fools and tools. Maybe it was always a motley crew of fools and tools — I am not making a point about the character of the inhabitants, but rather the dynamics of the place and its possibilities. If American politicians of the present generation are not ugly at all, because many play the part of spokesmodels, it is because the changing structure of the overall political economy has left them without much strategic power.

    The power of Congress in previous eras when it was (sometimes) very powerful indeed was based in its function in arbitrating conflict between opposed interest groups.

    When the financial sector was composed of many, many firms, and many different types of firms — investment banks, rural commercial banks, savings and loans, credit unions, mutual insurance companies, for-profit insurance companies, brokers, accountants and auditors, property appraisers, securities ratings agencies, and on and on — a Congress critter overseeing “the system” and the complex rules that kept them all going in competitive opposition to one another could play one against the other. Need campaign cash? Make a speech or introduce a bill the bankers lobby wants, confident that another Member will cancel out your effort with a bill or speech favorable to insurance companies or credit unions. And, in the end, the Members of Congress were free of domination and able to find a shared, common, public interest in compromise amongst those conflicts.

    Now, not so much. Paul Ryan was not actually a policy wonk. He played one on teevee. Kamala Harris !! Socialism in America is reduced to one extremely photogenic woman tweeting. (Admire her talent tremendously, I do, but she is in danger of becoming packing peanuts for a Democratic Party dominated by creatures of the security state from wealthy suburban districts.)

    In a similar way, when any big city had several daily newspapers of differing political complexion, some owned by local families with real estate interests, some owned by national chains, and magazines were also mixed lot, and book publishers, and movie studios, that diversity left the Politicians some refuge from propaganda assault from one quarter or another, some hope of countering criticism or libel, as the case might be. Politicians quickly saw the danger in local newspapers owning local television and radio and moved in early days to curtail that development, though not until after several such pairings were established.

    When universal banks formed uniting grand strategic control of many different types of financial firm — types that should have been competitively opposed politically as well as in the so-called marketplace, in order to maintain the integrity politics and economics both — power flowed out of Congress. Ditto for Media giants.

    It is too easy to get distracted by personalities of the moment, too caught up in a line of propaganda narrative opportunistically spun out from the plutocrat-approved corporate media. The left needs to find some way to talk about structure as a source of character and public power, and not make everything about personal political consciousness (which seems to me to be a sure loser).

  39. StewartM

    Che Pasa

    It’s built in to the structure of the US government and its venerated Constitution.

    Agreed, all we’re seeing now are the result of intrinsic flaws in the US Constitution. Included among these are:

    1) The interpretation of impeachment requiring some sort of ‘high crimes’, but blatantly violating the Constitution (a la Andrew Jackson) is not a ‘high crime’ and indeed, if your side has a majority or even just more than 1/3rd of the Senate, a sitting president is safe. Rest assured, impeachment over sex acts is fine and dandy;

    2) Along with that, disallowing impeachment for purely political reasons (why not over policy, as the damage done by bad policy outweighs the damage done by individual bad actions);

    3) A judiciary that can be stacked, I would consider that judges be nominated by other judges and confirmed by Congress, not by a president;

    4) A president should be indictable for felonies at the least; if standing trial the vice president takes over.

    5) Move to immediate runoff elections for president, and representative seating in the House.

    6) Maybe more representative seating in the Senate, though I think winner-take-all is ok for one house of Congress.

    7) The ability of the electorate to enact or forbid some things by direct democracy, or to at least force their consideration in Congress. The ability of the electorate to force an immediate election, or recall, for sure (so no more shit sandwiches passed during lame ducks or shortly after a new Congress is seated, in the hopes we’ll forget).

  40. nihil obstet

    @ponderer

    Are you making this fantasy history up yourself, or is there an industry for American history like the Biblical creationism one?

    Another issue in the Second Amendment is that European kings tended to hire foreign troops to deal with domestic unrest. The Declaration of Independence lists this as one of the grievances against King George which justified revolution. The republican executive would have to use citizen militias rather than foreign mercenaries to maintain order and that insured that the president would answer to the people.

  41. Hugh

    Of course, slavery is in the Constitution:

    Article I, Section 2
    (Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)

    [This is the infamous Three-Fifths Rule where slaves counted for only 3/5 a free person, a compromise which gave slave states greater political heft in the Congress.]

    Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    [This allowed the importation of slaves until 1808.]

    Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4
    (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.)

    [A further reference to the 3/5 Rule.]

    Article IV, Section 2
    (No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)

    [This dealt primarily with runaway slaves.]

    Article V
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

    [Prohibited changes to the 3/5 Rule until after 1808.]

    Amendment 13
    1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    [Abolished slavery.]

    Amendment 14
    4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    [Denied restitution and compensation for freed slaves.]

  42. Hugh

    As regards slaves and arms,

    1680
    The State of Virginia forbids blacks and slaves from bearing arms, prohibits blacks from
    congregating in large numbers, and mandates harsh punishment for slaves who assault
    Christians or attempt escape.

    1705
    The Virginia Slave Code codifies slave status, declaring all non-Christian servants
    entering the colony to be slaves. It defines all slaves as real estate, acquits masters who
    kill slaves during punishment, forbids slaves and free colored peoples from physically
    assaulting white persons, and denies slaves the right to bear arms or move abroad without
    written permission.

    In particular: Article XXXV.

    “And also be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That no slave go armed with gun, sword, club, staff, or other weapon, nor go from off the plantation and seat of land where such slave shall be appointed to live, without a certificate of leave in writing, for so doing, from his or her master, mistress, or overseer.”

    https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/_An_act_concerning_Servants_and_Slaves_1705

    http://sharondraper.com/timeline.pdf
    (A useful timeline on slavery)

    As regards the Second Amendment, if the Framers had thought the right to bear arms was “as assumed as access to air and water,” then stating a much more restricted version of this in the 2nd Amendment would both be unnecessary and make no sense. Scalia who wrote the decision in DC v Heller (2008) tried to construct an individual right to bear arms by cherrypicking English common law. It was both a successful and dishonest exercise. As with most reactionaries, on and off the Court, it was conclusion first and construct argument second.

    I have often held that a better source for a right to bear arms, as with other unenumerated rights, if you were looking for one, would be the orphaned 9th Amendment:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

  43. ponderer

    @nihil obstet
    @Hugh

    guys, look, I’m not arguing for slavery. The “founders” generations engaged in mass genocide against the native peoples. If it weren’t for the indiscretions of one of my ancestors, I’d be on the roles now I’m sure. Not important to the discussion but they aren’t my heros, a few of them i do admire for their stance at that time. My problem is with the intellectual rigorousness of your arguments.

    No where in those citations of the Constitution does it establish Slavery. It doesn’t need to, just like it didn’t need to say people have the right to carry weapons, or the right to pee behind a tree when no one is looking. The Constitution was a pact between the states for the government of them all. They were bartering how much one of them was going to be able to screw over the rest like the king did to them. The Article I and IV, seen in that light, makes perfect sense. Any state that imported too many slaves could potentially control the rest, hence the 3/5 compromise. This is also why they established a Senate. This is well established history. See Time on the Cross, from 1974 for a quantitative discussion of slavery. It was an advantage for the southern states elites in their competition with the northern elites. IMNSHO, probably the true cause of the civil war, but not very important to the here and now.

    You don’t like the Constitution, fine. You want to change it? Great, share with us your wisdom. That would be fascinating. If you want to complain about it for incorrect historical reasons (previously discredited and illogical) as a substitute for rigorous intellectual arguments about how it could be improved? Boring. Boring. Boring, and it sends the wrong message to anyone else reading.

    StewartM makes some interesting points. I see a few holes I’ll respond to after some thought. It’s still a good positive step that isn’t divisive and off-putting.

    Bruce wilder makes great arguments and once again leaves me jealous of his prose.

  44. Guest

    I have a question for the constitutional experts here.
    How are these emergency powers laws even constitutional? It’s one thing for congress to cede such powers to the executive as long as a simple majority of congress can block the emergency being invoked, but as it stands it takes a supermajority to block the president (to override his veto power). So 1976’s simple majority can co-sign a blank check that only a supermajority from post 1976s congresses can refuse to honor.
    That’s the same thing places like California do with there limits on tax increases. I don’t believe those limits are in their constitution, but it would almost require a constitution amendment to reverse that provision. A simple majority can reduce them, but it requires supermajorities to undo what was done with just a simple majority. So much for one man one vote when three votes from past legislatures count as much as four current votes.

  45. ponderer

    I’m no legal scholar so this is just my musings on StewartM’s proposal and subject to revisal.

    1) The interpretation of impeachment requiring some sort of ‘high crimes’….
    I agree with you that violating the Constitution should be a crime. The highest in fact. It shouldn’t be restricted to the president. Everyone in government should have personal liability in such acts.

    2) Along with that, disallowing impeachment for purely political reasons …
    You mean allowing the government to function when congress changes hands. This would be a terrible idea.

    3) A judiciary that can be stacked
    Stacked like congress? Well all right but allowing judges to chose themselves seems alot like asking congress to chose its own members.

    4) A president should be indictable for felonies at the least; if standing trial the vice president takes over.
    You mean the same situation as 2. Presidents can be tried for felonies after they leave office. that we haven’t done so is further evidence this is a bad idea. That is, it’s not the crime one tribe or another cares about, it is the political advantage.

    7) The ability of the electorate to enact or forbid some things by direct democracy, or to at least force their consideration in Congress. The ability of the electorate to force an immediate election, or recall, for sure (so no more shit sandwiches passed during lame ducks or shortly after a new Congress is seated, in the hopes we’ll forget).
    The standard will be so high as to forbid you from getting most things you want. Like changing the constitution. that said I’m in favor in principle.

    The others I’m not sure about. More detail and analysis is needed. The biggest problem is that the people now running the government can’t or won’t let us have an basic humane treatment. The idea they will make changes that allow us to have better lives and not some form of codified wage slavery seems far fetched.

  46. ponderer

    @Guest, regarding Constitutional alignment of emergency powers

    What you are having issues with are the rules the bodies have decided for themselves, not the Constitution. those rules can be changed, but they don’t want to. it gives them cover for not getting anything done. Why should they? Voters won’t hold them accountable and its keeps the money rolling in. Better to ask partisan Democrats and Republicans why they keep electing the same people over and over.

    I guess the answer is that they will still get 20 to 30% to vote and vote for conniving lying weasels aka the lesser of two evils.

  47. Hugh

    I guess what upsets ponderer so is that he has no argument. Boring, boring, boring is not an argument. Again the Constitution can not be understood without taking into account in its writing slavery and class.

    As per the 1790 Census

    Total Slave Free With 3/5
    North 1,882,615 40,354 1,842,261
    South 1,925,481 653,910 1,271,571 1,663,917

    With every person counted, population in slave states actually outnumbered non-slave states slightly. With the 3/5 rule, free states had a decided advantage. The Census had problems, but the results supposedly surprised both Washington and Jefferson. Perhaps because they thought the overall population was higher and likely that the free white population of the North was already far higher than the free white population of the Southern slave states.

  48. Hugh

    Well, that didn’t turn out as nicely as it did in the comment box.

    Total
    North (non-slave states): 1,882,615
    South (slave states): 1,925,481

    Slave
    North (non-slave states): 40,354
    South (slave states): 653,910

    Free Persons
    North (non-slave states): 1,842,261
    South (slave states): 1,271,571

    South (slave states) with 3/5 Rule: 1,663,917

  49. different clue

    Here is an article somewhat paralleling the views in this post. It describes how Congress has spent several decades very carefully abjuring its own powers and handing the exercise of those powers over to the Presidency . . . President by President by President.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/430335-why-trump-will-win-the-wall-fight

    The American Republic hasn’t just suddenly fallen off a cliff. We have spent several decades slow-rolling down a spiral staircase with many more stairs to go.

    Which were among the first few dominoes to get pushed over and fall? Some would say the Kennedy, King, Kennedy and numerous other assassinations and other actions carried out by deeply entrenched power-player factions hiding here and there within government. Some would say President Truman diddit with his National Security Act and his official creation of the CIA. Some would say it began with whomever it was within government who paperclipped and ratlined many thousands of EuroNazis and Fascists of different sorts out of Europe and to safety in America, Canada, Australia, South America, etc. to be held in “ready reserve” for a future attempt to “fascistify” America and other countries.

    If studying each of these possibilities would help us to find and disarm all the different bombs and mines hidden throughout the structures of government and civil power, then each of these possibilities should be studied. If it would only make us feel bad, then we shouldn’t waste the time and energy on it.

    It is certainly a waste of time to bother “speaking Truth to Power”. Power knows the Truth already. That is part of how Power maintains itself in Power. “Speaking Truth to Power” is a self-congratulatory exercise in Moral Superiority stuff-strutting Holy Martyrdom display.

    It might make sense for the low-power majority to try understanding very carefully what “power” is and how it is exercised through various levers and channels of action . . . . and learn how to destroy those levers and channels. To drain the “power” out of power.

  50. Hugh

    Andrew Bacevich on Bill Moyers back in August 2008, that is during the 2008 Presidential election.

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

    “We have created an imperial presidency. The congress no longer is able to articulate a vision of what is the common good. The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress.

    As the imperial presidency has accrued power, surrounding the imperial presidency has come to be this group of institutions called the National Security State. The CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the other intelligence agencies. Now, these have grown since the end of World War Two into this mammoth enterprise.

    But the National Security State doesn’t work.”

    He then references its failures with regard to 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan. And

    “One of the real problems with the imperial presidency, I think, is that it has hollowed out our politics. And, in many respects, has made our democracy a false one.”

    Bacevich is a conservative and an institutionalist, but this is a great interview.

  51. ponderer

    @Hugh

    You just made my point. The 3/5 compromise gave the northern states more power than a 5/5 compromise the South wanted. My arguments to your “position” is well laid out. The Northern states wanted slaves to not count at all.

    @different clue

    It is certainly a waste of time to bother “speaking Truth to Power”. Power knows the Truth already. That is part of how Power maintains itself in Power. “Speaking Truth to Power” is a self-congratulatory exercise in Moral Superiority stuff-strutting Holy Martyrdom display.

    The phrase “truth to power” means educating your fellow group members about how power works, what it does, and how to counteract it. Not just telling power what it already knows. That’s mendacious and obvious. It’s difficult for the average citizen to understand whats going on with a propagandizing mass media. When they, for example, go to a progressive left leaning site to learn something about a different viewpoint they get inundated with Israeli, CIA, etc. astroturfers pretending to engage in legitimate debate. Instead, every fallacy possible is used to generate Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) in anyone attempting to stray from supposed mainstream values.

    A pertinent example, I find it very odd here that no one has mentioned our Israeli Troll. No one went to the site mentioned and googled some of the comments to find out they were scrapped off the internet. No one read the disturbing “novels” that could have hardly come from a progressive. No one found references to the great novelist Steven Augustine on minor web pages even though he won’t defend his own work and appears to give it away for free. It’s not just the odd new comer using species arguments to fracture lefty consensus.

    As someone who drop’s by frequently, though mostly in spurts, I can’t imagine hearing another commenter accuse someone of being an obvious paid Troll and not investigating and not discussing it. I also don’t understand the host not mentioning it. A sudden flurry of new posts to push the trolls comments to the back of the line so to speak, yes that makes sense. If I were Ian I would be reaching out to my progressive colleagues, some of whom are investigative journalists I gather, and looking in depth into an apparent progressive gas-lighting campaign.

  52. Willy

    Warren’s ethics bill has some stuff in it (though some might say not enough). The teachable moment will come when individual representatives are voting against, say why, and what the media response will be.

  53. StewartM

    @ponderer

    2) Along with that, disallowing impeachment for purely political reasons …
    You mean allowing the government to function when congress changes hands. This would be a terrible idea.

    No worse than in a parliamentary form of democracy, where this does happen when the legislature changes hands. If you keep the 2/3rds requirement to remove, it is actually much harder. Nor would I think the even the majority of Congress would resort to this against a popular president (remember, I also favor a direct democracy/recall option to discourage that).

    3) A judiciary that can be stacked
    Stacked like congress? Well all right but allowing judges to chose themselves seems alot like asking congress to chose its own members.

    One, we’d end up with a lot fewer out-and-out political hacks (like BK), and just maybe we’d get justices nominated for the brilliance of their legal minds rather than a political payoff. Two, I would want the the voting pool to be all the Federal judiciary, not just the Supreme court–a rather sizeable number that would mitigate against the flakier justices being nominated. Three, the Senate would still have to confirm.

    4) A president should be indictable for felonies at the least; if standing trial the vice president takes over.

    You mean the same situation as 2. Presidents can be tried for felonies after they leave office. that we haven’t done so is further evidence this is a bad idea. That is, it’s not the crime one tribe or another cares about, it is the political advantage.

    No, I think you got it backwards. We’ve never tried Presidents for felonies because the case has to wait until they’re out of office, and even then the next Prez will likely pardon them especially if they are from the same party (i.e., like Bush did to those convicted in Iran-Contra). Here there should be no power to pardon, if there’s enough evidence to indict, then the sitting president temporarily is out of office and the vice president takes over until the trial is finished.

    7) The ability of the electorate to enact or forbid some things by direct democracy, or to at least force their consideration in Congress. The ability of the electorate to force an immediate election, or recall, for sure (so no more shit sandwiches passed during lame ducks or shortly after a new Congress is seated, in the hopes we’ll forget).
    The standard will be so high as to forbid you from getting most things you want. Like changing the constitution. that said I’m in favor in principle

    I agree that I’m not overly enthusiastic about any and all applications of direct democracy, but yes, being able to recall elected officials or (at least) temporary block or force decisions is a plus. For one of Ian’s frequent points, if we had this the 2008 bank bailouts would never have happened, calls were running 10:1 plus against them, at least not in the form of “bail out the banks, and let the little people suffer” which is exactly what form they took.

    So no, I don’t believe this would block something very popular, like Medicare-for-all, but it would pose the threat of real and quick punishment to attempts to gut Medicare or SS and things like that.

  54. ponderer

    @StewartM

    2. No worse than in a parliamentary form of democracy, where this does happen when the legislature changes hands. If you keep the 2/3rds requirement to remove, it is actually much harder. Nor would I think the even the majority of Congress would resort to this against a popular president (remember, I also favor a direct democracy/recall option to discourage that).

    The President is already elected by the people though. That’s the result of “politics” that you now want to undo. We’re back to your tribe not getting what they want so something must be broken. Consider also the President is the only check of the Executive branch by the people. Special interests would run wild there. The current situation with the DOJ, DOD, and others subverting the will of the people through their duly elected president already a travesty.

    3. has the same insider, special interest issues. If you asked for the Judiciary to be elected directly by the people that would make more sense (not alot but more). You’re arguing for a political process to take politics out of a system. Not logically sound.

    4. No, I think you got it backwards. We’ve never tried Presidents for felonies because the case has to wait until they’re out of office..
    If they didn’t have to wait, the acting president would just pardon them. They do generally chose the vice president after all. That’s why we have a process for impeachment. If future presidents such as Clinton wanted to punish them they could have. The pardon’s were for lying to congress not their actions as part of the executive. When POTUS changed hands they could have been ruined even if not convicted. Its because they are all in the same club that they are not.

  55. StewartM

    @ponderer

    The President is already elected by the people though. That’s the result of “politics” that you now want to undo. We’re back to your tribe not getting what they want so something must be broken.

    The system is already broken, if any part of government has grown too powerful relative to the other parts it’s undeniably the presidency (emergency powers being the original topic of this post). Presidents can violate the Constitution, as history clearly demonstrates, and there is no reliable mechanism to either prevent it or punish it.

    And yes, the system must be ‘apolitical’ and to some extent almost ‘automatic’ to some extent because then a President backed by a third of the Senate is essentially unremovable from office in our current system, no matter what he does. Awaiting four years to stop a bad president who is breaking the Constitution but is immune to removal by having 34 Senators in his pocket is no more acceptable than letting any other criminal knowingly run amok for 4 years. Moreover, I as I said, violating the Constitution is not violating any statutory law, so as it stands now he’s even not going to suffer after being kicked out.

    Me, I could favor that if the SCOTUS rules that a president has violated the US Constitution, and pulls an Andrew Jackson and flat-out refuses to comply with the court order, he’s out. Automatically. You could say such a president could be re-instated with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths vote of Congress, if you’re worried about autocratic and arbitrary courts (I’m less so, if they are chosen properly, see below).

    Consider also the President is the only check of the Executive branch by the people. Special interests would run wild there. The current situation with the DOJ, DOD, and others subverting the will of the people through their duly elected president already a travesty.

    “The people” (which ‘people’ in our voting system, a system designed to suppress voter participation?) may elect a president, but just like a Chinese emperor could lose the Mandate of Heaven, the president can and should lose the mandate of the people. As I said, I also think there is a place for direct democracy, for recalls or new elections.

    And what? DOJ shouldn’t investigate a president suspected of wrongdoing? Why?

    Finally, while I don’t disagree that the executive branch harbors special interests (but so does Congress, and increasingly, because of our system of appointing judges, the courts) the whole justification for democracy is that people in larger groups make better decisions over the long term than do individuals. You can’t avoid “factions”, as the Founders believed, but power is better spread out than concentrated.

    If you asked for the Judiciary to be elected directly by the people that would make more sense (not alot but more).

    No, electing judges is going in the wrong direction. The judiciary is too political and not ‘professional’ enough; the judges we get now are not the nation’s most brilliant legal minds but political hacks. I agree here that it’s good to insulate one branch of government, for the short-to-intermediate term, against political pressures. Judges don’t have a good track history in protecting minority rights (they always seem to declare something unconstitutional and favor the rights of an aggrieved minority only long after a majority has long decided it was) but that’s probably due to the way they get chosen.

    Popularly electing judges is like a bunch of people on Youtube selecting the next Nobel prize winner in physics. Having politicians doing it is like the CEOs of companies with labs picking them, people who have an interest in the outcome. What you want are the physicists, the people who know most about their art, doing the picking. As I said, there would still be a lot of voters in the nominating process and Congress would still have to approve, but I’d think we’d avoid stupid judges that way (and have you actually *read* some of the opinions that make it into SCOTUS cases?)

  56. Hugh

    ponderer has no sense of history or math. He completely discounts the evil of slavery, a system in which people could be raped, maimed, and killed with little or no consequence, their families separated, and their labor and lives stolen. That is unconscionable. He says that slavery was no part of the Constitution. Then he goes on and on about the 3/5 rule that is at the heart of the Constitution and explicitly in the Constitution. Contradiction, much? Of course, but he is far from finished. He then completely twists the 3/5 rule, an evil, cynical compromise which was used as inducement to Southern states to ratify the Constitution and establish the United States by increasing the South’s political representation in the government of those United States. And says the point of the 3/5 rule was opposite from what it was. I have no idea whom he thinks he is going to convince with all this. Or accomplish, besides destroying his credibility on any and every issue.

  57. different clue

    @ponderer,

    You can redefine “speaking Truth to Power” any way you like, but as long as the real definition continues to exist, people will compare the real definition to your redefinition and wonder just what your problem is. I don’t have the time to find it, but I remember reading somewhere in the writings of Saint Noam of Chomsky about how Power already knows the Truth about Power. And I read prophecy stuff-strutter after prophecy stuff-strutter being referred to as “speaking Truth to Power.”
    People like Chris Hedges keep talking about “Witness” and “speaking Truth to Power” and stuff like that there.

    What you incorrectly refer to as “speaking truth TO power” is actually “speaking truth aBOUT power to the powerLESS”.

    “obvious and mendacious” . . ? I’m rubbber, you’re glue. Bounces off me, sticks to you.
    “obvious and mendacious” . . ? I know you are, but what am I?

  58. different clue

    @ponderer,

    Actually, I did go to that “steven augustine” person’s blog and read around a little bit. I admit to being not the sharpest lightbulb in the lunchbox, but I did not see any signs of Israeli trollery. What I saw was a lonely loser , with too much time on his hands, covered with cheeto dust in a basement somewhere.

    Perhaps I just didn’t look deep enough?

  59. ponderer

    @Hugh

    More of the mendacious, ad-hominem arguments we expect from you. Let me read you wikipedia, picture me reading it slowly so you understand:

    The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

    The proposal to count slaves by a three-fifths ratio was first proposed on June 11, and agreed to by nine states to two with only a brief debate.[9] It was debated at length between July 9 and 13, inclusive, when it was initially voted down by the members present at the Convention.[10][11] A few southern delegates, seeing an opportunity, then proposed full representation for their slave population.[12][13] Seeing that the states could not remain united without some sort of compromise measure, the ratio of three fifths was brought back to the table and agreed to by eight states to two.[14]

    I disagree with wikipedia that non slaves states were concerned about slaves, while slave states were. As far as I’m concerned, it was about relative power and nothing more, but the white washing of Northern States in the official records is commonplace. Reread that text. When “full representation” of slave populations came up, the NORTH decided that slaves were 3/5 a human being. Find something in the historical record that contradicts it or call me names, I wonder which you’ll chose.

    As a child I asked myself why Northern states who were so against slavery never had a problem with genocide of Native Americans. Living close to the Trail of Tears, it comes up. Around high school I decided that like today their resistance to Evil was contingent on the lack of their direct benefit. If you look in the mirror you might see someone with similar moral issues.

  60. ponderer

    @different clue

    The generally accepted definition is what I said. Noam Chomsky just doesn’t like the wording, not the actions. Turning that into criticism of the term, what Noam actually does, is just another fallacy.
    https://chomsky.info/20100603/

    An example from wikipedia:

    Ex-GCHQ employee Katharine Gun was threatened with prosecution for exposing an alleged conspiracy to bug United Nations delegates prior to the Iraq invasion of 2003. Together with Daniel Ellsburg, Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds, she set up the Truth-telling Coalition to encourage more of their former colleagues to ‘tell truth to power’.[15][16]

  61. ponderer

    @different clue

    Actually, I did go to that “steven augustine” person’s blog and read around a little bit. I admit to being not the sharpest lightbulb in the lunchbox, but I did not see any signs of Israeli trollery. What I saw was a lonely loser , with too much time on his hands, covered with cheeto dust in a basement somewhere.

    We rarely find what we don’t want to. What you should have seen was a supposed progressive writer who masturbates in women’s clothing when they aren’t looking (his words not mine), who thinks the problem with young black males is their need to be tough, and who spent 30 years in the USA, 30 years in Europe but occasionally describes his self as very young. That’s just for starters. It not that he’s an effective voice, its that he has links from other web sites describing him as a succesfull author, when he clearly isn’t. Some one, not the supposed author, has taken the time and money to do all that. If you go there now you will see updates about this site but no mentions of his being an Israeli astroturfer.

  62. Hugh

    Northern states did not want the 3/5 rule but later accepted it to keep the Southern states in. So what? It was a dirty deadly compromise that even the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Civil War did not wash clean. Its legacies are still with us. Again ponderer refuses to grapple with slavery, its place in American history, and in the Constitution. The result is meaningless, empty history as myth.

  63. ponderer

    Northern states also declined to outlaw slavery, setting a moral example, until when again… There was no need for a 3/5 compromise. The Northern colonies could have survived on their own. They could have instead a non aggression pact or a mutual defense pact. They didn’t have to join the southern states, they chose to. It’s a choice, just like Hugh’s chose to “poison the well” by Ad-hominem attacks against me. Hugh likes to project his inefficiencies, such as a weak understanding of American History and the Constitution on others. That Hugh thinks the deaths of people can wash away the sins of others, is just another illustration of his broken moral compass.

  64. nihil obstet

    Well, ponderer gets one thing right — the constitution does not explicitly include the right to pee behind a tree when no one is looking.

  65. A bit like the Royal Prerogative in the UK, except that the Queen never uses it. She always delegates to her Prime Minister. Which means he is the real dictator!

  66. ponderer

    @nihil obstet

    Would you like me to look up the fallacies you subscribe to as we go or wait awhile and do them in batches? I don’t want anyone to be upset because I ignored their specious argument. The 2nd Amendment has been long argued, and settled. While obstet and Hugh argue that the current interpretation is a modern one, there was considerable weight given by the Supreme Court to the historical record as documented in their decisions. If we dismiss that and consider only that there were no cases that came up regarding the 2nd to the Supreme Court for almost a 100 years, when we know that firearms were in wide use, it’s very compelling. It makes sense that in modern times, under stricter gun regulations the issue would emerge. The Court didn’t want to prevent the states from regulating guns (or rocket launchers, tanks, other military equipment), but it doesn’t want them to forbid it totally either. This is shown by their reluctance to incorporate the 2nd into the 14th even though in 1886 they say

    “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States,” and “states cannot … prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.”

    It is easy to argue half-truths to create divisions among the Left. The 2nd is still used in this way despite being settled in law. How can you tell when I’m being manipulated you ask? When someone wants to take away your rights, your freedom you should always assume its not in your interest. The harder case is when they seek to deprive you of your energy and hope with non sequitur vacuous arguments, each one more irrelevant than the last.

  67. Willy

    So it isn’t guns that kill people, it’s plutocracy that kills people. Given that executive powers seem to be tipping back and forth with ever greater strength, until it finally falls on one side and begins ‘legally’ destroying the other side, is there any “nuanced” argumentation which most economically stressed citizens will understand?

    Or do we let Mr. Trump decide, then tweet it out?

  68. different clue

    @ponderer,

    You are correct in that I didn’t do the extensive web-search on this blogger which you describe doing. I won’t bother spending the time involved.

    The little bit I did read indicates that I am right in that this person is a lonely loser covered with cheeto crumbs while he blogs from his own self-made basement of the mind.

  69. nihil obstet

    @ponderer

    It doesn’t seem to me worthwhile to discuss issues with you. As I’ve implied before, it’s like discussing biology with a Creationist. It would take long, long comments disentangling contradictory stances, in which the framework keeps shifting and the facts are at best highly selective. I don’t understand your comments, and you seem to be assigning made up opinions to me.

    Like anyone else who takes the time to comment, I hope argumentation can lead us all to more informed, thought-through opinions, so I object to things that are just wrong in fact and in thinking. There’s a value to occasionally waving a warning flag to other readers. Meanwhile, I won’t get upset if you ignore my argument.

  70. ponderer

    It’s far too late to let Trump decide. You’ve had decades to reverse the trends that culminated with Trump. When I and many others brought up the point with Clinton and Bush, it was already too late but salvageable. Economically stressed citizens can and should understand that being economically stressed keeps them out of the political process. It robs them of their energy and conviction and that is why change won’t be coming from our political parties. They have the choice of finding common cause to direct the country into a path for the 99%, or watch more and more fall to the edge of poverty while the 1% keep the proverbial pot.

    3000 per person per year is about 1 trillion. That’s about what we spend in the ME every year and also the cost of medicare for all. Social security has collected 20 trillion in its time and spent about 18 trillion for comparison. For not much more than we spend on foreign wars we could lower the retirement age, increase benefits or have health care for everyone. For comparison, per person per year Americans pay about 13,000 in taxes. So why are we worried about getting sick or getting to retirement? Until we get what we deserve, starve the establishment, starve the parties. Tell your partisan friends.

    I guess I’d say something like that.

  71. ponderer

    @nihil obstet

    I have no problems discussing issues with you. It’s your methods that bother me. Perhaps if we focus on your criticism of my position in this thread, we’ll find enlightenment together.

    Well, ponderer gets one thing right — the constitution does not explicitly include the right to pee behind a tree when no one is looking.

    What intellectual point were you trying to make there. I thought it was sarcasm, but I don’t mind being wrong if it leads me to being better. What did I miss there, what deeper understanding am I making up here?

    Or perhaps it was

    @ponderer

    Isn’t it kind of a meme for the left to pan the Bill Of Rights though?

    No, it isn’t.

    I thought perhaps you were quibbling. I don’t see any reasoning to back up your assertions. I did search for “2nd amendment” and “left criticism” and found several such that I linked to and quoted. There were also many links to libertarian,right wing haunts that showed a great concern for the left to deprive them of their rights. Should I link to all those too?

    I thought I was quite thorough and reasoning in my responses. If you could quote some text of mine and explain in a little detail how I didn’t understand your reasoning I’m sure we eventually understand each other.

  72. ponderer

    formatting, my bad

    @nihil obstet

    I have no problems discussing issues with you. It’s your methods that bother me. Perhaps if we focus on your criticism of my position in this thread, we’ll find enlightenment together.

    Well, ponderer gets one thing right — the constitution does not explicitly include the right to pee behind a tree when no one is looking.

    What intellectual point were you trying to make there. I thought it was sarcasm, but I don’t mind being wrong if it leads me to being better. What did I miss there, what deeper understanding am I making up here?

    Or perhaps it was

    @ponderer

    Isn’t it kind of a meme for the left to pan the Bill Of Rights though?

    No, it isn’t.

    I thought perhaps you were quibbling. I don’t see any reasoning to back up your assertions. I did search for “2nd amendment” and “left criticism” and found several such that I linked to and quoted. There were also many links to libertarian,right wing haunts that showed a great concern for the left to deprive them of their rights. Should I link to all those too?

    I thought I was quite thorough and reasoning in my responses. If you could quote some text of mine and explain in a little detail how I didn’t understand your reasoning I’m sure we eventually understand each other.

  73. nihil obstet

    @ponderer

    On the “pee behind a tree” — it’s different from slavery. When I can compliment you on being right on something you’ve said and you take it as sarcasm, maybe you should think through what you’ve said. I thought about going through the history of abolitionism, the first great international human rights campaign, to show that it was already a potential threat to American slaveowners, but your insistence on one motive for the mention of slavery in the Constitution made me think it would be a whole lot of time wasted. Anyway, when somebody compliments you and it is obviously ridiculous, your best bet is to show that you have a sense of humor. And back off the comment of course.

    On the Bill of Rights — “a meme for the left” means that at least a significant minority but more likely a majority of genuine leftists are picking up, spreading the idea. Of the articles you linked to (and incidentally, it’s usually considered lazy to link to long articles expecting everyone else to pick through and pull out what you think is evidence for your statement) none dealt with the Bill of Rights. I consider myself leftist, and hang out with a lot of lefties, and I don’t hear panning of the freedoms of press, religion, speech, assembly, habeas corpus, security in one’s papers, and the rest of the Bill of Rights. The quotation you gave deals with the nature of the Senate. There’s some unhappiness with the 2nd Amendment, particularly as recently interpreted by the courts to convey an individual right of handgun and rifle ownership, and with the 10th Amendment interpreted to remove federal protection from individuals (see “States’ Rights” and the Civil Rights movement). But you don’t even get there. I have no idea what you mean by its being a meme of the left to pan the Bill of Rights.

    That you didn’t see the logical fallacies in these comments when they were called to your attention so that a long explanation was required is the reason I don’t think our discussions would lead to greater understanding.

  74. ponderer

    @nihil obstet

    I thought about going through the history of abolitionism,
    Please do, if its relevant I don’t mind. I think a list of Northern statesmen who abhorred slavery and their impact on the constitution process would have set my reasoning back a bit. Don’t get the impression that when you mention some bit of history I don’t go look it up. That said if you brought a list of a handful of people and those people had no part in Northern affairs then that would be irrelevant and I would say so.

    Regarding “meme” it needs to be noted I was responding to a different comment, so the context there may not be the same for you as for I. Here is a definition: A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. I can assure you that on the right there is a pervasive meme that the left are coming after their guns. It’s not necessarily unwarranted either. Che Pasa wants the constitution to be changed, which requires more people than the left has frankly. Coming at the problem with one of the great fears of a large section of the country, doesn’t seem reasonable to me. That’s why I asked Che if it wasn’t a meme. I knew it was for them, but didn’t know if he really understood that. If the left pans the second amendment as you noted, and the second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, the reasoning is still sound. The argument that later amendments should have been included in the bill of rights is also quite frequently made. The abolishment of slavery being the prime. In a discussion of guns and slavery, I’m not sure why you would think I meant religious intolerance.

  75. nihil obstet

    @ponderer

    If the only people against slavery that you think are relevant were Northern politicians in the 1780s, then you think anti-slavery campaigns were irrelevant. Further discussion is a waste of your time and mine.

    If the “Bill of Rights” means simply second amendment to you, then your use of language is sufficiently idiosyncratic as to make discussion impossible.

    These two instances do represent well the logical and factual problems with your comments. Thank you.

  76. ponderer

    @nihil obstet


    Of the articles you linked to (and incidentally, it’s usually considered lazy to link to long articles expecting everyone else to pick through and pull out what you think is evidence for your statement) none dealt with the Bill of Rights

    I apologize, I intended the links as (broad) background information and copy pasted the wrong text into the quote box. It was held for moderation for some time. I consider links a form of citation and proof that I’ve at least considered the problem at hand. Here is a revision from The Rolling Stone by David Cohen

    In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It’s been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now.

    Those are not difficult to find. Of the 3 links I gave, two had references to getting rid of the 2nd amendment. The third, a Marxist perspective on the constitution had good criticism about the process so I put it there just because. I didn’t inundate you with links about the 2nd because that would be tedious and there are so many.

    I’ll concede I could have been more specific about the bill of Rights and 2nd amendment. If you have seen internet memes then you know that a meme can be used within a group as an inside joke, or from outside the group as criticism or humor. You assume one while I meant the other. That I already explained I was talking about outside criticism twice now, or is it three times, you can see why I give your fallacies argument little weight. In this thread, I’ve only responded to your criticisms of my comments. If you don’t think it useful to have the discussion you always have the option of not interjecting yourself between myself and other commenters. Especially if you aren’t going to account for the context involved. The onus is on you to explain yourself in those cases. Not for others to realize you have changed the context. It makes it look like a deliberate effort to deceive when you don’t.

  77. ponderer

    If the only people against slavery that you think are relevant were Northern politicians in the 1780s, then you think anti-slavery campaigns were irrelevant. Further discussion is a waste of your time and mine.

    Let’s just break this down further.
    I state that I believe there was only one motive for the mention of Slavery in the constitution by the people that wrote it. You state you disagree and the abolitionism movement was a factor. I simply ask for evidence of that fact. If its some of the founders, their financiers, friends, any reasonable influence on the act of creating the constitution is valid. Heck, I would be surprised if any of the delegates didn’t have slave themselves. I know some of the signers of the declaration didn’t but not the framers.

    If the “Bill of Rights” means simply second amendment to you, then your use of language is sufficiently idiosyncratic as to make discussion impossible.

    Not to me, to the meme i.e. the topic at hand, chosen by you.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén