While I detest McCarthy's Republican hypocrisy, more real reading of the Constitution is in order. There are certainly a lot of wild interpretations of it our there these days, though I think Baby Trump is probably miffed that not all of his and picked judges are handing him carte blanche impunity, so the whole system has to go. He is …
While I detest McCarthy's Republican hypocrisy, more real reading of the Constitution is in order. There are certainly a lot of wild interpretations of it our there these days, though I think Baby Trump is probably miffed that not all of his and picked judges are handing him carte blanche impunity, so the whole system has to go. He is digging his hole deeper and deeper, and so too his party, if we play our cards right. So I propose doing the "GOP" one better and talking a lot about the Constitution, it's historical context, it's evolution, and it the whys and wherefores. A brush with in in 5th or 6th grade is not enough if it is to be the master plan of our republic. What interpretations are evidence based and what is baloney? What the the document actually say and how is (or is not) that manifest in our daily lives? In our policies? Seems like a public discussion worth having.
Reading the Constitution won't do anything but let Repubs grandstand. You can't really understand how it works without being aware of the cases and controversies that have become law over the centuries.
People would be better off to read the Declaration of Independence. That document sets forth our principles. The Constitution is the formulation of the framework we intend to use to bring those principles to fruition.
Of course!!! Cheryl!!! Thank you for your comment! Let's bring The Declarationof Independance to the forefront of our education as citizens of the United States of America as well as the Constitution! I need to discipline myself and give my time to the on-going study of these precious documents. As citizens we must be personally responsible and involved or as we enjoy living in this country, we can lose the freedoms that have cost others so much.
When I read the Declaration of Independence, I'm struck by how a bunch of privileged white men, many of them (including the primary drafter) slaveholders, got it right. Sort of. Maybe. With plenty of help from subsequent generations. It is absolutely worth reading, but let's not make a fetish of it.
Thank you Susanna. the history of the rule of law is carved into the stone edifice on the face of the Supreme Court building in the Capitol that history goes back millenniums.
As I have said so many times (not here) in response to so-called "originalists," the original Constitution as ratified in 1788 had no Bill of Rights, and was intended only as a framework for government. It is short and concise. If the founders had intended it to be the be all and end all, it would have been much, much longer, more like a set of statutes. Instead, the founders gave Congress the power to implement its provisions, and later the Bill of Rights and amendments, by statute and regulation, gave the courts power to interpret the Constitution and implementing laws (later interpreted to mean also to review state laws), and gave the Executive enforcement powers. (The courts' interpretive powers necessarily included the power to nullify laws that contradict the Constitution, as recognized in Marbury v. Madison.) The Bill of Rights was added in 1791 because Madison and others wanted unanimous ratification (nine states was enough, but not for them), and holdout states wanted a B of R. In other words, THE FOUNDERS INTENDED THAT THE DOCUMENT BE A "LIVING" ONE, that it grow and develop along with the times, as long as that growth and development respected the founding principles of our nation, some of which are found in the Declaration of Independence. Trying to determine what the founders might have meant by a word or phrase in 1787 is disingenuous and a scheme for taking us back to an earlier time when laws were more oppressive.
Yes! The US Constitution will be our cause célèbre based on Trump's and the Republican Party's attacks on it. We'll campaign for all Americans to read and understand the Constitution, unlike the former president, MAGAs and many Republicans.
'When Donald Trump became president in 2016 and began furiously rolling back women’s rights, ERA supporters mobilized a renewed effort to achieve full ratification of the ERA. Nevada ratified the amendment in 2017, Illinois in 2018 and Virginia in 2020 to reach full ratification by 38 states as required by Article 5. Meanwhile, hostile attorneys general from Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota—states that claim to have rescinded their ratifications—sued to block the ERA.'
'The final ministerial step to make a constitutional amendment official is for the U.S. archivist to verify the ratifications and then draft a formal proclamation certifying that the amendment is valid and is part of the Constitution. This certification is then published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to Congress and the nation that the amendment process has been completed.'
'But these final steps were never taken. Even before Virginia ratified the ERA, the Trump-era Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a 38-page opinion arguing that the three recent ratifications were invalid because they came too late. The archivist declined to certify the ERA, and the attorneys general from Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota dropped their lawsuit.'
'However, attorneys general from the three final states to ratify—Nevada, Illinois and Virginia—filed suit to require the archivist to certify the ERA.'
'Constitutional law scholars dispute that a seven-year timeline for ratification in the preamble to the ERA passed by Congress in 1972 means recent ratifications are invalid. “States did not vote for the timeline—states voted for the text of the ERA. The timeline was in a preamble. The timeline is definitely not binding on Congress,” said Georgetown Law professor Victoria Nourse.'
'Constitutional law scholars also believe that the several states’ attempt to rescind their ratifications is not valid. “Article 5 speaks to ratification but not rescission,” said Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School. “Article 5 describes a one-way ratchet. It does not provide for a two-way ratchet for going in and out of the process.”
“The Equal Rights Amendment has met all the constitutional requirements for the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation (publisher of Ms.). “The Department of Justice is not part of the amending process, and Trump’s DOJ should not have thrown up that procedural blockade. The national archivist’s duty is to certify the ERA as the 28th Amendment.”
'The House of Representatives has twice passed a joint resolution declaring the ERA validly ratified—in February 2020 and March 2021—but Republicans have used the filibuster to block the measure in the Senate. To overcome the filibuster, Democrats must either carve out an exception to the filibuster rule for the ERA joint resolution or convince 10 Republicans to vote to end the filibuster.'
'So far, the only Republican senators supporting the ERA joint resolution are Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. Not one male Republican senator has indicated support, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has pledged to block the measure.'(Ms.) See link to the article below.
Good Lord, the sausage making is grotesque, and as usual, republicans are the enemy. What a different world we could live in, if competition with rules written by Rube Goldberg were replaced with cooperation focused of survival of us all. There might even be a livable earth for our children…
So sad. Sadder that those facts aren't repeated via media, at least as equally as they've covered every single uttering by orange douche Vader and the ultra right kooks grandstanding nonsensical, unworkable remedies, that we have learned from our dear Dr. HCR, have been tried and failed before - some more than once or twice.
Too bad I can't post pix here. I made a meme in March 2018 showing my ACLU palm sized copy of the Constitution (38 pages) in my hand with the caption "It's Not A Big Book, Read It!"
Also, what exactly are elmoluments? Sounds kinda like a moisturizer, but it's really a species of bribery. Or at the very least, material and dangerous conflicts of interest? God forbid that we should ever force those we entrust with the fate of our nation to avoid those.
It is beyond strange that very strict guidelines for conduct are imposed on jurors who decide if someone complied with law, yet very, very little ever trips a red card for those who make the laws, or determine what the law is. Of, by and for, right?
JL, exactly what I was thinking as I was reading your comments. Professors, lawyers study our Constitution constantly to deal with modern day issues ,yet how many of our elected officials understand what those precious words mean...even incorrect words written with prejudicial content regarding women and people of color. (men and women who gave their blood for freedom in various wars and causes to make us a better nation: people of color who are and have been great scientists, inventors, writers, athletes,astronauts, etc., etc.!!!)
We also should ourselves never take the Constitution for granted and work
together to live out this dream to be The United States of America!
There've been good commentaries on this appearing for months. Check out the Brennan Center (Google it and "Moore v Harper" and you'll get a couple of links). Marc Elias of Democracy Docket is another good source, and pay attention to Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern of _Slate._ (You can tell the Trump admin turned me into a legal-news junkie!)
Hi Susan... Hi Bryan ! Thank you both for your thoughts. I am not confused by Millhiser's 'trip' through the trees and forest, so to speak - lol. It just struck me that some folks may only make the time to read only one source at best, and find themselves less than fully informed after wading through - as our Dr. put it one day "word salad", or my own take, "word stew" - lol ! Bottom line - I'd far prefer our Dr's dissemination / breakdown for the greater mass among us - and her trustworthiness, which for many is a very real thing among us humanoids. Salud !
Many good sources including JAY KUO at Substack's "Status Kuo" but, Jay, a practicing trial attorney, is in London UK right now for the opening of a play that Jay composed the music for among other talents ... I updated Jay on Moore v Harper.
Thank you for the Link D4N. I agree that Ian Millhiser's treatment is not adequate.
Ian does mention former Judge J. Michael Luttig's Friend-of-the-Court brief which shreds the Petioner's case to bits. A more accessible article from Luttig is on-line now at The Atlantic and is worth reading.You mentioned Gore v. Bush which by its express terms bars citation as precedent or as case law. I do not believe the case will even be mentioned.
Marvelous idea JL ! Would also give them narrative yearnings and the chaos of delivering any matching narrative ! The more folks talking and re-posting the educated facts, context, and history the better to create chaos for those opposed. I love it ! Bravo !!!
While I detest McCarthy's Republican hypocrisy, more real reading of the Constitution is in order. There are certainly a lot of wild interpretations of it our there these days, though I think Baby Trump is probably miffed that not all of his and picked judges are handing him carte blanche impunity, so the whole system has to go. He is digging his hole deeper and deeper, and so too his party, if we play our cards right. So I propose doing the "GOP" one better and talking a lot about the Constitution, it's historical context, it's evolution, and it the whys and wherefores. A brush with in in 5th or 6th grade is not enough if it is to be the master plan of our republic. What interpretations are evidence based and what is baloney? What the the document actually say and how is (or is not) that manifest in our daily lives? In our policies? Seems like a public discussion worth having.
Reading the Constitution won't do anything but let Repubs grandstand. You can't really understand how it works without being aware of the cases and controversies that have become law over the centuries.
People would be better off to read the Declaration of Independence. That document sets forth our principles. The Constitution is the formulation of the framework we intend to use to bring those principles to fruition.
Of course!!! Cheryl!!! Thank you for your comment! Let's bring The Declarationof Independance to the forefront of our education as citizens of the United States of America as well as the Constitution! I need to discipline myself and give my time to the on-going study of these precious documents. As citizens we must be personally responsible and involved or as we enjoy living in this country, we can lose the freedoms that have cost others so much.
When I read the Declaration of Independence, I'm struck by how a bunch of privileged white men, many of them (including the primary drafter) slaveholders, got it right. Sort of. Maybe. With plenty of help from subsequent generations. It is absolutely worth reading, but let's not make a fetish of it.
Thank you Susanna. the history of the rule of law is carved into the stone edifice on the face of the Supreme Court building in the Capitol that history goes back millenniums.
As I have said so many times (not here) in response to so-called "originalists," the original Constitution as ratified in 1788 had no Bill of Rights, and was intended only as a framework for government. It is short and concise. If the founders had intended it to be the be all and end all, it would have been much, much longer, more like a set of statutes. Instead, the founders gave Congress the power to implement its provisions, and later the Bill of Rights and amendments, by statute and regulation, gave the courts power to interpret the Constitution and implementing laws (later interpreted to mean also to review state laws), and gave the Executive enforcement powers. (The courts' interpretive powers necessarily included the power to nullify laws that contradict the Constitution, as recognized in Marbury v. Madison.) The Bill of Rights was added in 1791 because Madison and others wanted unanimous ratification (nine states was enough, but not for them), and holdout states wanted a B of R. In other words, THE FOUNDERS INTENDED THAT THE DOCUMENT BE A "LIVING" ONE, that it grow and develop along with the times, as long as that growth and development respected the founding principles of our nation, some of which are found in the Declaration of Independence. Trying to determine what the founders might have meant by a word or phrase in 1787 is disingenuous and a scheme for taking us back to an earlier time when laws were more oppressive.
Yes! The US Constitution will be our cause célèbre based on Trump's and the Republican Party's attacks on it. We'll campaign for all Americans to read and understand the Constitution, unlike the former president, MAGAs and many Republicans.
And maybe, just maybe, the poor, languishing Equal Rights Amendment will finally be passed?
'When Donald Trump became president in 2016 and began furiously rolling back women’s rights, ERA supporters mobilized a renewed effort to achieve full ratification of the ERA. Nevada ratified the amendment in 2017, Illinois in 2018 and Virginia in 2020 to reach full ratification by 38 states as required by Article 5. Meanwhile, hostile attorneys general from Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota—states that claim to have rescinded their ratifications—sued to block the ERA.'
'The final ministerial step to make a constitutional amendment official is for the U.S. archivist to verify the ratifications and then draft a formal proclamation certifying that the amendment is valid and is part of the Constitution. This certification is then published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to Congress and the nation that the amendment process has been completed.'
'But these final steps were never taken. Even before Virginia ratified the ERA, the Trump-era Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a 38-page opinion arguing that the three recent ratifications were invalid because they came too late. The archivist declined to certify the ERA, and the attorneys general from Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota dropped their lawsuit.'
'However, attorneys general from the three final states to ratify—Nevada, Illinois and Virginia—filed suit to require the archivist to certify the ERA.'
'Constitutional law scholars dispute that a seven-year timeline for ratification in the preamble to the ERA passed by Congress in 1972 means recent ratifications are invalid. “States did not vote for the timeline—states voted for the text of the ERA. The timeline was in a preamble. The timeline is definitely not binding on Congress,” said Georgetown Law professor Victoria Nourse.'
'Constitutional law scholars also believe that the several states’ attempt to rescind their ratifications is not valid. “Article 5 speaks to ratification but not rescission,” said Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School. “Article 5 describes a one-way ratchet. It does not provide for a two-way ratchet for going in and out of the process.”
“The Equal Rights Amendment has met all the constitutional requirements for the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation (publisher of Ms.). “The Department of Justice is not part of the amending process, and Trump’s DOJ should not have thrown up that procedural blockade. The national archivist’s duty is to certify the ERA as the 28th Amendment.”
'The House of Representatives has twice passed a joint resolution declaring the ERA validly ratified—in February 2020 and March 2021—but Republicans have used the filibuster to block the measure in the Senate. To overcome the filibuster, Democrats must either carve out an exception to the filibuster rule for the ERA joint resolution or convince 10 Republicans to vote to end the filibuster.'
'So far, the only Republican senators supporting the ERA joint resolution are Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. Not one male Republican senator has indicated support, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has pledged to block the measure.'(Ms.) See link to the article below.
https://msmagazine.com/2022/02/10/equal-rights-amendment-ratified/
Good Lord, the sausage making is grotesque, and as usual, republicans are the enemy. What a different world we could live in, if competition with rules written by Rube Goldberg were replaced with cooperation focused of survival of us all. There might even be a livable earth for our children…
All this effort just to make sure it is legal to treat women as lesser.
Seems like a lot of effort for something that should not be needed, but, certainly is needed Jeri.
So sad. Sadder that those facts aren't repeated via media, at least as equally as they've covered every single uttering by orange douche Vader and the ultra right kooks grandstanding nonsensical, unworkable remedies, that we have learned from our dear Dr. HCR, have been tried and failed before - some more than once or twice.
If only!!!
Yes!!
Too bad I can't post pix here. I made a meme in March 2018 showing my ACLU palm sized copy of the Constitution (38 pages) in my hand with the caption "It's Not A Big Book, Read It!"
I can see it, Rob, a bit small to read but, ingenious, nevertheless!
I'd really like to see that Rob.. nice idea and execution, as it sounds like.
Rub Republican noses in exactly what it is that they fight so hard to prevent.
Also, what exactly are elmoluments? Sounds kinda like a moisturizer, but it's really a species of bribery. Or at the very least, material and dangerous conflicts of interest? God forbid that we should ever force those we entrust with the fate of our nation to avoid those.
It is beyond strange that very strict guidelines for conduct are imposed on jurors who decide if someone complied with law, yet very, very little ever trips a red card for those who make the laws, or determine what the law is. Of, by and for, right?
" Sounds kinda like a moisturizer..." LOL, never looked at it that way.. You're killin' me JL !
JL, exactly what I was thinking as I was reading your comments. Professors, lawyers study our Constitution constantly to deal with modern day issues ,yet how many of our elected officials understand what those precious words mean...even incorrect words written with prejudicial content regarding women and people of color. (men and women who gave their blood for freedom in various wars and causes to make us a better nation: people of color who are and have been great scientists, inventors, writers, athletes,astronauts, etc., etc.!!!)
We also should ourselves never take the Constitution for granted and work
together to live out this dream to be The United States of America!
Not as relevant as Kardashian baloney to many, sad to say
JL, Moore v Harper is baloney ... scotus' hearing on Wednesday, 12/7.
It's totally baloney, but I'm very afraid that the current anti-voting-rights SCOTUS majority has an appetite for cheap coldcuts.
Or restoration of the Confederacy.
I'm gonna' post a link about exactly that, and hope that our HCR will see that there might be a need to break it down into everyday language and hopefully do a far better job of it than this author Ian Millhiser. -> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/4/23481063/supreme-court-moore-harper-independent-state-legislature-doctrine-elections
There've been good commentaries on this appearing for months. Check out the Brennan Center (Google it and "Moore v Harper" and you'll get a couple of links). Marc Elias of Democracy Docket is another good source, and pay attention to Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern of _Slate._ (You can tell the Trump admin turned me into a legal-news junkie!)
Hi Susan... Hi Bryan ! Thank you both for your thoughts. I am not confused by Millhiser's 'trip' through the trees and forest, so to speak - lol. It just struck me that some folks may only make the time to read only one source at best, and find themselves less than fully informed after wading through - as our Dr. put it one day "word salad", or my own take, "word stew" - lol ! Bottom line - I'd far prefer our Dr's dissemination / breakdown for the greater mass among us - and her trustworthiness, which for many is a very real thing among us humanoids. Salud !
HCR is a remarkable real time historian.
Many good sources including JAY KUO at Substack's "Status Kuo" but, Jay, a practicing trial attorney, is in London UK right now for the opening of a play that Jay composed the music for among other talents ... I updated Jay on Moore v Harper.
*Bryan, please see my response above to Susanna J. Sturgis. Thanks ~
Thank you for the Link D4N. I agree that Ian Millhiser's treatment is not adequate.
Ian does mention former Judge J. Michael Luttig's Friend-of-the-Court brief which shreds the Petioner's case to bits. A more accessible article from Luttig is on-line now at The Atlantic and is worth reading.You mentioned Gore v. Bush which by its express terms bars citation as precedent or as case law. I do not believe the case will even be mentioned.
I too would love to read HCR's treatment. Salud.
Bryan, your link to The Atlantic reading.You is not operable.
Here's the link. Very important article. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/moore-v-harper-independent-legislature-theory-supreme-court/671625/
Susanna, Thank you. It was very thoughtful of you to share this link. Salud.
I'm a link nut. :-)
…and you are a good 'nut' as well.
If anyone's interested, I'm currently hooked on cashews. ;-)
Thank you Susana, I noted the usa graphic work by Erik Carter particularly FL.
Marvelous idea JL ! Would also give them narrative yearnings and the chaos of delivering any matching narrative ! The more folks talking and re-posting the educated facts, context, and history the better to create chaos for those opposed. I love it ! Bravo !!!