On Friday, November 25, 2022, just over a week ago, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced, “On the very first day of the new Republican-led Congress, we will “read every single word of the Constitution aloud from the floor of the House—something that hasn’t been done in years.”
Thank you for including their oath of office. By remaining silent, Republicans are clearly violating said oath by not standing up against a viscous threat to its very existence.
The Republican Party is going to turn the US Constitution into a bestseller. Now, that would be novel! Former president, Donald J. Trump, would deserve all the credit. What other president has asked for ‘the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution’?
Is that great branding or not?
PS ‘House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced, “On the very first day of the new Republican-led Congress, we will “read every single word of the Constitution aloud from the floor of the House—something that hasn’t been done in years.” (Letter)
What a cliffhanger! Are the Republicans going to read every single word of the Constitution aloud from the floor of the House…? Will they, or won’t they? It will be great for sales if McCarthy sticks to his promise.
I predict that The US Constitution will the bestselling book of 2023!
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 !!!
FERN, I think your prediction is correct: it is time for me to start carry around my annotated pocket copy.again. FYI, I will be at Scotusblog & Substack's "Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance" for a few days preparing to monitor scotus' Wednesday 12/7 oral arguments in Moore v. Harper. The Atlantic has a big-picture explainer authored by Luttig up. Democracy as we know is at-issue.
Bryan, I hardly can believe we are disputing whether state legislatures have the power to determine how Congressional elections are conducted (thus also impacting how Presidential electors are chosen) without any checks and balances from state constitutions or state courts, or perhaps even from a governor’s veto. That said, I am somewhat reassured that Joyce Vance, whom I deeply respect, is working with smart, committed people like yourself monitoring oral arguments. Two arguments seemingly pertinent to my lay understanding are 1) that ISL legal theory does not assert that the legislatures are above the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process and 2) that state legislatures are not exempt from federal regulations.
ISL (independent state legislature) theory was considered "fringe" until very recently. In sane times, with a SCOTUS that understood the importance of voting rights and free and fair elections, it would still be a fringe theory. My best hope is that SCOTUS will decide against it, not on its (lack of) merits but because the uproar against the SCOTUS majority's arrogance and "originalist" ignorance has spread across the land and has (I hope) even caused concern among their puppeteers at the Federalist Society. The Dobbs decision surely contributed to GOP setbacks in the midterms, and the Court's legitimacy is very much in question.
Susanna, When, last July, I started learning and writing about the ISL, I referred to it as the fringe ISL Legal theory, though it already had advanced to the Supreme Court. Recently, for reasons you noted, I dropped the modifier “fringe.” As for how the Court will rule, I always had believed that the issue of legitimacy would serve as a guardrail. Presently, however, excluding gun control legislation (a fraudulent reading of the 2nd Amendment, in my view), I am growing increasingly wary of the High Court’s position on preserving fundamental protections.
Shelby v. Holder (2013), gutting the Voting Rights Act, was bad news, and that was decided before the Trump/McConnell trio joined the bench. D.C. v. Heller (2008) IMO misread, probably intentionally, the intent behind the 2nd Amendment -- Carol Anderson's book THE SECOND only came out last year, but it does a very good job of torching the argument that ignores the "militia" and claims the amendment was entirely about individuals. SCOTUS has been headed in this direction for quite a while, and how, when, and where the course correction is going to come I don't know. But I hope it comes before the Court makes a shambles of U.S. democracy.
Barbara Jo, we may hear both of your good questions at oral arguments Wednesday. Justice Sotomayor is particularly adept at asking such constitutional questions. Always useful to reference a Lighthouse in unchartered waters.
I am eager to hear Justice Sotomayor's questions during oral argument which are something like signposts for her colleagues & citizens. I respect Professor Joyce Vance & will
report her work product accurately while keeping my eyes out for Others' comments.
You may be underestimating what a hugely contentious issue that was for the drafters. The Federalists were called that for a reason: they wanted a strong federal government, not least because the absence of one under the Articles of Confederation had been disastrous. Alexander Hamilton was a leader on this. The Jeffersonians (many of whom were from the slave-dependent South) were leery of it because they didn't trust the northern states to respect their interests.
I've said that history is circular. Others have said, “History never repeats itself but it rhymes.” My mind wants to gift that entirely to Twain, myself being admittedly a huge fan. In fact though, the finished product distillation of that precise quote seems to go to Theodor Reik, in 1965. Could he Theodor Reik have distilled that quote from Twain's similar aphorism in about 1845 ? Seems to me both probable, perhaps likely. My personal peace proposition is that 'growth' in all human endeavors - be it science, philosophy, economics, etc., is entirely, cumulatively - a 'we' proposition and collaboration. Thanks for your honest efforts here in this forum Susanna - you do matter so much.
Yes Barb ! And especially when you've broke it down and 'see with your own eyes' and understanding that most of it is predicated on the inability to read a damn dictionary ! These are precisely the common creases that the far right exploits - over and over again, and I charge 'intentionally' misdirecting their flocks.
Bryan, sensational! You will report on 'Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance", please say, "Yes!" And then monitoring oral arguments in Moore v. Harper! I'm so glad we know you, Bryan Sean McKown. Truly, I am thrilled -- imagine how you feel. It's a good Monday morning on LFAA!
Yes 12/5 Late Update: Per Joyce Vance's 12/4 post on "The Week Ahead" highlighting Moore v Harper, Case no. 21-1271, Professor Vance outlined the arguments & procedural context of the North Carolina (NC) case. As Joyce outlined, To understand Moore, step back to 2019 when SCOTUS ruled 5-4 in Rucho vs Common Cause that the Supreme Ct. would no longer rule on odious "partisan or "politically motivated" gerrymandering because the cases were purportedly NOT "justiciable" opening the door wide to the destruction of fair majority rule in North Carolina. The majority Republican North Carolina Legislature came up with two (2) bad faith plans that were both shot down by the North Carolina Supreme Court. As the cases require expert math data & political scientists, the NC Supremes ordered (you guessed it) a Special Master. The parallels to the June 24 2022 destruction of Roe v Wade constitutional rights are dark & stark. State actors have floundered in the absence of justice.
'In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court will decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court has the power to strike down the legislature’s illegally gerrymandered congressional map for violating the North Carolina Constitution. The legislators have argued that a debunked interpretation of the U.S. Constitution — known as the "independent state legislature theory” — renders the state courts and state constitution powerless in matters relating to federal elections.'
'Last year, North Carolina’s Republican-dominated state legislature passed, on a party-line vote, an extreme partisan gerrymander to lock in a supermajority of the state’s 14 congressional seats. The gerrymander was so extreme that an evenly divided popular vote would have awarded 10 seats to the Republicans and only four to the Democrats. The map was a radical statistical outlier more favorable to Republicans than 99.9999% of all possible maps.'
'Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases, voters contested the map in state court, contending that the map violated the state constitution’s “free elections clause,” among other provisions. In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed with the voters and struck down the map, describing it as an “egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander . . . designed to enhance Republican performance, and thereby give a greater voice to those voters than to any others.”
'The unrepentant legislature proposed a second gerrymandered map, prompting a state court to order a special master to create a fair map for the 2022 congressional elections. Unwilling to accept this outcome, two Republican legislators asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and reinstate their gerrymandered map.' (BrennanCenter) See link below.
You forgot Ohio's Jeri... that's been a real piece of partisan monkey business for decades now.. I could argue they were the first state to work over in that way.
Fern, While this sourced account is really helpful, I would note that the legal theory this case will test is whether, because the Constitution says that state legislatures redistrict and set the time, place, and manner of elections, does that mean only the legislature has the power to determine how Congressional elections are conducted (thus also impacting how Presidential electors are chosen) without any checks and balances from state constitutions or state courts, or perhaps even from a governor’s veto?
Barbara, I suggest that you and all interested subscribers read the detailed, lucid and informative 'Explainer' from the Brennan Center of Justice link, which I provided.
Fern, I’m very familiar with the link you posted. Because I have followed the literature on the ISL legal theory since last July, my purpose in posting was to clarify that this case will test whether, within the states themselves, the legislatures are superior to state courts and the will of the people. Hence the reason why Bryan concluded his comment by stating, “Democracy as we know is at-issue.”
MUCH better to talk about the Constitution! (...than to repeatedly talk about a failed president's floundering around trying to figure out how to save himself from finally being held to account!)
Oh, thanks for that info Bryan, re. the Atlantic breakdown. I still maintain though that I find our Dr's breakdowns un-matchable, so I will still solicit her input on the topic.
Fern, what would we do without you! My first thought was, reading the Constitution to the House would serve the most illiterate ones best. Of course, we have to assume all the members if the House will be present....
...and once again the failed former president has figured out a way to remain in front of the news. Whether intentionally or not, he has repeatedly found that being outrageous keeps his name in front of the country's eyes and ears. Name recognition makes him SEEM important to national news media as well as his followers whether or not it makes any sense at all.
Fern, I pray you’re right and that much of the country learns how the crafters of the Constitution, who cherished the American experiment, sought to establish structures of government and to balance their powers in a way that could protect the country against both the excesses of any one branch, let alone the misdeeds and manipulations the founders feared would arise from factions driven by greedy and self-serving impulses.
They were also very much afraid of "the people," which included the soldiers and others who helped win the Revolutionary War, and many of them were even more afraid of slave revolts. Carol Anderson in THE SECOND argues quite persuasively that this particular ("peculiar"?) fear was behind the 2nd Amendment and the troublesome reference to the "militia." The founders' vision and accomplishments were impressive for sure, but let's not forget their very real limitations.
Susanna, I imagine any document that provides for the election of Senators and Presidential electors by state legislatures indicates its crafters’ relative distrust of the people. While I haven’t read Anderson’s THE SECOND, I’ve invested a great deal of effort trying to unpack the Second Amendment. Here are some thoughts.
Madison, who drafted the Second, would have worded it however necessary to get all the states to sign on to the Constitution. That said, to this day, I cannot distinguish the U.S. National Guard that uniquely existed as both a state and a federal force as per the U.S. Constitution from “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…” The second clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” I understand was tactically vague and ambiguous to assure assent, particularly from southern slave holding states. This clause later formed the basis for discussions that started in the 1970s and culminated in Heller, granting individuals the right to own arms and also, in my view, the perpetuation of a fraud by these so-called textualists/ originalists. My indictment of these jurists stems from the fact that one need look no further than the Fourth Amendment to recognize that the Founders used “persons” to designate individuals and “people” to reference the collective.
As for the document’s limitations, one need merely note that citizen was defined as a white male property owner. Still, the document was a brilliant, unprecedented instrument of the Enlightenment era.
If it were slow read properly, as should any important document, the Constitution as a best seller could make the current US citizenry the most informed voters ever.
But as in past readings or pretenses thereof, passages are skipped or sped through, important legal definitions are absent, leaving the Republicans with yet another Political Theater of the Absurd played out in the Congressional Chambers.
John McCarthy and the silent Republican responses to Trump’s call for rebellion to satisfy personal criminal ambitions threaten the Rule of Law embodied in the Constitution.
I laughed when I saw the call for a theatrical reading of the Constitution. That is clearly on the same plane as speed reading TS Eliot. Maybe worse.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think that reading the Constitution, for many people would be as meaningless as reading the Bible, having no or little or a very biased perspective going into that. And reading with an explainer would, more often than not, take on the explainer's perspective or be a bland mush of content. Let the new Congress have their political theater and move on.
So many wonderful ideas and suggestions. I have read the constitution, however, I do not really comprehend it. I am not a teacher, politician, or historian. I do feel that reading and following these letters from Heather help me a great deal. I do have one suggestion/question——-Would it be pertinent to have certain testing requirements to qualify to be in political races. Making it more important about what you know, than how much money you can raise??? Just a thought.
A good thought, Nancy. I suspect that newly naturalized citizens have a better understanding of civics and our Constitution than many of our elected officials.
Agreed. Reading the Constitution is somewhat like reading legal cases. It's slow-going, even for the literate and well informed. I'm an editor by trade, working mainly on nonfiction, including academic nonfiction, and I don't find it easy reading.
I keep two annotated copies of the constitution at my reading stations and do read the original language when I see it cited.
I activated and defined this habit when I read that Ruth Bader Ginsberg carried a copy of the Constitution everywhere and consulted and read it in leisurely moments.
I think it’s like Shakespeare. A reading is just the beginning.
The point, Fern, is that simply reading the Constitution is not enough to understand either intent or significance. It is a performative political act, nothing more. My high school dictionary (I still have it) includes a copy of the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence. School kids hand out copies of both- in their entirety- in small, pocket-size pamphlets at elections. I have one within reach in my work space. I don't know anyone who has gone onto elective office who hasn't had to read both in the course of their education.
And yet, there exists libraries of Constitutional interpretation and of case law that are read in contradictory ways. In what way does reading the Constitution in front of the Congress change how the citizens of this country see what it means?
Better we take that task on ourselves, within our communities at all their levels, listening to the variety of ways the Constitution is understood, and really discussing why that is, and how we come to some kind of common understanding about what the Constitution is FOR, not just the words. The words have been argued over ad infinitem. I really am trying to grasp what it is you think this performance is going to accomplish, but so far I don't get it.
Hmm, "years" is simply a plural meaning "more than one". So maybe Kevin should read it more often, too? I wonder when was the last time he actually read the ENTIRE document?
The Constitution fits in a pocket. The volumes of interpretations are what is important. The gift shops of museums and government buildings around me sell it cheap. Most people I know from both parties have the pamphlet handy.
Re. reading skills: Nationwide, on average, 79% of U.S. adults are literate in 2022. 21% of adults in the US are illiterate in 2022. 54% of adults have a literacy below 6th grade level. Low levels of literacy costs the US up to 2.2 trillion per year. Re. understanding: Many only know how their tribe interprets it. It needs to be taught in schools with a teacher who knows the legal interpretations. Children can learn to think critically, if taught in a fun way.
Silence equals complicity. People died because of the Republican complicitity on January 6. Nothing funny about elected leaders willing to turn a blind eye to the constitution and support a man who is a narcissist a psychopath and has Himself his focus. His followers has drunk the koolaid as they too see him as their savior so they can keep their millions. example Musk
yeah... i don't think so. complicity implies coordination moving in a common direction. they're too dissonant right now... and they just don't know what to do. it's actually pretty funny if you can sit back and watch the comedy of it all. popcorn!
I don't quite see the humor in it at this point. What I do see are some people who are so hungry for power that they don't give a <insert profanity here> about the Constitution or the rule of law.
Ally, I feel the same way, and would add that I understand from Robert Hubbell’s Substack that “Hunter Biden’s laptop” will be a top priority, despite reliable sources confirming that none of Hunter’s ventures involved his father.
they ARE hungry and greedy for power ... and they're totally messing it up for themselves in this case. so i do see the funny in their own idiocy undoing them. they'll figure it out, of course.
and no one will pay any more attention to that than they did to Russia Gate... undermining their own credibility. people/voters want them to do their JOBS ... RUN the country and quit playing stupid games like they're privileged white middle schoolers. might just serve us for 2024...
their silence is them freaking out as the pied piper has led them to the very edge of the cliff ... and they know they followed (like good little Rs do) too far. and now...??? they're stuck!
when we freak out, we FREAK OUT. when they freak out... they go silent.
i disagree. that is not at all what it means in this case. y'all give them way too much credit for standing up for their beliefs (or even having any). they are stuck between that proverbial rock and hard place. they have no spine... collectively or individually... and they simply want to avoid the entire conversation. they want it to just go away... like Mitch (successfully) did to Merrick Garland as Obama's pick for SCOTUS. duh. they're just a bunch of wimps caught out in the breeze... and they wanna look the other way till it all 'passes.' if they thought it was a great idea, they'd all be cheering the cheeto. ya know?? untwist your knickers... at least on this one.
I said the same thing yesterday in different words. Can someone tell me exactly what power trump has at this moment to do anything? Much less destroy the Constitution. Silence by some Republicans is most likely complicity from the likes of Greene, Gosar and Gaetz. In others like McConnell silence is waiting for this latest verbal vomiting to blow over.
One thing is for sure big baby narcissist trump's tantrum got everyone's attention. Just like he intended.
Trump calls explicitly to terminate the Constitution. Within days, 45 thousand people lose electricity following an attack on electrical substations, in the same county where masked Proud Boys gather to disrupt a drag story time. These are the same Proud Boys who followed Trump’s incitement to attack the US Capital. Ok
Shooting out transformers was a sport among certain rebellious teen-age boys when I was a kid. I put many of the so-called "base" followers of Trump in a similar category. It's an excuse to act out and feel more important than they are. I'm not convinced that this act is somehow associated with Trump's words, Maybe they are, . but it's good to keep in mind that meaningless vandalism is an old American tradition. But, either way, somewhere along the line, whoever did it is going to want to take "credit", and it will leak out.
We could be focusing on asking those Republicans about women's rights, book banning, same sex marriage NATO, Ukraine or fiscal policies. Instead, the pundits are overfocused on this narcissist nutcase's latest temper tantrum.
There is actually hysteria among commenters. For what?
Good question Barbara. It made me think about how easy it is to point in another direction, around a small child, and say: "Look Butterfly!!!" and have them stop crying or stop doing whatever they were doing.
Your point: Trump yells "Look Butterfly" and suddenly all of the real issues? Nobody is talking about anymore.
We are talking about something the Republicans have been doing for a while now. Ignoring the Constitution or tring to get the Supreme Court to nullify it. Not new.
I Agree. Trump makes it look easy to keep the conversation away from real issues and keep it focussed on, well, him.
Thanks Mike. I am taking a good beating on my position. You make a good point. The Republicans could care less about the Constitution. Trump never cared about it. This time he said the bad part out loud because of a temper tantrum.
I've been told to "be very afraid." When a group of frightened citizens come together it can turn into a group-think mob in an instant.
What hysteria among commenters? Would you say there is no reason for concern? Are you looking forward to the Republican majority in the house and endless garbage day after day, not that our government has been a model of discourse?
PS I think we will be pointing out how the use of 'investigations' is a cover for the Republicans not governing and ignoring the needs of the American people, which will be spelled out.
so what else is new? the People are getting really, really tired of it all... and that's what's actually changing. NO big red wave! that's a BFD!!
if we all react to the big baby tantrum and run around with our hair on fire... so they get to 'own' us... without them even trying ... well, who's 'winning' there? waste of our own resources on every level.
we need to back off and stop focusing on them. we have much more important productive and constructive work to do to save our country.
Even though he currently holds no office, FPOTUS is the presumptive nominee for 2024 and the leader of the Republican Party. That's why no one in elected office will contradict him; they need to keep his voters on their side.
It might be more nuanced than that. T has some pretty serious contenders, and a lot of Republicans distancing themselves from him, especially at state level, which is where the 2024 primaries will decide who the nominee will be. I am pretty sure at this time T is no longer the "presumptive leader" of the Republican Party. His message was for the Trump party, a now-fringe offshoot of the Republicans. The elected Congressional Republicans who aligned with him are now looking much like deer caught in the headlights of something coming toward them and they don't know what direction to move. They lose if they stand by T (see results of 2022 election). They don't know what they risk by speaking against him. Thus, the silence of fear. It will be interesting to see them wiggle out of this (or not).
Barbara & Suz-an, Regrettably, if past is prologue, I would maintain, were Trump and his coterie to be successful at distracting enough whites into believing they are the true victims and MAGA were their saviors, I wouldn’t expect many, if any, Republicans to break their silence, shameful as that sounds.
Barbara, While I will continue to monitor the hard right, my main focus, as it always has been, will be to support every initiative that distinguishes Dems who are intent on delivering for working families from Republicans who have no policy initiatives except ones arising from greedy and self-serving interests.
all of those who are NOT (authentically) intent on delivering for working families also need to be recognized. it's not really R vs. D as much as it is Up vs. Down... and more people seem to know that.
Rs are usually more upfront about it... however, some (Cruz, Hawley, Rubio) are suspiciously now co-opting Ds on claiming to be pro-labor... so that's something to watch.
neither am i. most people are just trying to live their lives, raise their kids, pay their bills and have some fun once in a while. Governing!! yes... what a concept. whoever does that... will have their support.
I think you’re right , Suz-an. Silence doesn’t indicate agreement. I wish Republicans would condemn the abominable but also wish they’d become Democrats or, failing that, at least become decent human beings. But they won’t. They will remain the despicable, inhumane force they have been since 1968. Our only real hope is to outvote them, although throwing a few of their leaders in prison might dampen some of their enthusiasm for mayhem, which would help a little. Let’s put our efforts into getting Democrats elected everywhere it’s remotely possible.
No. I will not. Living like that is not only unproductive, it's bad health and produces the kind of hysteria we are seeing in some of the comments. People do non make good decisions when afraid. I believe it's called a mob.
Yes, be cautious and wise. While DOJ has convicted key Proud Boys and Oath Keepers (must I capitalize their fascist monikers?), tRump's brown shirts continue to be a dangerous threat.
These Brownshirts are concerning to me as well! The vandalized power source for a city of 40,000 very much putting lives at risk. And the cancelation of a community event. We desperately need local communities to stand up to this 💩💩💩. If DemonSantis can ban guns why can’t a gay festival?
Ginni, I not only agree with your comment but also would add that Republicans’ deafening silence is especially troubling considering the plausibility in 24 of their retaining the House and also retaking the Senate, an outcome I view as even more plausible considering several Democrats who are up for re-election represent red states.
Further, because it’s not inconceivable Republicans, in 24, also could win the White House, theoretically precipitating both a fatal weakening of American civic institutions and also a Presidency eager and able to consolidate power, wherein the rule of law could be subjugated to an individual, complacency, indeed, is not an option. Rather, we must keep on until we prevail.
The Republicans have been ignoring the Constitution in practice for a while now. When they get the chance. When they are not ignoring it they are using the paid subjects of the Federalist Society on the Supreme Court to nullify it.
Mike, While I agree with all your points, rereading this thread has instilled some hope that the current warnings of the dangers ahead could galvanize increasingly more of us to care about the extent to which the functionaries of our current government go unquestioned.
Yes. Prior to 2022 election, while the media were being led by the nose and ignoring real issues, citizens like us were quietly working together to organize and mobilize in a multitude of ways to get out the vote and keep bringing the truth forward.
Despite forecasts of doom for the Democrats, we held. There was no "red wave". Republicans gained some seats in the house, but did not sweep it; there are R congresspeople who will vote with the Dems on the critical issues. We held the Senate, and stand a good chance of taking that 51st seat tomorrow (fingers crossed). This is remarkable for a mid-term election. This is what we have to keep doing instead of letting a has-been wanna-be jerk our strings and set our agenda.
But what penalty is there for those who violate their oath of office, openly or tacitly? Are they automatically dissmissible from their positions? What good is an unenforceable oath?
And why are legislators who condoned, cheered on, or participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection still members of Congress and getting paid with our tax dollars?
"The planners identified Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene as one of the members they plotted with, along with Republican representatives and staffers from the offices of close to a dozen other members. Other House Republicans who engaged in the plotting, personally or via assigned staffers, reportedly included Republican Representatives Paul Gosar of Arizona, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Louie Gohmert of Texas.
The two sources also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence,” according to the report.
This is more than enough information to compel the January 6 committee and the House Ethics Committee to immediately open investigations into the accusations against these members, with an eye toward confirming their involvement with the planning of the insurrection. If evidence of seditious activity is obtained, then the members should be expelled from the House in accordance with Section 3 or the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The section is explicit and unequivocal in stating:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
So WHERE IS THE RED LINE?? I thought it was when trump asked Raffensperger to find him more votes, then I thought the line impossible to cross was 1/6, then I thought it was when trump stole top secret documents and lied about them. Ludicrously, the GOP remained silent. Only in a movie, one would think, that the protagonist playing the president would come up with obliterating the Constitution and that the Republicans would sit there like mannequins. And yet, here it is playing out in real life. I'm trying hard to be creative and come up with something bigger that would get a rise out of this motley crew...and I just can't....
i don't believe they ever had a moral compass as we define it. i don't believe they have loyalty to anything meaningful. and i don't believe that whatever they want, it's exactly the same for each of them... or even clearly defined at all.
they do realize that WE (and many Americans) do care about these things they see as obstacles. so they can't just do whatever they please. even if they want to. cheeto showed them that for a time, no rules, no boundaries could contain him/them. they had an open window... it's closing and they know it.
The problem lies not with that motley crew you mention. It rests with those who elect and continue to support them, perhaps not necessarily nationally, but certainly in many States ... which form part of these United 'States.' We're back to Pogo who famously concluded that 'We have met the enemy and they are us!'
And, by their silence, are complicit in his call for rebellion against the Constitutionally established government of the United States. Any of them who take the oath in January when the new Congress convenes are already in violation of it and current members are technically in violation of the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment as is the former President who has now created an indisputable public record of it.
Have these comments now set the Fat Orange Clown. with the flabby avian orange goiter, for disqualification from office under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which states: "No person shall be a...President...having previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
How about "No person shall be permitted to run for office or, much less, assume office, who has not demonstrated an appropriate command of the Constitution of the US?"
This is a great comment. I only wish you'd left out the physical insults. As someone who fights against anti-fat bias and ageism, I can tell you these insults do not hurt Trump, but they do hurt fat people and older people. Your point would be so much stronger without them.
Ya know, Trump makes fun of people, their appearance and heritage and yet has many more attributes ripe for bullying and abuse. Seeing his sensitiveness when Bloomberg mentioned his spray painted face...I enjoy dishing back onto this POS that which he shovels on others. If enough people made fun of him, maybe he would think twice before doing it himself.
One would think! However, I don't think we will need the 14th to disqualify him because running for prez will find him running in place where he will easily be handcuffed and off to Fed prison. I'll bet all of my money and my house on my girls--Liz, Letitia, and Fani....
Fully agree. It's a clear fact that he's an insurrectionist and has no intention of abiding by the Constitution. However, who is responsible for declaring him disqualified under the 14th, and how do we enforce it? I'm not sure anyone has a good answer for these questions.
Yeah, me to. 😔 Even though I knew this was exactly where they were going, even though it's like predicting that yes, water goes downhill. Even though I've said over and over to Republican family and acquaintances that there is nothing respectful of our country in their actions, and that it would come out loud sooner or later... Still it is so traumatic to see. I hate it.
I confess to cynically believing that the Republicans are only too happy to have TFG riling the base, provoking outrage that ostensibly "owns the libs," and effectively undermines both respect for and trust in our institutions. He does all the heavy lifting of burning the house down so they can structure government as they wish, and clearly NOT according to the Constitution.
Exactly, Carmen! The Republicans care about being in Power - being in Control. Trump is only burning himself down (and collecting money), but Trump DOES CONTROL a bunch of voters. McCarthy/McConnell want those voters (and their money, eventually). If they criticize Trump, no voters; no cash. They are silently washing their hands of the Stink of Trump. Everyone can see what taking a bold, heroic, principled stand against Trump gets you: Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger….
It’s because of the MAGA base the R’s are twisting themselves into pretzels to support (or stay silent) every time Trump says something outrageous. 2/3’s of Republican voters believe that the election was stolen or had irregularities. Those are huge numbers and the lies and misinformation continue that they are being fed by Fox, et Al. Not a whole lot of critical thinking going on with this group. McCarthy and R’s are all either power hungry and/or spineless cowards who won’t stand up for the truth.
Exactly, Marlene. Trump’s gonna do himself in. There is nothing they can do to “save” Trump, and those nasty Libs are gonna Dump Trump. (Nasty Libs = Democrats, The MSM, The Courts - are turning out to be McCarthy’s best friends….doin’ the dirty work while he reads the blessed words of the Constitution of the United States of America. Land of the FREE? Home of the BRAVE? The BRAVE?)
I wasn’t just thinking about the politicians. What about our military, so many of whom are diehard conservatives, but who also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution?
Military commanders will uphold the constitution. Their lives are rigid. Their selection to West Point undergoes rigorous selection and testing. They may not meddle in civilian affairs and that includes congress. I served with General Louisell in the U.S.Army and while he may have had aversion to certain protocols he reigned in any action that defied command. No exceptions. Repeat, no exceptions. The military stands right behind the mothers of this nation!
Fear of Trump supporters, who are generally armed and trigger happy. There are loads of those folks throughout the US who will go after anyone who dissed their Godhead, Donald Voldemort Trump. Who gets death threats, people who stay silent? No.
Thank you for including the ‘Oath of Office’. I may add that every law enforcement officer, judge, and any elected, or appointed, official to any local, state, or federal office also takes this very same oath. I took that oath very seriously my 29+ years in law enforcement and firefighting. And I despise anyone that defiles the Constitution of the United States. And yes, this includes Trump. He’s a duck individual that needs to be committed to a Mental
Hospital for psychiatric care.
As for any of our illustrious Republicans in the House or Senate standing up to Trump and his shenanigans. Don’t look for it to happen. Every single one of them, except Liz Cheney and Matt Kissinger, is afraid of him. They have all shown just how they support Trump, now down to Trump, and will do exactly what Trump wants. They have all well demonstrated that in the past, on numerous occasions.
Brother, I had several occasions where my oath of office for law enforcement meant that I had to take action in a way that I found abhorrent (protecting anti-abortion demonstrators, and dealing with people whose conduct violated ordinances during the Occupy Movement). Fortunately, there were no conflicts, no arrests to make, and it was more of a "presence" than anything else.
In my eyes, every one of those RepubliQan elected Congressmen and Congress women are oathbreakers, as is FPOTUS.
Many years ago as a young Marine Officer I took that same oath. I am often disturbed by military officers having to support a Commander In Chief so self-serving and ignorant as Trump. I am more dismayed in how many officers who swore to uphold the constitution are today supporters of the treasonous piece of shit! Semper Fi.
I want to first, thank you for your service to our great nation, and second, apologize for omitting that every single person that signs up for service in any Armed Forces branch also takes this very oath.
And, I too don’t understand how those who are serving, or have served, in our Armed Forces can possibly support such a person. I understand the Secret Service Agents that have to protect him, because that’s their assigned duty. But defending his actions. That’s a horse of a whole different color.
Elon Musk handpicked to whom he disclosed the "Twitter files" selecting "independent" journalists who self publish. He did not send the documents to the NYTimes after their request, at least not yet. He also tweeted to his followers (116 million of them, 2nd most on twitter after Obama) a popcorn emoji so that they would be sure to listen up.
I think now that Murdoch has dumped him, TFG needs a new sychophantic media outlet and Musk needs to rev up his views. A match made in hell. As Twitter is now private there is only Twitter's Board to rein in Musk but he undoubtedly has voting control and $44B is pocket change to him.
The question is did Musk tee up the ball in collusion with Trump.
If the richest narcissitic manchild in the world is colluding with the the narcisstic man child man who wants an authorian dictatorship in America and has insurrections hanging on his every word we are in a very much darker place today.
Georgia you obviously missed my interview with President Musk. Oops, let me backtrack. I wasn’t entirely surprised when he confided to me that he had become president of earth by right of conquest. He actually said that ironically his plans fell through, at this time and he was rearranging his schedule. Initially he had purchased the Mongolian army and was coordinating with Putin to create a diversion. But like Napoleon he miscalculated the overland trek through the Russian winter. They made the arctic ocean enroute Canada when the ice gave way and you clearly see the irony. He informed me that he subsequently purchased the Patagonian army and is secretly building submarines in North Korea, their offer slightly more than China’s but with a better guarantee of quality. The plan he confided was to sneak down the St. Lawrence and attack via the Great Lakes. The Republican congressmen who maintain their silence while Trump and Putin distract will be awarded Australia. He made it clear that he didn’t trust them completely and wanted them far away. You are so close Georgia. As for my part I took his money for my silence but ironically I lied.
But then I went on twitter to read Musk's tweets and what has he posted in the days before the big reveal? A picture of his night table with a loaded gun on it.
No, just short cute and red headed. My red headed mother insisted that I was Irish. I tried on the other hand to convince her she was Jewish and I was American, from South America. Truth be known, aye lass.
Yes Trump has said something that expands the stated range of his authoritarian desires.
But please hit pause for a moment on all of your outpourings of outrage. You are preaching to the choir in this venue.
Stop following the shiny object and look at WHY Trump said what he said and WHY NOW.
There is a new director of political discourse in America--Elon Musk. He has been testing the limits of his power and the impunity with which he can act over the weeks since he took over twitter.
If you thought Murdoch and Fox News was bad, this will be far far worse.
Why did T say what he said and why now? I've been pondering the same question. There are so many possible hypotheses:
* Musk has been stealing the spotlight, so time to up the ante so he (T) gets his rightful share of attention. Threatening to shred the Constitution was a pretty effective strategy. Bet he's furious it's not front page news.
* Diversion (one of his favorite tactics.) The Garland wolf is getting close to the door and he needed a distraction while he jets off to No Extraditionville before he can be charged and arrested. Timing is everything and happiness is a clean get away.
But Musk provided the spotlight, tweeted popcorn to his 119M (30M more than Trump in his heyday on twitter) followers to invite them to the show and tweeted a picture of his nighttable with a loaded gun on it to be sure the insurrectionists knew to check in....
Your scenarios are about a Trump in desparation.
Mine is about a Trump inspired by a new mega supporter.
A Trump in desparation would have brought out at least some of the No More Trumpers looking to scavenge Trump's base..
The silence speaks to a change in dynamics in the Republican party--with enough money and an influence platform big enough to quell any dissent loaming over them.
I hope one of your scenarios is the correct one. Mine is a nightmare.
According to the Washington Post, the top 50 donors in the midterms, both Republicans and Democrats, gave $1.1 billion to cover all 435 House races and approx 33 Senate Races.
Musk is worth approximately $195 billion.
George Soros, the arch boogeyman and world manipulator according to the far right, is worth $6.7 billion.
As of 4 hours ago Forbes had the count of Republicans commenting negatively on Trump's remarks at 5: Cheney, Kinzinger, Chris Christie, Mike Lawler a new R Rep from NY, and Mike Turner the leading Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.
Yes she did this Monday morning after I posted. Pence also made a bland statement this morning not explicily mentioning Trump. Along the lines of everone who wants to serve should make it clear we support and defend the Constitution.
“I…do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
At this point all I can expect from now on is politicians attacking and investigating each other. Meanwhile kids are hungry and homeless, voters are still suppressed, the tent cities grow, every city has a tent city now despised by locals or derived by tourist towns. Where does everyone expect the homeless to go? Transgendered children are rejected and reported to child protective services as many children linger in the foster care system. Women's rights are being whittled down. But yay Mcarty is going to spend time investigating the Democrats and the Republicans will dispute any help or hand up to the needy. Read the constitution that's a good use of time?
How long will this malfunctioning Time Machine keep on chugging along? Again the Dems are working, honoring the Constitution and the do-little repubs, via K. McCarthy, are threatening to read the Constitution from “the floor of the House”Might be a great idea. Maybe they’ll learn something. About the Constitution. “The Constitution calls for federal elections that allow for a peaceful transfer of power. This involves handing over position, power and responsibility from one leader to the next - when political parties differ and when they do not .” This is from an illustrated and easy to read and understand gov.org website. Middle School students would understand the concepts. So do read the Constitution, repubs and prepare for your public exam to check your grades. Comprehension? Analysis? And what do you do if you don’t like something? Or want to change it? Oh, those are called Amendments.
that's exactly what they want. taking them way too seriously... chill... they're just melting down and wanna avoid how publicly obvious it is! as long we all freak out... we miss how totally messed up they are at this point. they look like total idiots and they know it. so the distraction of us carrying on suits them just fine.
I think it’s true that silence got us to this point. Even after 1/6 Repubs did not vote to impeach AND convict. They are STILL too quiet. “Silence equals consent.” Here is a quote by Gandhi, who certainly knew oppression and revolution. I’m not at all thinking there’s one reader here who is silent. We have centuries of truisms that help us understand our world. “The pen is mightier than the sword.” We all have different opinions on how to get to a future that is just. Not violent. Our quick digital chats make conversation a challenge. “Anyone who says they are not interested in politics is like a drowning man who insists he is not interested in water.”
Did I miss this on Prof. Heather's Letters from an American?
"Can a plaintiff walk into court, challenge a federal regulation, and win a victory that halts the entire government’s ability to enforce that regulation anywhere, against anyone—even parties that played no role in the litigation?"
Why is this such a big deal? Because Federal Courts and SCOTUS have been using this practice to block the entire law for a nation rather than just for one individual. Extensively, it has been used against agencies such as the EPA.
Most recently Federal Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had the courage to point out this problem to the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Done of course in a textualist manner which angered Roberts and brought on a rebuttal from Beer Keg Kavanaugh about his association with the Lions Sleeping Tonight of the premier DC COA.
Such gaul a female Federal Solicitor General would make a textualist argument in SCOTUS? The APA was meant to grant relief to individuals and nullify the regulation with regard to every single business in the country. SCOTUS interpreted it as the former. Not really an interpretation, purposeful determination.
Federal Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar called them on this. "Virginia School of Law Prof. John Harrison and Notre Dame Law School Prof. Samuel Bray. In short, Harrison and Bray have persuasively demonstrated that by directing courts to “set aside” an unlawful rule, Congress simply meant that courts could reverse the judgment of the agency, and issue relief to the parties before it—rather than to the whole world."
The boldness, the lack of respect, the arrogance of the Solicitor General angered Roberts who questioned the brazenness of her approach. Kavanaugh discussed his association with the Lons of the DC Court . . . pitiful.
I laughed my *8* off. More of you to call them to an accounting!
My take on this is because the right wing, aka “conservatives”, have no principle other than preservation of the hierarchy. They make a show of their “love” of country, the Constitution, democracy, etc., but quickly drop it when that becomes an obstacle to gaining and keeping power. In the present context it means they’re hedging their bets; if Mango Mussolini gets the GOP nod, and manages to get back into office, they want to be in his good side so the FedSoc can influence him. Once TFG is permanently out of the picture all these conservative phonies will claim they never supported him.
I doubt they are either reluctant or afraid. They are calculatingly waiting for the dust up to settle. Steve Bannon’s method of civil distraction lies in “Flooding the Zone with Shit”. The Federalist Society believes in the ends that Bannon/trump/Musk all want : a dissolution of the New Deal / Civil Rights Society. They understand fundamentally that our weak, slow-as-molasses judicial system will allow lies and disinformation and straight-up BS to reign. They want knickers twisted, gnashing-of-teeth, and yowls from the Liberals. It’s their sport. Don’t give it to them.
Do we know of a time that the Federalist Society has called TFG to task since they chose him or at least were on the side of the repub election? Plus, they handed TFG the list of their SCOTUS and other court nominees. From American Constitution Society. “The Right Wing Takeover of the Courts https://www.acslaw.org/analysis/reports/dark-money/
Thank you for including their oath of office. By remaining silent, Republicans are clearly violating said oath by not standing up against a viscous threat to its very existence.
The Republican Party is going to turn the US Constitution into a bestseller. Now, that would be novel! Former president, Donald J. Trump, would deserve all the credit. What other president has asked for ‘the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution’?
Is that great branding or not?
PS ‘House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced, “On the very first day of the new Republican-led Congress, we will “read every single word of the Constitution aloud from the floor of the House—something that hasn’t been done in years.” (Letter)
What a cliffhanger! Are the Republicans going to read every single word of the Constitution aloud from the floor of the House…? Will they, or won’t they? It will be great for sales if McCarthy sticks to his promise.
I predict that The US Constitution will the bestselling book of 2023!
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…
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 !
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.
I too would love to read HCR's treatment. Salud.
Bryan, your link to The Atlantic reading.You is not operable.
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 !!!
FERN, I think your prediction is correct: it is time for me to start carry around my annotated pocket copy.again. FYI, I will be at Scotusblog & Substack's "Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance" for a few days preparing to monitor scotus' Wednesday 12/7 oral arguments in Moore v. Harper. The Atlantic has a big-picture explainer authored by Luttig up. Democracy as we know is at-issue.
Bryan, I hardly can believe we are disputing whether state legislatures have the power to determine how Congressional elections are conducted (thus also impacting how Presidential electors are chosen) without any checks and balances from state constitutions or state courts, or perhaps even from a governor’s veto. That said, I am somewhat reassured that Joyce Vance, whom I deeply respect, is working with smart, committed people like yourself monitoring oral arguments. Two arguments seemingly pertinent to my lay understanding are 1) that ISL legal theory does not assert that the legislatures are above the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process and 2) that state legislatures are not exempt from federal regulations.
ISL (independent state legislature) theory was considered "fringe" until very recently. In sane times, with a SCOTUS that understood the importance of voting rights and free and fair elections, it would still be a fringe theory. My best hope is that SCOTUS will decide against it, not on its (lack of) merits but because the uproar against the SCOTUS majority's arrogance and "originalist" ignorance has spread across the land and has (I hope) even caused concern among their puppeteers at the Federalist Society. The Dobbs decision surely contributed to GOP setbacks in the midterms, and the Court's legitimacy is very much in question.
Susanna, When, last July, I started learning and writing about the ISL, I referred to it as the fringe ISL Legal theory, though it already had advanced to the Supreme Court. Recently, for reasons you noted, I dropped the modifier “fringe.” As for how the Court will rule, I always had believed that the issue of legitimacy would serve as a guardrail. Presently, however, excluding gun control legislation (a fraudulent reading of the 2nd Amendment, in my view), I am growing increasingly wary of the High Court’s position on preserving fundamental protections.
Shelby v. Holder (2013), gutting the Voting Rights Act, was bad news, and that was decided before the Trump/McConnell trio joined the bench. D.C. v. Heller (2008) IMO misread, probably intentionally, the intent behind the 2nd Amendment -- Carol Anderson's book THE SECOND only came out last year, but it does a very good job of torching the argument that ignores the "militia" and claims the amendment was entirely about individuals. SCOTUS has been headed in this direction for quite a while, and how, when, and where the course correction is going to come I don't know. But I hope it comes before the Court makes a shambles of U.S. democracy.
Scalia himself famously declared it to be a "ghoul that that keeps arising" !
Barbara Jo, we may hear both of your good questions at oral arguments Wednesday. Justice Sotomayor is particularly adept at asking such constitutional questions. Always useful to reference a Lighthouse in unchartered waters.
Bryan, Thanks so much for your response to my comment. I imagine everyone here is eager to hear your thoughts once you have synthesized them.
I am eager to hear Justice Sotomayor's questions during oral argument which are something like signposts for her colleagues & citizens. I respect Professor Joyce Vance & will
report her work product accurately while keeping my eyes out for Others' comments.
Right ?! The constitution 'never' gave state legislators primacy over the federal, and for damn good reason !
You may be underestimating what a hugely contentious issue that was for the drafters. The Federalists were called that for a reason: they wanted a strong federal government, not least because the absence of one under the Articles of Confederation had been disastrous. Alexander Hamilton was a leader on this. The Jeffersonians (many of whom were from the slave-dependent South) were leery of it because they didn't trust the northern states to respect their interests.
I've said that history is circular. Others have said, “History never repeats itself but it rhymes.” My mind wants to gift that entirely to Twain, myself being admittedly a huge fan. In fact though, the finished product distillation of that precise quote seems to go to Theodor Reik, in 1965. Could he Theodor Reik have distilled that quote from Twain's similar aphorism in about 1845 ? Seems to me both probable, perhaps likely. My personal peace proposition is that 'growth' in all human endeavors - be it science, philosophy, economics, etc., is entirely, cumulatively - a 'we' proposition and collaboration. Thanks for your honest efforts here in this forum Susanna - you do matter so much.
Yes Barb ! And especially when you've broke it down and 'see with your own eyes' and understanding that most of it is predicated on the inability to read a damn dictionary ! These are precisely the common creases that the far right exploits - over and over again, and I charge 'intentionally' misdirecting their flocks.
Bryan, sensational! You will report on 'Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance", please say, "Yes!" And then monitoring oral arguments in Moore v. Harper! I'm so glad we know you, Bryan Sean McKown. Truly, I am thrilled -- imagine how you feel. It's a good Monday morning on LFAA!
Yes 12/5 Late Update: Per Joyce Vance's 12/4 post on "The Week Ahead" highlighting Moore v Harper, Case no. 21-1271, Professor Vance outlined the arguments & procedural context of the North Carolina (NC) case. As Joyce outlined, To understand Moore, step back to 2019 when SCOTUS ruled 5-4 in Rucho vs Common Cause that the Supreme Ct. would no longer rule on odious "partisan or "politically motivated" gerrymandering because the cases were purportedly NOT "justiciable" opening the door wide to the destruction of fair majority rule in North Carolina. The majority Republican North Carolina Legislature came up with two (2) bad faith plans that were both shot down by the North Carolina Supreme Court. As the cases require expert math data & political scientists, the NC Supremes ordered (you guessed it) a Special Master. The parallels to the June 24 2022 destruction of Roe v Wade constitutional rights are dark & stark. State actors have floundered in the absence of justice.
I will be watching for your words also.
'What is Moore v. Harper about?'
'In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court will decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court has the power to strike down the legislature’s illegally gerrymandered congressional map for violating the North Carolina Constitution. The legislators have argued that a debunked interpretation of the U.S. Constitution — known as the "independent state legislature theory” — renders the state courts and state constitution powerless in matters relating to federal elections.'
'Last year, North Carolina’s Republican-dominated state legislature passed, on a party-line vote, an extreme partisan gerrymander to lock in a supermajority of the state’s 14 congressional seats. The gerrymander was so extreme that an evenly divided popular vote would have awarded 10 seats to the Republicans and only four to the Democrats. The map was a radical statistical outlier more favorable to Republicans than 99.9999% of all possible maps.'
'Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases, voters contested the map in state court, contending that the map violated the state constitution’s “free elections clause,” among other provisions. In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed with the voters and struck down the map, describing it as an “egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander . . . designed to enhance Republican performance, and thereby give a greater voice to those voters than to any others.”
'The unrepentant legislature proposed a second gerrymandered map, prompting a state court to order a special master to create a fair map for the 2022 congressional elections. Unwilling to accept this outcome, two Republican legislators asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and reinstate their gerrymandered map.' (BrennanCenter) See link below.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/moore-v-harper-explained
Unf**kingbelieveable, the NC republicans are as vile as Texas and Florida
Uh… they’re vile everywhere, Jeri.
You forgot Ohio's Jeri... that's been a real piece of partisan monkey business for decades now.. I could argue they were the first state to work over in that way.
Fern, While this sourced account is really helpful, I would note that the legal theory this case will test is whether, because the Constitution says that state legislatures redistrict and set the time, place, and manner of elections, does that mean only the legislature has the power to determine how Congressional elections are conducted (thus also impacting how Presidential electors are chosen) without any checks and balances from state constitutions or state courts, or perhaps even from a governor’s veto?
Barbara, I suggest that you and all interested subscribers read the detailed, lucid and informative 'Explainer' from the Brennan Center of Justice link, which I provided.
Fern, I’m very familiar with the link you posted. Because I have followed the literature on the ISL legal theory since last July, my purpose in posting was to clarify that this case will test whether, within the states themselves, the legislatures are superior to state courts and the will of the people. Hence the reason why Bryan concluded his comment by stating, “Democracy as we know is at-issue.”
One way or another, some folks still want to secede from the Union.
Bryan & Fern, AGREED!
MUCH better to talk about the Constitution! (...than to repeatedly talk about a failed president's floundering around trying to figure out how to save himself from finally being held to account!)
That is great news, Bryan. I look forward to hearing your assessments.
Oh, thanks for that info Bryan, re. the Atlantic breakdown. I still maintain though that I find our Dr's breakdowns un-matchable, so I will still solicit her input on the topic.
Agree. We do not have Ben Franklin.
Fern, what would we do without you! My first thought was, reading the Constitution to the House would serve the most illiterate ones best. Of course, we have to assume all the members if the House will be present....
…and that they can read!
It's not just reading...its also comprehension.
...and that they can listen.
….or will they listen, if present? Remember the impeachment days: many GOP sitting there, focused on……their phones? !!!
And Marsha Big Hair reading her book
The Republicans will find one that can read. He or She will stand before an empty House and read it into the record.
...and once again the failed former president has figured out a way to remain in front of the news. Whether intentionally or not, he has repeatedly found that being outrageous keeps his name in front of the country's eyes and ears. Name recognition makes him SEEM important to national news media as well as his followers whether or not it makes any sense at all.
Fern, I pray you’re right and that much of the country learns how the crafters of the Constitution, who cherished the American experiment, sought to establish structures of government and to balance their powers in a way that could protect the country against both the excesses of any one branch, let alone the misdeeds and manipulations the founders feared would arise from factions driven by greedy and self-serving impulses.
They were also very much afraid of "the people," which included the soldiers and others who helped win the Revolutionary War, and many of them were even more afraid of slave revolts. Carol Anderson in THE SECOND argues quite persuasively that this particular ("peculiar"?) fear was behind the 2nd Amendment and the troublesome reference to the "militia." The founders' vision and accomplishments were impressive for sure, but let's not forget their very real limitations.
Susanna, I imagine any document that provides for the election of Senators and Presidential electors by state legislatures indicates its crafters’ relative distrust of the people. While I haven’t read Anderson’s THE SECOND, I’ve invested a great deal of effort trying to unpack the Second Amendment. Here are some thoughts.
Madison, who drafted the Second, would have worded it however necessary to get all the states to sign on to the Constitution. That said, to this day, I cannot distinguish the U.S. National Guard that uniquely existed as both a state and a federal force as per the U.S. Constitution from “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…” The second clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” I understand was tactically vague and ambiguous to assure assent, particularly from southern slave holding states. This clause later formed the basis for discussions that started in the 1970s and culminated in Heller, granting individuals the right to own arms and also, in my view, the perpetuation of a fraud by these so-called textualists/ originalists. My indictment of these jurists stems from the fact that one need look no further than the Fourth Amendment to recognize that the Founders used “persons” to designate individuals and “people” to reference the collective.
As for the document’s limitations, one need merely note that citizen was defined as a white male property owner. Still, the document was a brilliant, unprecedented instrument of the Enlightenment era.
If it were slow read properly, as should any important document, the Constitution as a best seller could make the current US citizenry the most informed voters ever.
But as in past readings or pretenses thereof, passages are skipped or sped through, important legal definitions are absent, leaving the Republicans with yet another Political Theater of the Absurd played out in the Congressional Chambers.
John McCarthy and the silent Republican responses to Trump’s call for rebellion to satisfy personal criminal ambitions threaten the Rule of Law embodied in the Constitution.
I laughed when I saw the call for a theatrical reading of the Constitution. That is clearly on the same plane as speed reading TS Eliot. Maybe worse.
The point made, Art, was for the American people to READ the Constitution. ! It is necessary to include an EXPLAINER as well.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think that reading the Constitution, for many people would be as meaningless as reading the Bible, having no or little or a very biased perspective going into that. And reading with an explainer would, more often than not, take on the explainer's perspective or be a bland mush of content. Let the new Congress have their political theater and move on.
So many wonderful ideas and suggestions. I have read the constitution, however, I do not really comprehend it. I am not a teacher, politician, or historian. I do feel that reading and following these letters from Heather help me a great deal. I do have one suggestion/question——-Would it be pertinent to have certain testing requirements to qualify to be in political races. Making it more important about what you know, than how much money you can raise??? Just a thought.
A good thought, Nancy. I suspect that newly naturalized citizens have a better understanding of civics and our Constitution than many of our elected officials.
Agreed. Reading the Constitution is somewhat like reading legal cases. It's slow-going, even for the literate and well informed. I'm an editor by trade, working mainly on nonfiction, including academic nonfiction, and I don't find it easy reading.
But who will explain? (Kidding)
I keep two annotated copies of the constitution at my reading stations and do read the original language when I see it cited.
I activated and defined this habit when I read that Ruth Bader Ginsberg carried a copy of the Constitution everywhere and consulted and read it in leisurely moments.
I think it’s like Shakespeare. A reading is just the beginning.
I'll do that Fern, easy peasy: "Cmon everybody, let's all get together, Try to love one another right now."
The point, Fern, is that simply reading the Constitution is not enough to understand either intent or significance. It is a performative political act, nothing more. My high school dictionary (I still have it) includes a copy of the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence. School kids hand out copies of both- in their entirety- in small, pocket-size pamphlets at elections. I have one within reach in my work space. I don't know anyone who has gone onto elective office who hasn't had to read both in the course of their education.
And yet, there exists libraries of Constitutional interpretation and of case law that are read in contradictory ways. In what way does reading the Constitution in front of the Congress change how the citizens of this country see what it means?
Better we take that task on ourselves, within our communities at all their levels, listening to the variety of ways the Constitution is understood, and really discussing why that is, and how we come to some kind of common understanding about what the Constitution is FOR, not just the words. The words have been argued over ad infinitem. I really am trying to grasp what it is you think this performance is going to accomplish, but so far I don't get it.
Which of them will be lucky enough to read the Third Amendment? And will the words of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth stick in their craw?
Hmm, "years" is simply a plural meaning "more than one". So maybe Kevin should read it more often, too? I wonder when was the last time he actually read the ENTIRE document?
The Constitution fits in a pocket. The volumes of interpretations are what is important. The gift shops of museums and government buildings around me sell it cheap. Most people I know from both parties have the pamphlet handy.
But do they read and understand it?
Re. reading skills: Nationwide, on average, 79% of U.S. adults are literate in 2022. 21% of adults in the US are illiterate in 2022. 54% of adults have a literacy below 6th grade level. Low levels of literacy costs the US up to 2.2 trillion per year. Re. understanding: Many only know how their tribe interprets it. It needs to be taught in schools with a teacher who knows the legal interpretations. Children can learn to think critically, if taught in a fun way.
Time to bring back the Broadway show "What the Constitution Means to Me."
https://constitutionbroadway.com/
Yes, their silence speaks volumes!
Silence = Complicity
Silence equals complicity. People died because of the Republican complicitity on January 6. Nothing funny about elected leaders willing to turn a blind eye to the constitution and support a man who is a narcissist a psychopath and has Himself his focus. His followers has drunk the koolaid as they too see him as their savior so they can keep their millions. example Musk
yeah... i don't think so. complicity implies coordination moving in a common direction. they're too dissonant right now... and they just don't know what to do. it's actually pretty funny if you can sit back and watch the comedy of it all. popcorn!
I don't quite see the humor in it at this point. What I do see are some people who are so hungry for power that they don't give a <insert profanity here> about the Constitution or the rule of law.
Ally, I feel the same way, and would add that I understand from Robert Hubbell’s Substack that “Hunter Biden’s laptop” will be a top priority, despite reliable sources confirming that none of Hunter’s ventures involved his father.
Agreed
F%@&, D*"'n, S#......
My personal was what could be described as an airborne act of copulation.
they ARE hungry and greedy for power ... and they're totally messing it up for themselves in this case. so i do see the funny in their own idiocy undoing them. they'll figure it out, of course.
and no one will pay any more attention to that than they did to Russia Gate... undermining their own credibility. people/voters want them to do their JOBS ... RUN the country and quit playing stupid games like they're privileged white middle schoolers. might just serve us for 2024...
The funny hadn’t hit me yet.
their silence is them freaking out as the pied piper has led them to the very edge of the cliff ... and they know they followed (like good little Rs do) too far. and now...??? they're stuck!
when we freak out, we FREAK OUT. when they freak out... they go silent.
i disagree. that is not at all what it means in this case. y'all give them way too much credit for standing up for their beliefs (or even having any). they are stuck between that proverbial rock and hard place. they have no spine... collectively or individually... and they simply want to avoid the entire conversation. they want it to just go away... like Mitch (successfully) did to Merrick Garland as Obama's pick for SCOTUS. duh. they're just a bunch of wimps caught out in the breeze... and they wanna look the other way till it all 'passes.' if they thought it was a great idea, they'd all be cheering the cheeto. ya know?? untwist your knickers... at least on this one.
I said the same thing yesterday in different words. Can someone tell me exactly what power trump has at this moment to do anything? Much less destroy the Constitution. Silence by some Republicans is most likely complicity from the likes of Greene, Gosar and Gaetz. In others like McConnell silence is waiting for this latest verbal vomiting to blow over.
One thing is for sure big baby narcissist trump's tantrum got everyone's attention. Just like he intended.
Trump calls explicitly to terminate the Constitution. Within days, 45 thousand people lose electricity following an attack on electrical substations, in the same county where masked Proud Boys gather to disrupt a drag story time. These are the same Proud Boys who followed Trump’s incitement to attack the US Capital. Ok
To continue: knocking out electricity is the same tactic being used by Putin’s army against the Ukrainians.
B..b..b..but Hunter Biden’s laptop!
The Brown Shirts are bearing his arms.
I saw this and it is worrisome.
Shooting out transformers was a sport among certain rebellious teen-age boys when I was a kid. I put many of the so-called "base" followers of Trump in a similar category. It's an excuse to act out and feel more important than they are. I'm not convinced that this act is somehow associated with Trump's words, Maybe they are, . but it's good to keep in mind that meaningless vandalism is an old American tradition. But, either way, somewhere along the line, whoever did it is going to want to take "credit", and it will leak out.
It’s about the money. It’s always about the money. And perhaps with a little blackmail thrown in for good measure.
Barbara, You answered your question.
Whatever Fern.
We could be focusing on asking those Republicans about women's rights, book banning, same sex marriage NATO, Ukraine or fiscal policies. Instead, the pundits are overfocused on this narcissist nutcase's latest temper tantrum.
There is actually hysteria among commenters. For what?
"For what?"
Good question Barbara. It made me think about how easy it is to point in another direction, around a small child, and say: "Look Butterfly!!!" and have them stop crying or stop doing whatever they were doing.
Your point: Trump yells "Look Butterfly" and suddenly all of the real issues? Nobody is talking about anymore.
We are talking about something the Republicans have been doing for a while now. Ignoring the Constitution or tring to get the Supreme Court to nullify it. Not new.
I Agree. Trump makes it look easy to keep the conversation away from real issues and keep it focussed on, well, him.
Thanks Mike. I am taking a good beating on my position. You make a good point. The Republicans could care less about the Constitution. Trump never cared about it. This time he said the bad part out loud because of a temper tantrum.
I've been told to "be very afraid." When a group of frightened citizens come together it can turn into a group-think mob in an instant.
What hysteria among commenters? Would you say there is no reason for concern? Are you looking forward to the Republican majority in the house and endless garbage day after day, not that our government has been a model of discourse?
PS I think we will be pointing out how the use of 'investigations' is a cover for the Republicans not governing and ignoring the needs of the American people, which will be spelled out.
so what else is new? the People are getting really, really tired of it all... and that's what's actually changing. NO big red wave! that's a BFD!!
if we all react to the big baby tantrum and run around with our hair on fire... so they get to 'own' us... without them even trying ... well, who's 'winning' there? waste of our own resources on every level.
we need to back off and stop focusing on them. we have much more important productive and constructive work to do to save our country.
For advertising dollars tied to viewer engagement. A simple equation. “News” & “Media” does not equal “informed citizenry”.
Even though he currently holds no office, FPOTUS is the presumptive nominee for 2024 and the leader of the Republican Party. That's why no one in elected office will contradict him; they need to keep his voters on their side.
It might be more nuanced than that. T has some pretty serious contenders, and a lot of Republicans distancing themselves from him, especially at state level, which is where the 2024 primaries will decide who the nominee will be. I am pretty sure at this time T is no longer the "presumptive leader" of the Republican Party. His message was for the Trump party, a now-fringe offshoot of the Republicans. The elected Congressional Republicans who aligned with him are now looking much like deer caught in the headlights of something coming toward them and they don't know what direction to move. They lose if they stand by T (see results of 2022 election). They don't know what they risk by speaking against him. Thus, the silence of fear. It will be interesting to see them wiggle out of this (or not).
Barbara & Suz-an, Regrettably, if past is prologue, I would maintain, were Trump and his coterie to be successful at distracting enough whites into believing they are the true victims and MAGA were their saviors, I wouldn’t expect many, if any, Republicans to break their silence, shameful as that sounds.
I am not worried about it. Can we get about the business of Governing please?
Barbara, While I will continue to monitor the hard right, my main focus, as it always has been, will be to support every initiative that distinguishes Dems who are intent on delivering for working families from Republicans who have no policy initiatives except ones arising from greedy and self-serving interests.
all of those who are NOT (authentically) intent on delivering for working families also need to be recognized. it's not really R vs. D as much as it is Up vs. Down... and more people seem to know that.
Rs are usually more upfront about it... however, some (Cruz, Hawley, Rubio) are suspiciously now co-opting Ds on claiming to be pro-labor... so that's something to watch.
Why do people call the Republicans by the complete spelling and shorten the name Democrats?
Let's use the complete word. Democrats.
neither am i. most people are just trying to live their lives, raise their kids, pay their bills and have some fun once in a while. Governing!! yes... what a concept. whoever does that... will have their support.
I think you’re right , Suz-an. Silence doesn’t indicate agreement. I wish Republicans would condemn the abominable but also wish they’d become Democrats or, failing that, at least become decent human beings. But they won’t. They will remain the despicable, inhumane force they have been since 1968. Our only real hope is to outvote them, although throwing a few of their leaders in prison might dampen some of their enthusiasm for mayhem, which would help a little. Let’s put our efforts into getting Democrats elected everywhere it’s remotely possible.
Agree. I propose less outrage/more outreach to voters.
They still are treated as a legitimate political party, with power. Be very afraid
No. I will not. Living like that is not only unproductive, it's bad health and produces the kind of hysteria we are seeing in some of the comments. People do non make good decisions when afraid. I believe it's called a mob.
Yes, be cautious and wise. While DOJ has convicted key Proud Boys and Oath Keepers (must I capitalize their fascist monikers?), tRump's brown shirts continue to be a dangerous threat.
These Brownshirts are concerning to me as well! The vandalized power source for a city of 40,000 very much putting lives at risk. And the cancelation of a community event. We desperately need local communities to stand up to this 💩💩💩. If DemonSantis can ban guns why can’t a gay festival?
I agree that they have no spine.
I bet these Republicans are secretly praying to St. Merrick Garland to silence the orange microphone.
ROTFL! Been a long long time since I used that. But this one just literally made me LOL! Thank you, MaryPat.
Ginni, I not only agree with your comment but also would add that Republicans’ deafening silence is especially troubling considering the plausibility in 24 of their retaining the House and also retaking the Senate, an outcome I view as even more plausible considering several Democrats who are up for re-election represent red states.
Further, because it’s not inconceivable Republicans, in 24, also could win the White House, theoretically precipitating both a fatal weakening of American civic institutions and also a Presidency eager and able to consolidate power, wherein the rule of law could be subjugated to an individual, complacency, indeed, is not an option. Rather, we must keep on until we prevail.
Baraba Jo,
The Republicans have been ignoring the Constitution in practice for a while now. When they get the chance. When they are not ignoring it they are using the paid subjects of the Federalist Society on the Supreme Court to nullify it.
Mike, While I agree with all your points, rereading this thread has instilled some hope that the current warnings of the dangers ahead could galvanize increasingly more of us to care about the extent to which the functionaries of our current government go unquestioned.
Yes. Prior to 2022 election, while the media were being led by the nose and ignoring real issues, citizens like us were quietly working together to organize and mobilize in a multitude of ways to get out the vote and keep bringing the truth forward.
Despite forecasts of doom for the Democrats, we held. There was no "red wave". Republicans gained some seats in the house, but did not sweep it; there are R congresspeople who will vote with the Dems on the critical issues. We held the Senate, and stand a good chance of taking that 51st seat tomorrow (fingers crossed). This is remarkable for a mid-term election. This is what we have to keep doing instead of letting a has-been wanna-be jerk our strings and set our agenda.
Annie, I hope one day to see your comment at the top of a thread influencing every comment that follows. Well done!
But what penalty is there for those who violate their oath of office, openly or tacitly? Are they automatically dissmissible from their positions? What good is an unenforceable oath?
And why are legislators who condoned, cheered on, or participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection still members of Congress and getting paid with our tax dollars?
"The planners identified Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene as one of the members they plotted with, along with Republican representatives and staffers from the offices of close to a dozen other members. Other House Republicans who engaged in the plotting, personally or via assigned staffers, reportedly included Republican Representatives Paul Gosar of Arizona, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Louie Gohmert of Texas.
The two sources also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence,” according to the report.
This is more than enough information to compel the January 6 committee and the House Ethics Committee to immediately open investigations into the accusations against these members, with an eye toward confirming their involvement with the planning of the insurrection. If evidence of seditious activity is obtained, then the members should be expelled from the House in accordance with Section 3 or the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The section is explicit and unequivocal in stating:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
10/29/21
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/expel-house-insurrectionists/
Jack’s coming for them I hope!!
Me too.
And we had high hopes for Impeachment 1 and for Impeachment 2.
I believe he is still in Congress and is one of my leading candidates for the dumbest congressman.
I, too, wonder what can be done. There should be some way to hold them accountable. Edward R. Murrow would know what to do, but today’s media is meh.
So WHERE IS THE RED LINE?? I thought it was when trump asked Raffensperger to find him more votes, then I thought the line impossible to cross was 1/6, then I thought it was when trump stole top secret documents and lied about them. Ludicrously, the GOP remained silent. Only in a movie, one would think, that the protagonist playing the president would come up with obliterating the Constitution and that the Republicans would sit there like mannequins. And yet, here it is playing out in real life. I'm trying hard to be creative and come up with something bigger that would get a rise out of this motley crew...and I just can't....
I agree with you.
They only care about power. The good of our country no longer matters to them. They’ve lost their moral compass and loyalty to our Constitution.
i don't believe they ever had a moral compass as we define it. i don't believe they have loyalty to anything meaningful. and i don't believe that whatever they want, it's exactly the same for each of them... or even clearly defined at all.
they do realize that WE (and many Americans) do care about these things they see as obstacles. so they can't just do whatever they please. even if they want to. cheeto showed them that for a time, no rules, no boundaries could contain him/them. they had an open window... it's closing and they know it.
The problem lies not with that motley crew you mention. It rests with those who elect and continue to support them, perhaps not necessarily nationally, but certainly in many States ... which form part of these United 'States.' We're back to Pogo who famously concluded that 'We have met the enemy and they are us!'
The motley crew and their voters are co-conspirators!
And not standing up to the oath of office and by actively saying nothing (silence is compliance) used to be considered treason.
If, in fact, they DO read every word of the Constitution as it is written now, I think it will be a looooooooong day for our representatives.
And, by their silence, are complicit in his call for rebellion against the Constitutionally established government of the United States. Any of them who take the oath in January when the new Congress convenes are already in violation of it and current members are technically in violation of the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment as is the former President who has now created an indisputable public record of it.
You probably meant "vicious", rather than "viscous". Maybe not.
Good catch. Autocorrect and I are not friends.
Have these comments now set the Fat Orange Clown. with the flabby avian orange goiter, for disqualification from office under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which states: "No person shall be a...President...having previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
This! Thanks for pointing this out, as so important.
How about "No person shall be permitted to run for office or, much less, assume office, who has not demonstrated an appropriate command of the Constitution of the US?"
The problem I see with that is who defines "appropriate command". Certainly if Heather Cox Richardson, then I'm all for it!
"Flabby avian orange goiter." Brilliant!
This is a great comment. I only wish you'd left out the physical insults. As someone who fights against anti-fat bias and ageism, I can tell you these insults do not hurt Trump, but they do hurt fat people and older people. Your point would be so much stronger without them.
Ya know, Trump makes fun of people, their appearance and heritage and yet has many more attributes ripe for bullying and abuse. Seeing his sensitiveness when Bloomberg mentioned his spray painted face...I enjoy dishing back onto this POS that which he shovels on others. If enough people made fun of him, maybe he would think twice before doing it himself.
One would think! However, I don't think we will need the 14th to disqualify him because running for prez will find him running in place where he will easily be handcuffed and off to Fed prison. I'll bet all of my money and my house on my girls--Liz, Letitia, and Fani....
Fully agree. It's a clear fact that he's an insurrectionist and has no intention of abiding by the Constitution. However, who is responsible for declaring him disqualified under the 14th, and how do we enforce it? I'm not sure anyone has a good answer for these questions.
I think you intended this comment for 1000Panthers, to whom I was also replying, not to me. :)
Oh, shoot, yes. Apologies. I'll move it.
This letter, following on yesterday’s HCR post, leaves me absolutely speechless & with my head exploding 🤯.
Yeah, me to. 😔 Even though I knew this was exactly where they were going, even though it's like predicting that yes, water goes downhill. Even though I've said over and over to Republican family and acquaintances that there is nothing respectful of our country in their actions, and that it would come out loud sooner or later... Still it is so traumatic to see. I hate it.
I confess to cynically believing that the Republicans are only too happy to have TFG riling the base, provoking outrage that ostensibly "owns the libs," and effectively undermines both respect for and trust in our institutions. He does all the heavy lifting of burning the house down so they can structure government as they wish, and clearly NOT according to the Constitution.
Good point. Trump the arsonist turns McCarthy-Cruz-Hawley-Jordan-Graham into firemen by comparison.
Fahrenheit 451 firemen, I think, sent to burn the Constitution and the House in which it is found.
Exactly, Carmen! The Republicans care about being in Power - being in Control. Trump is only burning himself down (and collecting money), but Trump DOES CONTROL a bunch of voters. McCarthy/McConnell want those voters (and their money, eventually). If they criticize Trump, no voters; no cash. They are silently washing their hands of the Stink of Trump. Everyone can see what taking a bold, heroic, principled stand against Trump gets you: Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger….
It’s because of the MAGA base the R’s are twisting themselves into pretzels to support (or stay silent) every time Trump says something outrageous. 2/3’s of Republican voters believe that the election was stolen or had irregularities. Those are huge numbers and the lies and misinformation continue that they are being fed by Fox, et Al. Not a whole lot of critical thinking going on with this group. McCarthy and R’s are all either power hungry and/or spineless cowards who won’t stand up for the truth.
I don’t understand how any Republican can see, hear, or read statements like these and not wake up.
There's something wrong with them. What is it? And why all of them (apart from the two or three named)? It can't be fear of Trump, not any more?
I don’t think it’s the fear of Trump anymore, but I do feel Leonard Leo and those other billionaires who make up the Federalist Society are feared.
Exactly, Marlene. Trump’s gonna do himself in. There is nothing they can do to “save” Trump, and those nasty Libs are gonna Dump Trump. (Nasty Libs = Democrats, The MSM, The Courts - are turning out to be McCarthy’s best friends….doin’ the dirty work while he reads the blessed words of the Constitution of the United States of America. Land of the FREE? Home of the BRAVE? The BRAVE?)
Exactly. He who has the money, rules.
Yes, sickening isn't it?
Love
I wasn’t just thinking about the politicians. What about our military, so many of whom are diehard conservatives, but who also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution?
Military commanders will uphold the constitution. Their lives are rigid. Their selection to West Point undergoes rigorous selection and testing. They may not meddle in civilian affairs and that includes congress. I served with General Louisell in the U.S.Army and while he may have had aversion to certain protocols he reigned in any action that defied command. No exceptions. Repeat, no exceptions. The military stands right behind the mothers of this nation!
Good question, Danielle!
Blackmail?
That's what I always thought, but by whom?
Consider the quick change, the total self-contradiction by Kevin McCarthy.
Then consider another factor: the presence of those heavily armed would-be enforcers who were told to "stand by".
The billionaires, they call them oligarchs in other countries. Except in other countries, the dictator decides who they are…….
I wonder what she's doing with all those hours, days, months in prison?
nah... they're just an obvious mess and they can't hide it... so we get to own them for a change.
In my heart, I believe they are compromised and Mz. Maxwell could shed some light on how it was done. They are frozen with fear.
Fear of Trump supporters, who are generally armed and trigger happy. There are loads of those folks throughout the US who will go after anyone who dissed their Godhead, Donald Voldemort Trump. Who gets death threats, people who stay silent? No.
Cult
they are awake... they just don't see these things through OUR lens.
Pretty simple, they're clearly NOT reading statements like these!
Thank you for including the ‘Oath of Office’. I may add that every law enforcement officer, judge, and any elected, or appointed, official to any local, state, or federal office also takes this very same oath. I took that oath very seriously my 29+ years in law enforcement and firefighting. And I despise anyone that defiles the Constitution of the United States. And yes, this includes Trump. He’s a duck individual that needs to be committed to a Mental
Hospital for psychiatric care.
As for any of our illustrious Republicans in the House or Senate standing up to Trump and his shenanigans. Don’t look for it to happen. Every single one of them, except Liz Cheney and Matt Kissinger, is afraid of him. They have all shown just how they support Trump, now down to Trump, and will do exactly what Trump wants. They have all well demonstrated that in the past, on numerous occasions.
Brother, I had several occasions where my oath of office for law enforcement meant that I had to take action in a way that I found abhorrent (protecting anti-abortion demonstrators, and dealing with people whose conduct violated ordinances during the Occupy Movement). Fortunately, there were no conflicts, no arrests to make, and it was more of a "presence" than anything else.
In my eyes, every one of those RepubliQan elected Congressmen and Congress women are oathbreakers, as is FPOTUS.
And every one of them should be barred from service, removed from office.
Amen!
Many years ago as a young Marine Officer I took that same oath. I am often disturbed by military officers having to support a Commander In Chief so self-serving and ignorant as Trump. I am more dismayed in how many officers who swore to uphold the constitution are today supporters of the treasonous piece of shit! Semper Fi.
Semper Fi indeed. Thank you.
I want to first, thank you for your service to our great nation, and second, apologize for omitting that every single person that signs up for service in any Armed Forces branch also takes this very oath.
And, I too don’t understand how those who are serving, or have served, in our Armed Forces can possibly support such a person. I understand the Secret Service Agents that have to protect him, because that’s their assigned duty. But defending his actions. That’s a horse of a whole different color.
Elon Musk handpicked to whom he disclosed the "Twitter files" selecting "independent" journalists who self publish. He did not send the documents to the NYTimes after their request, at least not yet. He also tweeted to his followers (116 million of them, 2nd most on twitter after Obama) a popcorn emoji so that they would be sure to listen up.
I think now that Murdoch has dumped him, TFG needs a new sychophantic media outlet and Musk needs to rev up his views. A match made in hell. As Twitter is now private there is only Twitter's Board to rein in Musk but he undoubtedly has voting control and $44B is pocket change to him.
The question is did Musk tee up the ball in collusion with Trump.
If the richest narcissitic manchild in the world is colluding with the the narcisstic man child man who wants an authorian dictatorship in America and has insurrections hanging on his every word we are in a very much darker place today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/business/media/elon-musk-twitter-matt-taibbi.html
Apprently there is more to come from Musk to be revealed to Taibbi and Bari Weiss
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/04/business/elon-musk-twitter-files-comments/index.html
Georgia you obviously missed my interview with President Musk. Oops, let me backtrack. I wasn’t entirely surprised when he confided to me that he had become president of earth by right of conquest. He actually said that ironically his plans fell through, at this time and he was rearranging his schedule. Initially he had purchased the Mongolian army and was coordinating with Putin to create a diversion. But like Napoleon he miscalculated the overland trek through the Russian winter. They made the arctic ocean enroute Canada when the ice gave way and you clearly see the irony. He informed me that he subsequently purchased the Patagonian army and is secretly building submarines in North Korea, their offer slightly more than China’s but with a better guarantee of quality. The plan he confided was to sneak down the St. Lawrence and attack via the Great Lakes. The Republican congressmen who maintain their silence while Trump and Putin distract will be awarded Australia. He made it clear that he didn’t trust them completely and wanted them far away. You are so close Georgia. As for my part I took his money for my silence but ironically I lied.
A moment of levity! Thank you!
But then I went on twitter to read Musk's tweets and what has he posted in the days before the big reveal? A picture of his night table with a loaded gun on it.
Pat you are soooooo close.
There are no storytellers like the Irish. You are Irish, aren't you, Pat Cole?
No, just short cute and red headed. My red headed mother insisted that I was Irish. I tried on the other hand to convince her she was Jewish and I was American, from South America. Truth be known, aye lass.
…and living in Idaho! You're a melting pot, Pat. 'Melting-Pot-Pat'; how's that for a name?
Go back to bed Fern McBride you must be bored.
What an absolute mess these people are!
It’s astounding how silent the GOP is on trump’s statement. Sickening.
Yes Trump has said something that expands the stated range of his authoritarian desires.
But please hit pause for a moment on all of your outpourings of outrage. You are preaching to the choir in this venue.
Stop following the shiny object and look at WHY Trump said what he said and WHY NOW.
There is a new director of political discourse in America--Elon Musk. He has been testing the limits of his power and the impunity with which he can act over the weeks since he took over twitter.
If you thought Murdoch and Fox News was bad, this will be far far worse.
Georgia
Why did T say what he said and why now? I've been pondering the same question. There are so many possible hypotheses:
* Musk has been stealing the spotlight, so time to up the ante so he (T) gets his rightful share of attention. Threatening to shred the Constitution was a pretty effective strategy. Bet he's furious it's not front page news.
* Diversion (one of his favorite tactics.) The Garland wolf is getting close to the door and he needed a distraction while he jets off to No Extraditionville before he can be charged and arrested. Timing is everything and happiness is a clean get away.
But Musk provided the spotlight, tweeted popcorn to his 119M (30M more than Trump in his heyday on twitter) followers to invite them to the show and tweeted a picture of his nighttable with a loaded gun on it to be sure the insurrectionists knew to check in....
Your scenarios are about a Trump in desparation.
Mine is about a Trump inspired by a new mega supporter.
A Trump in desparation would have brought out at least some of the No More Trumpers looking to scavenge Trump's base..
The silence speaks to a change in dynamics in the Republican party--with enough money and an influence platform big enough to quell any dissent loaming over them.
I hope one of your scenarios is the correct one. Mine is a nightmare.
A note on scale.
According to the Washington Post, the top 50 donors in the midterms, both Republicans and Democrats, gave $1.1 billion to cover all 435 House races and approx 33 Senate Races.
Musk is worth approximately $195 billion.
George Soros, the arch boogeyman and world manipulator according to the far right, is worth $6.7 billion.
Money talks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/top-election-donors-2022/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-net-worth-decreased-100-million-tesla-stock-sold-twitter-acquisition-richest-man-in-the-world/
https://www.forbes.com/profile/george-soros/?sh=f4a748e2024c
As of 4 hours ago Forbes had the count of Republicans commenting negatively on Trump's remarks at 5: Cheney, Kinzinger, Chris Christie, Mike Lawler a new R Rep from NY, and Mike Turner the leading Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2022/12/04/some-gop-lawmakers-denounce-trumps-call-for-termination-of-constitution/?sh=3a369c6138ff
Didn't Murkowski post an objection to the whole thing?
Yes she did this Monday morning after I posted. Pence also made a bland statement this morning not explicily mentioning Trump. Along the lines of everone who wants to serve should make it clear we support and defend the Constitution.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3761923-murkowski-on-trump-call-to-suspend-constitution-an-affront-to-our-republic/
I'll be surprised if the count increases.
He will never leave
Chump has always been the shinny object. Hope Bill Maher notices and stops slobbering over Musk.
Thank you Heather.
“I…do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Tomorrow I will call some republicans who should know better and read that.
Trump is doing a fine job for exposing the GOP members of Congress for what they really are:
Boot lickiing hypocrites.
Same for The Federalist Society.
At this point all I can expect from now on is politicians attacking and investigating each other. Meanwhile kids are hungry and homeless, voters are still suppressed, the tent cities grow, every city has a tent city now despised by locals or derived by tourist towns. Where does everyone expect the homeless to go? Transgendered children are rejected and reported to child protective services as many children linger in the foster care system. Women's rights are being whittled down. But yay Mcarty is going to spend time investigating the Democrats and the Republicans will dispute any help or hand up to the needy. Read the constitution that's a good use of time?
How long will this malfunctioning Time Machine keep on chugging along? Again the Dems are working, honoring the Constitution and the do-little repubs, via K. McCarthy, are threatening to read the Constitution from “the floor of the House”Might be a great idea. Maybe they’ll learn something. About the Constitution. “The Constitution calls for federal elections that allow for a peaceful transfer of power. This involves handing over position, power and responsibility from one leader to the next - when political parties differ and when they do not .” This is from an illustrated and easy to read and understand gov.org website. Middle School students would understand the concepts. So do read the Constitution, repubs and prepare for your public exam to check your grades. Comprehension? Analysis? And what do you do if you don’t like something? Or want to change it? Oh, those are called Amendments.
https://sccvote.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb1106/files/outreach/icivics_Peaceful_Transfer_of_Power_infographic_11.5.20.pdf
I'm choked with rage.
that's exactly what they want. taking them way too seriously... chill... they're just melting down and wanna avoid how publicly obvious it is! as long we all freak out... we miss how totally messed up they are at this point. they look like total idiots and they know it. so the distraction of us carrying on suits them just fine.
Silence is what got us to this point. Silence is complicity. Hold those who are silent accountable.
I think it’s true that silence got us to this point. Even after 1/6 Repubs did not vote to impeach AND convict. They are STILL too quiet. “Silence equals consent.” Here is a quote by Gandhi, who certainly knew oppression and revolution. I’m not at all thinking there’s one reader here who is silent. We have centuries of truisms that help us understand our world. “The pen is mightier than the sword.” We all have different opinions on how to get to a future that is just. Not violent. Our quick digital chats make conversation a challenge. “Anyone who says they are not interested in politics is like a drowning man who insists he is not interested in water.”
Mahatma Gandhi.
Did I miss this on Prof. Heather's Letters from an American?
"Can a plaintiff walk into court, challenge a federal regulation, and win a victory that halts the entire government’s ability to enforce that regulation anywhere, against anyone—even parties that played no role in the litigation?"
Why is this such a big deal? Because Federal Courts and SCOTUS have been using this practice to block the entire law for a nation rather than just for one individual. Extensively, it has been used against agencies such as the EPA.
Most recently Federal Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had the courage to point out this problem to the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Done of course in a textualist manner which angered Roberts and brought on a rebuttal from Beer Keg Kavanaugh about his association with the Lions Sleeping Tonight of the premier DC COA.
Such gaul a female Federal Solicitor General would make a textualist argument in SCOTUS? The APA was meant to grant relief to individuals and nullify the regulation with regard to every single business in the country. SCOTUS interpreted it as the former. Not really an interpretation, purposeful determination.
Federal Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar called them on this. "Virginia School of Law Prof. John Harrison and Notre Dame Law School Prof. Samuel Bray. In short, Harrison and Bray have persuasively demonstrated that by directing courts to “set aside” an unlawful rule, Congress simply meant that courts could reverse the judgment of the agency, and issue relief to the parties before it—rather than to the whole world."
The boldness, the lack of respect, the arrogance of the Solicitor General angered Roberts who questioned the brazenness of her approach. Kavanaugh discussed his association with the Lons of the DC Court . . . pitiful.
I laughed my *8* off. More of you to call them to an accounting!
How & why is the Federalist Society reluctant/afraid to resist TFG?
Because he appointed all of their recommended judges.
My take on this is because the right wing, aka “conservatives”, have no principle other than preservation of the hierarchy. They make a show of their “love” of country, the Constitution, democracy, etc., but quickly drop it when that becomes an obstacle to gaining and keeping power. In the present context it means they’re hedging their bets; if Mango Mussolini gets the GOP nod, and manages to get back into office, they want to be in his good side so the FedSoc can influence him. Once TFG is permanently out of the picture all these conservative phonies will claim they never supported him.
I doubt they are either reluctant or afraid. They are calculatingly waiting for the dust up to settle. Steve Bannon’s method of civil distraction lies in “Flooding the Zone with Shit”. The Federalist Society believes in the ends that Bannon/trump/Musk all want : a dissolution of the New Deal / Civil Rights Society. They understand fundamentally that our weak, slow-as-molasses judicial system will allow lies and disinformation and straight-up BS to reign. They want knickers twisted, gnashing-of-teeth, and yowls from the Liberals. It’s their sport. Don’t give it to them.
Do we know of a time that the Federalist Society has called TFG to task since they chose him or at least were on the side of the repub election? Plus, they handed TFG the list of their SCOTUS and other court nominees. From American Constitution Society. “The Right Wing Takeover of the Courts https://www.acslaw.org/analysis/reports/dark-money/
True