Sorry to have to repeat myself again, but Sec. of the 14th Amendment says the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned. That must mean it has to be paid as it comes due, so the debt ceiling is irrelevant or unconstitutional, or both. The President should just announce that the United States will pay all debts as they come due.
Edit: I should have added, WRITE OR CALL YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE! Normally, I suggest calling, because it's quicker, but this issue is semi-complicated, so I think writing might be better. Write even if you're in a red district or state--let them know we're on to the fraud.
Hoping to amplify your point that "the public 'debt' of the United States shall not be questioned", my opinion is that anyone who would deliberately undermine the "full faith and credit of the United States" should be regarded as a "domestic enemy". The "conservatives" don't understand our monetary system. Treasury instruments are the world's safest, most reliable savings account. We are a monetarily sovereign nation. We will always be able to pay our debts. The full faith and credit of the United States must never be compromised.
Not every hostage taking is; these ones are, however. Terrorism is the bastion of the politically minded; there is always a political rather than a personal motive for the hostage taking. In barricade/hostage situations there is always something tangible that the hostage taker wants (his grievances addressed or his escape from a bungled crime) in exchange for his hostages. For a political hostage taking, there is really nothing that can be "delivered" to resolve the incident and return to "status quo", they are creating havoc for the delivery of their message and not for any particular individual gain.
Have been calling “Conservatives” “Radicals” and “traitors” for months. The House has approximately 130 of them who voted for the Big Lie on January 7, 2021. Understood yesterday that there are such numbers of them that we may all be hostages to their
Yes, although I would just be happy if the DOJ arrested the insurrectionists and got them the hell out of Congress. House arrest, Rykers. Guantanamo.. somewhere but not in Congress
The extremists in the House might not understand our monetary system, but the big donors funding them certainly do, and they are the ones calling the shots. So it’s strange that they would risk destroying the financial security that system provides just to get their way. The picture has some pieces missing. Perhaps they think they have the resources to weather a meltdown and take control in the aftermath.
Jim, I doubt that anyone believes the US will default. The "big donors" are confident that Democratic leaders, fully understanding the catastrophic consequences of defaulting, will bargain with republicans. Donors and their paid-for-politicians will finally get what they want: ending what passes for a social safety net in the richest nation in the world. And further enriching them. Terrorist is almost too nice for how evil and destructive these people are.
Those donors are fools if they think Biden will throw away our social safety net. Their puppets might be willing to play chicken with a default, but those donors will be among those who face a cascade of failure. There is NO bargaining with traitors or terrorists. Biden knows this.
Agree. This whole thing is a nothingburger. The U.S. is obliged to pay its debts and it will.
Repubs want to scare up some more votes by threatening to take money from grandma's social security check. And pander to the MAGA base by promising to cut services to those (fill in the derogatory noun of your choice) who are GETTING YOUR TAX MONEY WHILE SITTING ON THEIR LAZY AZZES.
This game of political chicken will distract voters while Repubs are sliding more corporate tax cuts under the radar. Corporations will amply reward them with donations, turning Repub public servants who make $167,000 per year into multimillionaires.
I’ve always heard that we don’t negotiate with terrorists. If that is true why would our government bargain with these terrorists? They’ve made their intention of destroying the USA very clear repeatedly.
Thank you David for this explanation to a very complex issue. The "public debt" is really difficult for most of us (including me) to fully comprehend, because it does not relate to 'our financial sphere'.
Easy, no one has challenged them. That right belongs to: 1) the citizens who elected that individual, 2) the Ethics Committee (which McCarthy stripped of all purpose) and 3) any sitting member of Congress. No action, no result
The debt ceiling is NOT in the Constitution, it is a rule invented in the late 19th Century (I believe it is a House rule) It is artificial and harmful not just the the US but international finance. There must be someway for the Treasury which is part of the Executive Branch and not subject to any stupid rule invented in the House of Representatives to get around it. Lawyers?
I believe the debt ceiling was brought to law and process around WW1, to have some oversight of spending. If that was true to the spirit of the law/custom, then R’s would not have voted for the Middle East oil and gas wars.
C'mon. It's only the Constitution right? Not even, just an AMENDMENT.
We can just ignore that pointless document, and whatever those amendments are that nobody has read whenever it/they don't not line up with what we want.
Right?
Like, if we lose an election, we can just field a private army and fix that right? Who cares about what the voters or the Constitution says?
Right?
It's all good Jon.
Laws and the Constitution only apply when it works for ME. Otherwise, we can just ignore them. Right?
Oh, wait, that was when I was a Republican. I am a Democrat now.
Dang that constitution. Limiting mah raht to do whatever I want whenever I want to whomever I want.
Terrorists in Congress. Their lawyers parachuted into the Supreme Court, dropped into key appellate posts all over the land.
Ringleaders in Congress may behave like Keystone Cop politicians, yet the movement they front, along with ambitious would-be dictators in state houses, is a greater threat to America—and consequently to the whole world—than any the country has yet faced.
Any.
Greater than the Axis forces, greater even than the Confederacy, since the United States today is the dominant world power, incomparably wealthier and more influential than the United States in 1861.
Despite the immense wreckage caused by inept American politicians and military in response to the 9/11 attacks, transforming the terrorists’ action into a chain reaction and thus causing greater long-term damage than the wildest of their dreams, this time the target is infinitely greater. It is the State itself, its institutions, its Constitution, its very basis.
The criminal conspiracy takes full advantage of constitutional constipation over two hundred years during which vested interests have blocked adequate updating of the foundational text. The original Originalists surely had no such intention, yet in time their doctrine has been understood by a few sharp-witted conspirators plotting totalitarian oligarchy to provide a perfect tool for so slowing down necessary change that the Constitution must become totally unworkable.
Meanwhile, these subversives have commandeered and financed the states’ rights and other movements to build up an underhand campaign to destroy federal power and replace the 1787 Constitution by a bespoke text, no doubt rather more skillfully crafted than the absurd personal shopping list which Putin imposed on Russia’s Constitution five years ago.
No doubt more skillfully crafted, yet designed with the same aim in view: to install a mafia State.
And what looks, on the face of it, like a diversionary movement in Congress to capture the attention of We the People, watching like cattle lined up along a fence while the gang rob the bank, is in fact far more. It is a key element in the attack on constitutional government in America.
*
As for juristic hubris in the highest of high places, No Comment.
My concern in making these observations as a very ordinary outsider bereft of specialist knowledge is for our children and theirs to inherit a happier, saner world.
It would be wonderful if what I have just written were to turn out to be complete crap.
What is the role and power of the court to decide this part of the 14th Amendment? Could they decide in favor of not raising the debt ceiling and support default? I never thought Roe would be overturned, so anything, no matter how stupid or crazy seems possible by the “ Heritage Foundation Court”. ( sorry Chief Justice Roberts but it is not your court, you have no era, no legacy, you are only a tool to be manipulated by oligarchs).
The "Roberts Court" has just been accurately identified and named. John Roberts, it is not your court. You (and the court) have been bought and paid for. You have probably engineered the destruction of that storied body unless this course can be corrected. That, sir, is your legacy. May it serve you well.
What the court should do, and very likely would, would be to hold that it's a political question not justiciable by the courts. Or, if they are really originalists and strict constructionists, hold that the language of the Amendment is clear.
Bottom line, no one knows what this half-assed SCOTUS will rule, regardless of clear language of 14th Amendment. BUT after case reaches Supreme Court, well after the breach of debt ceiling, then Biden can mint his trillion dollar coins and wait until that second case reaches SCOTUS well after the fact.
And that amendment does not contain the word "negotiate" - it clearly says "shall not be questioned." Biden is right to refuse to "negotiate" with terrorists - especially terrorists who are in the business of violating the Constitution and their oath of office to uphold it.
My interpretation of that section of the 14th Amendment and its relation to the 1917 legislation that established the debt ceiling is that the Amendment, as part of the Constitution, trumps the 1917 law (no pun intended). As such, a failure by any institution of government to prevent default on the debt would be unconstitutional. It seems that the President would have the authority to act unilaterally to prevent the default by any reasonable means, including the minting of a trillion dollar coin (to be funded by a return to the previous tax rates), or simply by executive order until Congress can get its act together and do what the constitution requires. Personally, I regard a refusal to prevent default to constitute an act of insurrection, given the known and predicatble consequences of such a refusal.
Have we not been seeing such acts almost daily since the run-up to the 2020 election. These included the violent assault on Congress on January 6th 2021. Might not a refusal to prevent default be even more substantive? Even more than a Fort Sumter moment, in that it would constitute a direct, comprehensive and truly deadly attack on the United States as such.
One hopes the D.o.J. is watching the situation carefully and that the institutions of state will act as necessary and in good time. Would not failure to do so mean there won’t be much left to pick up from the floor?
Great idea, John, we should all e-mail President Biden of his Executive "privilege" to uphold the Constitution above a Congressional legislation. It's about time our elected representatives read the Constitution and upheld it. I already emailed my Congressman this morning about Amendment 14
Economist and columnist Paul Krugman just wrote the same thing. I agree. What is McCarthy going to do, put the executive branch in jail? And while they are at it, move spending from defense to the IRS to get moving on the super rich corporations and other tax cheats.
By the way, any Democrat in the house can call for a vote to replace McCarthy. At any time. Maybe once a week.
The constitution says “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” So the idiot right wingers think they control the purse. With regard to the debt ceiling, this revenue has already been raised as original debt and so IMHO doesn’t require House or even Congressional approval. I agree that the President should just declare that there is no more debt ceiling. This argument even stands on originalist interpretations.
In total agreement and I emailed President Biden to both abide by Amendment 14 Section 4 and if the 'idiot right wingers' (I was a little more polite than that, but I like your description) refuse to exert his right executive privilege to enforce the Amendment. I hope more of us inundate the White House with the same request. PS I had already emailed my own Congressman the similar message on upholding the 14th
(202) 456 1111. To email type in president joe biden click on contact us and it brings up the email form, very easy to use and the limit is 2000 characters, that's more than enough.
I have a brand spanking new Congress(wo)man in Val Hoyle (Peter DeFazio retired). I shall write her; she's already begging me for money to "continue the fight."
Though mind-boggling, it's crystal clear to me: by pretending that they have the authority to vote against raising the debt ceiling in order to constitutionally pay the nation's bills, these dingbat right-wingers further pretend they can use this as leverage to cut SS and Medicare while continuing the tax cuts to the wealthy. I guess they figure if they can pretend in the light of day they can pull it off...looks like political suicide to me....
Call their stupid bluff--Jon Margolis said it succinctly: "The President should just announce that the United States will pay all debts as they come due."
Sophia, I've been thinking along the same lines. Perhaps the "dog chasing the car" is an appropriate metaphor. Change the "car" to an Army tank. The dog chases the tank every time it passes by. This goes on for a long time because the dog has no real hope of catching the tank, and the tank is completely invulnerable to the dog (and perhaps the tank crew are careful to avoid hurting the little doggie).
Some people believe it is bad practice to negotiate with terrorists, partly because it sets a bad precedent. The House Freedom Caucus represents a very small minority of the American People. Even the whole Republican Caucus represents a minority of the people, considering gerrymandering in Wisconsin and other states, along with voter suppression techniques.
What would happen if the tank crew stops to negotiate with the dog?
The Defense budget is discretionary spending, but Social Security and Medicare are not discretionary. Changes to discretionary spending, ie changing SS and Medicare, should require elaborate negotiations with the whole Congress, over an extended period -- not done in a hostage crisis situation.
The whole idea behind the creation of the United States of America is to end minority rule, and to establish democratic majority governance. Permanent Republican governance would be like the dog catching the tank. Our polite civil society would surely devolve into chaos. The punks should not be allowed to get their way with the vast majority of the rest of us, all rational voters included. Especially considering that some Members of Congress probably should be indicted for their roles in the Jan 6 insurrection.
What everyone is failing to see in this rhetoric from the Trumpublicans is that they are doing their level best to subvert the “Rule of Law”, including destroying our Constitution, and Democracy along with it. At that point, they will have total control of the country, and everyone in it.
"At that point, they will have total control of the country, and everyone in it." This is a point everyone should ponder at length. My guess is that permanent Republican rule would not sit well with a very large number of Americans. We have already seen Republican-led violence in the Jan 6 insurrection. It seems plausible to predict that objections to permanent Republican authoritarian rule would be dealt with violently. Civil society would devolve into chaos. We might see some form of the Spanish Inquisition (not the Monty Python version!)
The point the Republicans fail to see is that it is their lack of admirable reasoning and political rhetoric that is the cause for their lack of voter support. Failing to persuade voters to vote for them because of their popular ideas, they turn instead to various methods of cheating.
Absolutely. Total chaos. But, that’s the Trumplicans way of accomplishing, or trying to accomplish, anything. They will move us back over 200 years, not to be ruin put us in worse condition than most countries in this world. We won’t be speaking English either. We’ll be speaking Russian, or Chinese.
It’s called “Party Unity”. Problem is, the Republican Party right now is so dismantled and confused, none of them know heat they are doing. Case on point: McCarthy has been elected as Speaker of the House. What a joke!
The problem is they don't give a damn about the Constitution and the oath that they all swore to uphold and defend it. It's like meh, we will do what we want and the country and probably the world be damned.
I suspect the Supreme Court leak came from Alito, Thomas or Thomas's wife, Ginny, which is why the public won't be privy to the responsible party or parties.
Once in power, republicans never fail to hold the U.S. to unnecessary economic trauma.
The GOP is a cruel and useless excuse for a political party.
Just because Republicans were in charge in both houses of Congress and the Presidency (Calvin Coolidge), in the ten years leading to the Great Depression in 1929?? That does not mean Pubs are always responsible for Great Depressions with bad policy.
And, just because George W Bush/Republicans were in charge of the gov in the eight years leading up to the second largest economic crash in the last 120 years in the US, the 2008 depression that permanently devastated many Americans??? Does not mean Pubs are always responsible for depressions due to bad policy.
And, just because the Republicans were in charge from 2016 to 2020 when the deficit shot up like a rocket AND the economy crashed due to tax cuts and poor management of the Coronavirus? Does not mean Pubs are always responsible for depressions due to bad policy.
And just because, in 1982, when Reagan was President, America had one of its WORST recessions in history, resulting in college graduates all over the US not getting jobs for, in some cases, years, and resulting in the first deficit spending to try to fake our way out of that?? Does not mean Pubs are always responsible for depressions due to bad policy.
Just because TFG told thousands of already organized and prepared for violence criminals and soon to be criminals to march to the capitol and stop Mike Pence from certifying votes for President Biden, which we watched in horror with our own eyes and ears doesn’t mean Republicans are singularly responsible for trying to overthrow the government. Just because they’ve weaseled their way in through voter suppression and gerrymandering, and helped by foreign governments, dark money, delusional lunatic conspiracy theories and media news outlet that spew falsehoods to millions of Americans telling them how Democrats eat babies, and hate Jesus. Doesn’t mean Pubs are responsible for an insurrection, seditionists seated in Congress at this very moment and a continuing attack on the Constitution, Americans, women, and our economic system. Right?
According to something I read/heard the other day (can't remember where), 30% of the deficit is a result of TFG's tax cuts to the super-rich and deadbeat corporations. 30%. In 2 years.
Linda, BUT I thought it was OK to run deficits if we make sure that the money goes to Republican donors and the richest pay no tax? Is that not what Reagan taught and sought?
It's only "wasteful" if the money goes out on programs like Social Security for people who don't donate to political campaigns.
Nope not to political campaigns but they ALL "donated/contributed" to the Social Security program, tho - its THEIR money these numnuts want to take away! Doesnt it seem as tho that truth should be shouted from the rooftops rather than allowing the R bunch's bs to be believed?
I will just agree with you on all of this, and start working. :-) Though I am retired , I still work. I might drop into the conversation later today. I find everyone´s comments interesting and entertaining. It makes a great break in my day. Thank you everyone. I just discovered this online chat, though I have read Dr Richardson´s posts for years.
Diane, welcome. I mostly lurk, because the people here are so smart and well-informed. There is more accurate information from HCR and the incredible people who post here, than any other source.
I am one of those who graduated college in 1981 (into Oregon's decline of the timber industry and in search of a law enforcement position). It took 4 years and testing with multiple agencies in multiple states before I was hired in 1985. That was in the first round of new hires in my department since "the layoffs in 1982" (they'd spent 3+ years hiring back all the folks they'd laid off before getting to us "new hires".)
The "GOP" has been captured, bought and paid for by cynical, self-serving plutocrats. Lincoln would (presumably) be outraged. "Reaganomics", between the lines, and certainly in practice, makes the very rich much richer, the poor poorer, and government of, by and for the people an endangered species. Certainly that has verifiability been very much the trend (with the governments own statistics) over the last four decades.
I completely agree. If Roberts doesn't like the low approval ratings of his court, he has only to look at Alito and Thomas (and Ginny) and others who cover their stink with a black robe.
Roberts, himself, is a fully committed white supremacist and been for his entire career. He might like the Court to enjoy better approval ratings but not at the cost of changing its inclination for guaranteeing white control of the government.
I agree with you, Deborah Carroll. I believe it came straight from Alito, which is why I keep envisioning Captain Renault from Casablanca blowing his whistle in Rick’s and ordering “Round up the usual suspects”. What a grifter.
Fomenting disrespect for government institutions is part of the Republican playbook for dismantling democracy. First they cause dysfunction, then point out that government doesn’t work, then the rubes (read working class) vote for the dismantlers, and, voila, we find a kleptocratic autocracy in charge.
That was the cunning part of Reagan's attacks on "government" (of, by and for the people). And of course the ahistorical "high tide lifts all boats" theory, that everybody prospers when the wealthiest rule the roost.
From the rape of the environment to the "Great Recession" to the plutocratic tilt of our courts and laws, we are living the legacy of Reagan, and the corrupt and plutocratic neo-"GOP".
While the media had been gunning for Nixon, they seemed to eat from "The Gipper"'s hand, repeatedly dubbing him "The Great" whatever; or when caught doing dodgy stuff, "The Teflon President"
"Former US President Ronald Reagan has been voted the "greatest American" of all time by his fellow citizens. Mr Reagan, who died last year aged 93, topped a list of 10 contenders, which featured six former presidents."
"He edged out Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King. Some of the most notable names of US history such as Albert Einstein and Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the Moon, did not make the top 10."
"More than 2.4 million Americans cast their vote by phone, text or e-mail in the poll, organized by the Discovery Channel and AOL. "
When Roberts was asked why his court does not observe the code of ethics standards observed by lower courts, my memory is that he literally said that the Supreme Court is above all that, and that anyway no one has the power to enforce it. He presumes their word is law.
The GOP is a party that remains in power by serving the rich, big business and now more openly than ever before , racists. They get money from the former and the racists supply votes. ( along with those who hate anyone getting economic help from the government)The party is a world apart from the party that I grew up with from 1950 to 1970. Once Joe McCarthy, was out of the way, they were mostly honorable men. I will never forget the 147 votes against certifying Joe Biden, only hours after the entire congress was effectively held hostage by the terrorist insurrectionists. These are extraordinary times as Nicole Wallace says each day, at the end of her show. With luck , the GOP will shatter soon.
Let's take a quick look at the resume of Michael Chertoff, who Chief Justice John Roberts chose to conduct the investigation of the Dobbs case leak:
- Special counsel on the Senate Whitewater investigation of Clinton
- Protege of Rudy Giuliani in the SDNY
- Fundraiser for W Bush and other Republicans
- W Bush campaign advisor on law and order issues
- DOJ appointee who helped establish the CIA's enhanced interrogation program
- Bungled DHS response to Hurricane Katrina
- Appointed by W Bush to US court of appeals
- Member of defense team in US prosecution of Dmitro Firtash, an ally of Vladimir Putin who funneled Russian money to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine
So, I guess your point is: If any of the right wing justices came to him and said: "Hey, I released that leak to make sure my big payments from the Federalist Society don't stop".
This episode looked like a clumsy right-wing false flag stunt from the beginning. Liberals had nothing to gain, and much to lose. The incentives laid with the conservatives, staff and justices.
Exactly the sort of resume you want if your goal is to protect conservatives at all costs. As soon as I saw who was appointed to lead the “investigation”, I just shook my head and moved on, knowing we would never hear the truth.
I spent many years in DC, where Lucy is always inviting Charlie Brown to kick the ball. It is a place where cynicism and naïveté often, but not always, prevail.
The SOP for quietly suffocating a controversy is to appoint a sympathetic gray eminence to look into it, who then buys time before rendering an innocuous "judgement" after everyone has moved on.
Hahahahaha....thanks for the (cynical) chuckle. No-jacket "Gym" Jordan will go for the exact opposite direction--in full cry (like a pack of hounds on the wrong scent).
Thank you, Heather. You’re a haven of solid information in a world of bad reporting. Just today, I turned on MSNBC around noon and all they talked about was Biden and the documents. I turned it off. Curious, I turned it on about 15 minutes later, and it was still about Biden and the documents. It makes me crazy when there are so many important and crucial things occurring which are dangerous to our country and our people.
Network news is pretty much useless if you ask me. They fill in between real disasters with fear mongering. Once in a while they have a story that I would describe as a cute puppy story to show their loveable side. If I want to try and understand what is happening I mostly do that thru my Substack subscriptions and other reading on my own. Oh and also through League of Women Voters. The sad thing is the networks could step up and be useful but their raison d’être is to make money.
Add NPR to that. I used to depend on them. Yesterday’s noon headlines started with Alec Baldwin. Then something else so newsworthy I’ve forgotten what it was. Only third did they mention, seemingly in passing, the Republican attempt to hold the world economy hostage.
Stopped watching ALL broadcast and cable news about a year and a half ago. Read only. Mostly on Substack and other sources that used vetted information by actual journalists.
I got tired of the talking heads. Just the news please, you can wink, wink, nod, nod, smirk and give those “knowing” looks to the camera on someone else’s time. Not mine.
Edward Bernays (the godfather of public relations) has an astute quote: “If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” Language is powerful indeed!
With words he, and a few Nazi's, converted a huge fraction of Europe into an enthusiastic, massive mass murder operation, the largest in the history of the world.
What a final paragraph reported by HCR! Yes, a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United is sorely needed. For starters, people are people, not random groups of people. And secondly, money doesn't equal free speech obviously.
Corporations are nothing more than a kind of business license for people operating a business. Those people have a legal firewall between their finances and those of the corporation, but they still are the actors behind the logo; they still are the decision makers behind whatever a corporation does, as are you when you operate an automobile.
So it is nonsensical when someone like the fabled Milton Friedman says something like "The only corporate social responsibility a company has is to maximize its profits" since a company is has neither a mind or agency; people do; and the company is an assembly of people. If people have no social responsibility (except getting rich) then who does?
You get this sort of doublethink (or is it zerothink) even from Obama's former AG Eric Holder who said :
"But it remains true that, at some institutions that engaged in inappropriate conduct before, and may yet again, the buck still stops nowhere. Responsibility remains so diffuse, and top executives so insulated, that any misconduct could again be considered more a symptom of the institution’s culture than a result of the willful actions of any single individual. "
OK, but it is ALWAYS PEOPLE doing any inappropriate conducting (and in the Subprime Crisis, some of this was felonious). The corporation is just the way those people are organized. Surely all of those people have rights and responsibilities just like anyone else? No?
The corporation is just a convenient legal fiction, and where laws and regulation have been abused or violated, the "organization" in the abstract simply has no agency or responsibility whatsoever. The people who make up the organization do. Those people who decide and those who act is the only place the buck can stop. No?
Business entities which must choose a systematic form going forward as they are created become locked into the quality engendered by the legal language counsel selects to form the entities constraints. Bad lawyer equals bad contract language. Once signed the contract language is locked in. This new “business entity” is tied then to language used during its formation. The language may be altered but is a cumbersome venture if all parties involved are not like minded. Experience herein is the tutor of good counsel. A business is not always the expression of its ownership but rather an expression of contract language. Sometimes the buck runs amuck. Just saying.
My heart lifted at the words "constitutional amendment". There are so many excellent people in the Democratic Party. And nobody else is going to get America out of the quagmire.
Even if said amendment is destined to fail, it at least will grab attention towards a positive change instead of whatever the House Republicans come up with.
Unregulated money is corrupting our democratic republic to the core. If we don't find a solution to that problem, little else can be accomplished; and a number of the tasks before can be matters of life and death.
It may not be destined to fail. At any rate, it gives them an example of Congress serving the purpose for which they are known as "lawmakers". It might even push open a door in their minds marked "THINK".
We have to make a "thing" out of it. When I write to a lawmaker on a Web page, they often want me to select a list of "issues", and typically mine is not on the list.
It has to be a "thing" before it gets attention. That's part of what social movements supply.
I like this. No amendment has been swift but this may be one that “we the people” can champion. After all, Soros is the big bad wolf to the right, correct?
The ultimate buck stops with We the People since self-governance is DIY by definition. We hire professional (or at least ostensibly professional) agents to champion our collective cause, but we have to figure out what we want, and live with our collectively wise or foolish decisions.
It would seem that what can go wrong will go wrong, but...
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" -Churchill
And our democracy might yield much better results if we collectively cleared a lot of the anti-democratic clutter.
JL this business of governance as you are well aware is tied up in our contractual documentation known as the “Constitution “. As we all are aware people have put forward their own interpretations of what that contractual language means. The more rigid the contract the more difficult justice becomes to administer to a world which is in a constant state of change. I.E. the changes we are currently embroiled in. That the “Times they are a Changing” has never been more evident and has become a gut wrenching reality whether we like it or not. Going forward we need our finest minds and consensual backing to as you say “clear the clutter.” Language must be found to attract all parties to the table. Yes all parties! I didn’t particularly like squash in my childhood. My father was the law (whenever mom said so) and he forced me to eat squash. Mom negotiated by saying, “ Paul, that’s not a good idea.” As for my part I followed the rule of law. As I downed the squash it turned right back around and became a tsunami of projectile vomit covering the table with all eight of us in attendance. Sometimes negotiation is a better way forward in order not to ruin every one else’s supper. Although there was some cautious smirking at the table mom maintained protocol by not telling dad “I told you so.” Dad for his part, excused me from ever eating squash again. We all cleaned up the mess together and managed to become a cohesive family able to move on to more pressing matters.
Our Constitution endures because it's amendable. "Conservatives" claim to be able to read the minds of the framers, but I never put much faith in Ouija boards, and anyway, it ultimately doesn't matter. We the living are now "We the people", and it is the *principles* of law and justice that the Constitution expresses that survive the test of relevance to the present day.
No written words are free of interpretation when the meet with a human nervous system, and the best we can do is attempt to anchor them to evidence and compare our notes. It is the principles of liberty and justice that are sacred, not any one person's frame of mind, especially one those of the dearly departed. We can consider precedent, apply science, and search our collective souls to tease a just path from present circumstances; but it is its relevance to our continuously evolving circumstances keep the Constitution alive, and it's in its expression as principles of justice that allows us to do that,; rather than attempt to cram our current circumstances into a supposed freeze-frame of ultimately hidden inner world of the long dead*.
* There is a lot of remarkable wisdom supporting us from accumulated insights extending back many, many centuries, but it is useful to the degree we square it with with what we now know and need today; the region of space-time that for time being, we are a part.
That's such a good post! Yes, that's exactly it. (Mine was boiled tripe in white parsley sauce. It took 20 years and residence in Europe before I learnt that there were ways of preparing tripe which actually made it enjoyable and swallowable). I'd like the whole of Congress to read that little story.
"But the main culprit, the cancer on the body politic, is money: Money, money, money. When I ran 6 years ago, in 1998, I raised $8.5 million. That $8.5 million is $30,000 a week, every week, for 6 years. If you miss Christmas week, you miss New Years week, you are $100,000 in the hole and don't you think we don't know it and we start to work harder at raising money.
As a result, the Senate doesn't work on Mondays and Fridays. We have longer holidays. The policy committee is adjourned and we go over to the campaign building because you can't call for money in the office. So we go over to the building and call for money and obviously we only can give attention to that. We don't have time for each other. We don't have time for constituents, except for the givers. Somebody ought to tell the truth about that." - Fritz Hollings
How could unlimited money to influence election results, and the media calmly accepts as a given that funds applied to political purposes in do fact influence political outcomes, not only as in important factor in determining which candidates are taken seriously, and win, but which laws are and are not passed. Certainly Senator Hollings (or anyone who thinks about it) was in a position to know. And is that not patently anti-egalitarianism and anti-democratic? Not that money is the only determent of political outcomes, but like athletes using dangerous "performance-enhancing drugs" it a big fat thumb on the scale.
The two "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" for which "the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction" stated explicitly by the Constitution are treason and bribery. Is de facto bribery, which may be technically distinguished from a direct, detailed purchase of political outcomes, yet results in a very similar dynamic, any less damaging to the integrity of rule and equal protection of law than the classic envelope of cash thrown over the transom? I don't think so.
Yes we did, Jeri. I wanted him to be Hillary Clinton’s VP candidate in ‘16. I feel only he could have wrangled with the t-circus adeptly. Yet, timing is everything. ME-TOO was a movement that needed to happen. Yet, we got brilliantly wrestle-pinned to back up our “outrage” at t. As Heather said, language is powerful. It’s a tool we do not always use effectively, and then spend news-cycles back peddling.
From ‘This leak undermines the process of the Supreme Court, and I am determined to find out who…’ to ‘… move along, nothing to see here’ is astonishing. How dumb do you think we are, Justice Roberts?
The thing is, Jane, who cares who leaked the Roe v Wade finding. It didn't change a single word of the bogus decision. The decision stands and will be enforced in those States so downtrodden and bankrupt as to allow this misogynistic travesty to occur. For the rest of the States we've already enacted legislation and State Constitutional Amendments enshrining a woman's right to choose.
Roberts described the “damage” leaking the draft inflicted on the court, but now, is the damage not so bad? If leaking the draft served it’s purpose to line up the conservative justice soldiers, then what damage was done? If Roberts is actually protecting Alito from his own investigation, it’s just another sign SCOTUS has gone from a deliberative, collection of independent thinkers to a paid army.
(No real new thoughts here, just more examples of the hot mess SCOTUS is.)
I’m not sure what you mean by Democrats are dumb. Maybe you should look up what it takes to put forth a constitutional amendment. In the meantime, Republicans have broken down any semblance of the Voting Rights Act and ethics in campaigning. You say they didn’t do anything, but there was the ENTIRE OTHER HALF OF CONGRESS who saw voting rights as their demise, cause they just aren’t popular. In the end, archaic rules about the filibuster and a couple of egotistical senators killed the legislation.
“I am struck today by how language—its silences, obfuscations, truths, lies, and hopes—shapes our world.” Thank you, Professor, for clearly stating the repub strategy for confusing policies and reasons for their proposed laws and regulations. Could be “1984,” the George Orwell dystopian novel.
Life imitates Art or is it the opposite? Tax cuts, tax breaks, deficit spending, supply-side economics, all confuse voters, and on and on, become lies and just rhetoric to many citizens, exactly their design. They stop listening and then vote their party. Even when their vote will hurt them. I just finished watching a PBS “Firing Line” interview with Margaret Atwood, about the “Handmaid’s Tale.”The author compared some American attitudes, policies and attempts to change laws as strategies to control women, with her story of Handmaids. Who votes against abortion and even birth control? At the same time voting against family and child policies like increased subsidies for daycare and parental leave? Against Women, who they see as baby machines and belong at home. Who votes against Critical Race Theory, Truth? Who votes to make voting harder not easier? The same answer since that party voted against the ERA, Equal Rights Amendment. https://pbs.org/video/margaret-atwood-tgvkxq?source=social
No doubt Joseph Goebbels would agree with you and Dr. Richardson.
Yep, that guy turned the entire German state, along with France and, umm, a lot more people than just Germans, into enthusiastic mass murderers........through words.
Trains were running from all over Europe filled with Jews. Jews headed for the gas chambers.
All done with words. And? It was not even hard.
Just say the same thing over and over and over again for three or four days on Fox News?
Like, for example: "Communist Democrats are stealing your money and taking over our country, let's build some ovens and FIX this problem". I guarantee the guy who lives across the street from me would start building an oven.
Only, he would have a bit of a time getting me into it.
Dumbing down of Americans (education)...easier to control. Part of the playbook of authoritarians..and dare I say churches. Look at the evangelicals supporting things that their savior spoke against. But can they critically think??
Good questions. But thought processes take time and energy. That’s why such crap as “Make America Great Again” resonates with those who can’t add two and two.
Art imitates life, or is it vice-versa? The first flip phone designs were strongly influenced by the communicators on "Star Trek". The most beautiful poetry is about real experiences. Creativity exists in all spheres of human endeavor, and not all creativity is aimed at furthering the arc of justice. Some of it is dark. Identify the truly creative people in any movement/sphere and you will know who its leaders are. Everyone else mostly follows and imitates. The Right is led by members of ALEC, the Left by people like Raskin, Schiff, and AOC.
Isn't failure to raise the debt ceiling a violation of the 14th amendment which forbids withholding any debts already occurred by the government 🤔 the debt ceiling needs abolished anyway it's a redundant accounting measure that's irrelevant because the nation’s debt will always grow just like America 🇺🇸 will always grow 😉
We also need fair representation in congress instead of only 435 representatives in the House the last 100 years almost doesn't not adequately represent the actual population 🙄 statistically if it was same % as when 435 limit set we would need over 600 I read in article awhile back 😉 that's the answer to the GOP gerrymandering and undue influence now of the radical rednecks
Bravo dq ! I've thought the same regards the number of reps. We are far under-served. Just try to advance an issue to one of your reps. I've been trying for 10 years unsuccessfully and one of them is democrat. (?)
No, seriously, if Corporations ARE people, as John Roberts insists, a petition from a friendly Corporation that demands voting rights in Federal elections should be put forth, at which point the Roberts Cabal would be forced to accept the new voting block on the basis that it previously ruled “Corporations are People”
The response would likely be “They’re only People when we say they are, nice try Rookie, but no cigar”
The best news I've heard this year, kudos to Congressman Adam Schiff for proposing the Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United. Of course, we'd need 78 honorable Republican Congresspersons to join us to pass it and that's a tough job. We need to get the House of Representatives back in 2024, which means both the DCCC and the DNC will have to actually do their jobs and recruit viable candidates, and the Democrats here in California will need to put more effort into defeating MAGgots in the rural areas. Because we are a blue State there is a tendency to say oh, what difference can12 or so Republicans make when we field 40 Democrats, but when one of them is creepy crawly on his belly Kevin McCarthy and another is Kevin Kiley who'll lick the slime trail McCarthy leaves - we need to do better. There are some decent people in the mountains, lets help them too.
And get back the New York House seats Dems lost through a combo of Dem overreach during redistricting and Repub dark money from NYC funding vicious attack ads designed to stoke fears about (nonexistent) crime with numbing repetition. Better state-party leadership strongly indicated.
"...78 honorable Republican Congresspersons..." Isn't that a contradiction in terms? 😈 Seriously, though, totally agree about my home state CA and my former home state NY.
Hasn’t it historically been TFG’s MO to hurl frivolous lawsuits at those who, say, want him to pay his bills, honor his contracts, etc.? Finally we get a Judge Middlebrooks to call him out on the practice and make him pay. Hurray for Judge Middlebrooks!
At this point, what kind of law firm would take TFG on as a client? I know that if I were shopping for a lawyer, any association with TFG, past or present, would be an immediate disqualification.
And finally;
“I am struck today by how language—its silences, obfuscations, truths, lies, and hopes—shapes our world.”
And I am struck by how beautifully, poetically, HCR uses language to make her point.
Ralph, Trump understands the American system much better than you and I and has navigated that system beautifully to enrich himself at the continuous expense of the world around him.
However, America was founded on the ability of rich men to get what they want.
John Hancock was illegally running rum into Boston harbor to keep the Irish immigrants drunk and make himself vastly wealthy.
When the British put a tax on Hancock's rum running Hancock was outraged!! He hired John Adams (a good man who believed taxation without representation was a bad thing) to work to make sure that Hancock paid little or no taxes.
At any rate, we all know where that went: The Americans rebelled and, Hancock probably never paid any taxes and spent his life in wealth after the Revolutionary War.
So, the very foundation of America is based on making rich white men richer.
This is important to understand I think. We were built this way. Accumulating wealth was always the driver of our nation. The first people came to get rich quick and did that by arriving ahead of rules, regulations, customs, ethical considerations (enslave other humans, destroy native peoples) and that has been the mechanism since. Hoard resources and squeeze out as much $ before people notice the damage you are doing. When they notice and try to rein you in keep them on the back foot as long as possible and once you can no longer do that, get out. In our world today it sometimes means forming a nonprofit charitable foundation and congratulating yourself all the way to the grave.
John Hancock DID make SURE that none of his RUM was thrown into Boston harbor by carefully directing the Boston "Tea" Party gang over to another ship carrying, tea, but, not one of his ships.
Although, Hancock and Sam Adams organized the event.
This article starts at the heart of the problem: income disparity/wealth disparity and no one wants to pay more tax. It's been so easy to give tax breaks and so irresponsible. The mess will only continue until the tax issue improves.
When I was growing up, state colleges were very affordable (though I attended a moderately priced private one). Now we have a student debt crisis that hurts kids launching their careers and arguably hurts society. That has to do with tax subsidies which fell out of favor. But who is really richer now than they were before all the tax cuts? Mostly, the very, very wealthy. Rank and file, not so much. My dad got a robust, defined benefit pension, which has become a rarity. Jobs seem far less secure now than before the "Reagan Revolution" and perma-temps and gig employment much more common. Living wage jobs for those with less than a college degree seem scarcer so far as I can tell, and optimism seems in the toilet, especially among the younger people I speak to. What was in the deal for us?
Along with Amazon, isn't it like 70 corporations that don't pay taxes? I mean, how un-American and un-patriotic is that?? Corporations in Finland love paying their taxes because it ensures that their employees are healthy and well-educated. How novel....
It would surprise me if anyone actually loves paying taxes. I don't, and I look for legitimate deductions; and yet I vote in favor of levies that serve the common good, and I support a robust public sector, such as tax supported research, emergency services, aid to the poor, education, etc. I believe that there are some things that private enterprise does very well, and some thing best done by the public. I firmly believe that some services are too vital and/or too dangerous to outside public control and supervision, and that "We the People" legitimately get to set the ground rules for *both* private businesses and government. And either way:
"Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people." - John Adams
Our President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party has the better idea : to give the common middle American a break on income taxes and by not increasing taxes on everyday necessities and for the wealthy to pay their fair share. We need commonsense policies.
Separate from the tax issue: everyone should be able to receive an education according to ability to be able to find a job after high school and if a person is able and interested, the ability to have an affordable opportunity for further career training at an excellent two year institution.
Capable teachers are needed in every area ..... a certificate or diploma is worth nothing if our students are not well taught and given work experience in their field of choice, from basics
to advanced.
Fair taxation and an excellently trained workforce, properly paid and insured will assist in providing a healthy nation.
it is with so much thanks that we read your daily views on the affairs of the world, and in particular during these tortured and challenging times. Thank you, many times, over for your work and your persistence. We as a people are the better for it.
Citizen's United is one of the most egregious example of SCOTUS legislating from the bench. It has completely changed the political landscape in the US since 2010. It was decided 5 to 4 with Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito in the majority. Interestingly the dissent written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor says that the ruling went far beyond the issues brought before the court and the majority had "changed the case" so they could make a broader ruling. He also used the originalist argument that the understanding of the founders of "We the people" did not included the concept of corporations as people--but apparently the conservative majority only uses originalist arguments when it supports their view.
It will be impossible to amend the consistution to correct this given all the corporate money that will pour in to sway the members of Congress and then if it somehow manages to get through there, that will be poured into state legislatures during ratification. The only hope is that just like Roe this is ruled incorrect by a subsequent Court. The knife can eventually cut both ways.
But Democrats need to win the national Trifecta for at least another 20 years before the composition of the Court can be changed to do that.
Sorry to have to repeat myself again, but Sec. of the 14th Amendment says the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned. That must mean it has to be paid as it comes due, so the debt ceiling is irrelevant or unconstitutional, or both. The President should just announce that the United States will pay all debts as they come due.
Edit: I should have added, WRITE OR CALL YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE! Normally, I suggest calling, because it's quicker, but this issue is semi-complicated, so I think writing might be better. Write even if you're in a red district or state--let them know we're on to the fraud.
Hoping to amplify your point that "the public 'debt' of the United States shall not be questioned", my opinion is that anyone who would deliberately undermine the "full faith and credit of the United States" should be regarded as a "domestic enemy". The "conservatives" don't understand our monetary system. Treasury instruments are the world's safest, most reliable savings account. We are a monetarily sovereign nation. We will always be able to pay our debts. The full faith and credit of the United States must never be compromised.
I agree, and I have an idea : shall we move beyond the idea of " enemies, " to the idea of " traitors ?" EKR
And terrorists. Aren’t hostage-takers terrorists?
Not every hostage taking is; these ones are, however. Terrorism is the bastion of the politically minded; there is always a political rather than a personal motive for the hostage taking. In barricade/hostage situations there is always something tangible that the hostage taker wants (his grievances addressed or his escape from a bungled crime) in exchange for his hostages. For a political hostage taking, there is really nothing that can be "delivered" to resolve the incident and return to "status quo", they are creating havoc for the delivery of their message and not for any particular individual gain.
Nicely put, Ally. And a great comparison between ordinary crooks and death star and his supporters.
Ally, your contributions to the conversation here are just the greatest. Talk about cutting to the chase!
Well, 15+ years as a hostage negotiator does give me some insight and experience.
Thank you for your kind words.
Yes, thank you Ally. I completely agree with Michelle and Janet.
Have been calling “Conservatives” “Radicals” and “traitors” for months. The House has approximately 130 of them who voted for the Big Lie on January 7, 2021. Understood yesterday that there are such numbers of them that we may all be hostages to their
ignorance.
I have been calling them far right radical regressives for year. After January 6th, I added traitors.
Treason requires that the country be in a state of war which, while practically true, in a legal sense, we aren't right now.
There is clearly anti-government action being taken, but since it's limited to domestic activity, I think it's insurrection rather than treason.
Where oh where are those FEMA camps to stick conservatives in when we really need them?
Guantanamo.
Yes! I understand there is room there.
Its for terrorists right?
Yes, although I would just be happy if the DOJ arrested the insurrectionists and got them the hell out of Congress. House arrest, Rykers. Guantanamo.. somewhere but not in Congress
The extremists in the House might not understand our monetary system, but the big donors funding them certainly do, and they are the ones calling the shots. So it’s strange that they would risk destroying the financial security that system provides just to get their way. The picture has some pieces missing. Perhaps they think they have the resources to weather a meltdown and take control in the aftermath.
Jim, I doubt that anyone believes the US will default. The "big donors" are confident that Democratic leaders, fully understanding the catastrophic consequences of defaulting, will bargain with republicans. Donors and their paid-for-politicians will finally get what they want: ending what passes for a social safety net in the richest nation in the world. And further enriching them. Terrorist is almost too nice for how evil and destructive these people are.
Those donors are fools if they think Biden will throw away our social safety net. Their puppets might be willing to play chicken with a default, but those donors will be among those who face a cascade of failure. There is NO bargaining with traitors or terrorists. Biden knows this.
Agree. This whole thing is a nothingburger. The U.S. is obliged to pay its debts and it will.
Repubs want to scare up some more votes by threatening to take money from grandma's social security check. And pander to the MAGA base by promising to cut services to those (fill in the derogatory noun of your choice) who are GETTING YOUR TAX MONEY WHILE SITTING ON THEIR LAZY AZZES.
This game of political chicken will distract voters while Repubs are sliding more corporate tax cuts under the radar. Corporations will amply reward them with donations, turning Repub public servants who make $167,000 per year into multimillionaires.
I’ve always heard that we don’t negotiate with terrorists. If that is true why would our government bargain with these terrorists? They’ve made their intention of destroying the USA very clear repeatedly.
They have always thought their money will save them from any disaster, economic, political, climatic.
They rely on their ignorant constituents who believe everything they say.
Domestic economic terrorists, true enemies of the state
Thank you David for this explanation to a very complex issue. The "public debt" is really difficult for most of us (including me) to fully comprehend, because it does not relate to 'our financial sphere'.
While I agree completely, it’s obvious Republicans need to dumb down the message and lie about it in order to keep their base base.
"domestic enemy" ? Includes insurrectionists!!! How are insurrectionists allowed to hold a seat in Congress?
Easy, no one has challenged them. That right belongs to: 1) the citizens who elected that individual, 2) the Ethics Committee (which McCarthy stripped of all purpose) and 3) any sitting member of Congress. No action, no result
The debt ceiling is NOT in the Constitution, it is a rule invented in the late 19th Century (I believe it is a House rule) It is artificial and harmful not just the the US but international finance. There must be someway for the Treasury which is part of the Executive Branch and not subject to any stupid rule invented in the House of Representatives to get around it. Lawyers?
I believe the debt ceiling was brought to law and process around WW1, to have some oversight of spending. If that was true to the spirit of the law/custom, then R’s would not have voted for the Middle East oil and gas wars.
IIRC, it was Wilson's administration.
Jon,
C'mon. It's only the Constitution right? Not even, just an AMENDMENT.
We can just ignore that pointless document, and whatever those amendments are that nobody has read whenever it/they don't not line up with what we want.
Right?
Like, if we lose an election, we can just field a private army and fix that right? Who cares about what the voters or the Constitution says?
Right?
It's all good Jon.
Laws and the Constitution only apply when it works for ME. Otherwise, we can just ignore them. Right?
Oh, wait, that was when I was a Republican. I am a Democrat now.
Dang that constitution. Limiting mah raht to do whatever I want whenever I want to whomever I want.
As Fay has noted, the “ debt ceiling” is not in the US Constitution.
But don't forget "God's Law" aka the 2nd Amendment. That's special! Plus their misguided reading of the 1st Amendment.
Terrorists.
*
Terrorists in Congress. Their lawyers parachuted into the Supreme Court, dropped into key appellate posts all over the land.
Ringleaders in Congress may behave like Keystone Cop politicians, yet the movement they front, along with ambitious would-be dictators in state houses, is a greater threat to America—and consequently to the whole world—than any the country has yet faced.
Any.
Greater than the Axis forces, greater even than the Confederacy, since the United States today is the dominant world power, incomparably wealthier and more influential than the United States in 1861.
Despite the immense wreckage caused by inept American politicians and military in response to the 9/11 attacks, transforming the terrorists’ action into a chain reaction and thus causing greater long-term damage than the wildest of their dreams, this time the target is infinitely greater. It is the State itself, its institutions, its Constitution, its very basis.
The criminal conspiracy takes full advantage of constitutional constipation over two hundred years during which vested interests have blocked adequate updating of the foundational text. The original Originalists surely had no such intention, yet in time their doctrine has been understood by a few sharp-witted conspirators plotting totalitarian oligarchy to provide a perfect tool for so slowing down necessary change that the Constitution must become totally unworkable.
Meanwhile, these subversives have commandeered and financed the states’ rights and other movements to build up an underhand campaign to destroy federal power and replace the 1787 Constitution by a bespoke text, no doubt rather more skillfully crafted than the absurd personal shopping list which Putin imposed on Russia’s Constitution five years ago.
No doubt more skillfully crafted, yet designed with the same aim in view: to install a mafia State.
And what looks, on the face of it, like a diversionary movement in Congress to capture the attention of We the People, watching like cattle lined up along a fence while the gang rob the bank, is in fact far more. It is a key element in the attack on constitutional government in America.
*
As for juristic hubris in the highest of high places, No Comment.
My concern in making these observations as a very ordinary outsider bereft of specialist knowledge is for our children and theirs to inherit a happier, saner world.
It would be wonderful if what I have just written were to turn out to be complete crap.
Sadly, it is not complete crap. It is 100% accurate, and well articulated.
What is the role and power of the court to decide this part of the 14th Amendment? Could they decide in favor of not raising the debt ceiling and support default? I never thought Roe would be overturned, so anything, no matter how stupid or crazy seems possible by the “ Heritage Foundation Court”. ( sorry Chief Justice Roberts but it is not your court, you have no era, no legacy, you are only a tool to be manipulated by oligarchs).
Actually, I think it might be more of a "Federalist Society Court" these days.
Federalist Society-tool of robber barons
The "Roberts Court" has just been accurately identified and named. John Roberts, it is not your court. You (and the court) have been bought and paid for. You have probably engineered the destruction of that storied body unless this course can be corrected. That, sir, is your legacy. May it serve you well.
What the court should do, and very likely would, would be to hold that it's a political question not justiciable by the courts. Or, if they are really originalists and strict constructionists, hold that the language of the Amendment is clear.
Bottom line, no one knows what this half-assed SCOTUS will rule, regardless of clear language of 14th Amendment. BUT after case reaches Supreme Court, well after the breach of debt ceiling, then Biden can mint his trillion dollar coins and wait until that second case reaches SCOTUS well after the fact.
And that amendment does not contain the word "negotiate" - it clearly says "shall not be questioned." Biden is right to refuse to "negotiate" with terrorists - especially terrorists who are in the business of violating the Constitution and their oath of office to uphold it.
YUP! 100%!
I can't.
My interpretation of that section of the 14th Amendment and its relation to the 1917 legislation that established the debt ceiling is that the Amendment, as part of the Constitution, trumps the 1917 law (no pun intended). As such, a failure by any institution of government to prevent default on the debt would be unconstitutional. It seems that the President would have the authority to act unilaterally to prevent the default by any reasonable means, including the minting of a trillion dollar coin (to be funded by a return to the previous tax rates), or simply by executive order until Congress can get its act together and do what the constitution requires. Personally, I regard a refusal to prevent default to constitute an act of insurrection, given the known and predicatble consequences of such a refusal.
“An act of insurrection.”
Have we not been seeing such acts almost daily since the run-up to the 2020 election. These included the violent assault on Congress on January 6th 2021. Might not a refusal to prevent default be even more substantive? Even more than a Fort Sumter moment, in that it would constitute a direct, comprehensive and truly deadly attack on the United States as such.
One hopes the D.o.J. is watching the situation carefully and that the institutions of state will act as necessary and in good time. Would not failure to do so mean there won’t be much left to pick up from the floor?
Great idea, John, we should all e-mail President Biden of his Executive "privilege" to uphold the Constitution above a Congressional legislation. It's about time our elected representatives read the Constitution and upheld it. I already emailed my Congressman this morning about Amendment 14
Economist and columnist Paul Krugman just wrote the same thing. I agree. What is McCarthy going to do, put the executive branch in jail? And while they are at it, move spending from defense to the IRS to get moving on the super rich corporations and other tax cheats.
By the way, any Democrat in the house can call for a vote to replace McCarthy. At any time. Maybe once a week.
I wish they would start that process.
The constitution says “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” So the idiot right wingers think they control the purse. With regard to the debt ceiling, this revenue has already been raised as original debt and so IMHO doesn’t require House or even Congressional approval. I agree that the President should just declare that there is no more debt ceiling. This argument even stands on originalist interpretations.
In total agreement and I emailed President Biden to both abide by Amendment 14 Section 4 and if the 'idiot right wingers' (I was a little more polite than that, but I like your description) refuse to exert his right executive privilege to enforce the Amendment. I hope more of us inundate the White House with the same request. PS I had already emailed my own Congressman the similar message on upholding the 14th
"Sentiment without action is the ruinment of the soul"-Edward Abbey
Could you post that WH Number? Its time to move the heard again.
(202) 456 1111. To email type in president joe biden click on contact us and it brings up the email form, very easy to use and the limit is 2000 characters, that's more than enough.
I kinda love that! Applying "orginalist" malarky agaist their savage plot!
Also, tell them to repeal Trump’s tax cuts so that the debt can be covered in any case.
Emailed my Congressman this morning, thanks for reminding me.
I have a brand spanking new Congress(wo)man in Val Hoyle (Peter DeFazio retired). I shall write her; she's already begging me for money to "continue the fight."
Though mind-boggling, it's crystal clear to me: by pretending that they have the authority to vote against raising the debt ceiling in order to constitutionally pay the nation's bills, these dingbat right-wingers further pretend they can use this as leverage to cut SS and Medicare while continuing the tax cuts to the wealthy. I guess they figure if they can pretend in the light of day they can pull it off...looks like political suicide to me....
Call their stupid bluff--Jon Margolis said it succinctly: "The President should just announce that the United States will pay all debts as they come due."
Sophia, I've been thinking along the same lines. Perhaps the "dog chasing the car" is an appropriate metaphor. Change the "car" to an Army tank. The dog chases the tank every time it passes by. This goes on for a long time because the dog has no real hope of catching the tank, and the tank is completely invulnerable to the dog (and perhaps the tank crew are careful to avoid hurting the little doggie).
Some people believe it is bad practice to negotiate with terrorists, partly because it sets a bad precedent. The House Freedom Caucus represents a very small minority of the American People. Even the whole Republican Caucus represents a minority of the people, considering gerrymandering in Wisconsin and other states, along with voter suppression techniques.
What would happen if the tank crew stops to negotiate with the dog?
The Defense budget is discretionary spending, but Social Security and Medicare are not discretionary. Changes to discretionary spending, ie changing SS and Medicare, should require elaborate negotiations with the whole Congress, over an extended period -- not done in a hostage crisis situation.
The whole idea behind the creation of the United States of America is to end minority rule, and to establish democratic majority governance. Permanent Republican governance would be like the dog catching the tank. Our polite civil society would surely devolve into chaos. The punks should not be allowed to get their way with the vast majority of the rest of us, all rational voters included. Especially considering that some Members of Congress probably should be indicted for their roles in the Jan 6 insurrection.
He will say something but don’t wait for the R’s to be there in attendance because they won’t.
This is what republicans do when they fail at passing their agenda through legislative means. It's really another form of cheating.
What everyone is failing to see in this rhetoric from the Trumpublicans is that they are doing their level best to subvert the “Rule of Law”, including destroying our Constitution, and Democracy along with it. At that point, they will have total control of the country, and everyone in it.
"At that point, they will have total control of the country, and everyone in it." This is a point everyone should ponder at length. My guess is that permanent Republican rule would not sit well with a very large number of Americans. We have already seen Republican-led violence in the Jan 6 insurrection. It seems plausible to predict that objections to permanent Republican authoritarian rule would be dealt with violently. Civil society would devolve into chaos. We might see some form of the Spanish Inquisition (not the Monty Python version!)
The point the Republicans fail to see is that it is their lack of admirable reasoning and political rhetoric that is the cause for their lack of voter support. Failing to persuade voters to vote for them because of their popular ideas, they turn instead to various methods of cheating.
Absolutely. Total chaos. But, that’s the Trumplicans way of accomplishing, or trying to accomplish, anything. They will move us back over 200 years, not to be ruin put us in worse condition than most countries in this world. We won’t be speaking English either. We’ll be speaking Russian, or Chinese.
It’s called “Party Unity”. Problem is, the Republican Party right now is so dismantled and confused, none of them know heat they are doing. Case on point: McCarthy has been elected as Speaker of the House. What a joke!
The problem is they don't give a damn about the Constitution and the oath that they all swore to uphold and defend it. It's like meh, we will do what we want and the country and probably the world be damned.
benefits both parties..the aggrieved and the aggressors who both fundraise and score political credentials from this fake fight.
I suspect the Supreme Court leak came from Alito, Thomas or Thomas's wife, Ginny, which is why the public won't be privy to the responsible party or parties.
Once in power, republicans never fail to hold the U.S. to unnecessary economic trauma.
The GOP is a cruel and useless excuse for a political party.
Now, now.
Just because Republicans were in charge in both houses of Congress and the Presidency (Calvin Coolidge), in the ten years leading to the Great Depression in 1929?? That does not mean Pubs are always responsible for Great Depressions with bad policy.
And, just because George W Bush/Republicans were in charge of the gov in the eight years leading up to the second largest economic crash in the last 120 years in the US, the 2008 depression that permanently devastated many Americans??? Does not mean Pubs are always responsible for depressions due to bad policy.
And, just because the Republicans were in charge from 2016 to 2020 when the deficit shot up like a rocket AND the economy crashed due to tax cuts and poor management of the Coronavirus? Does not mean Pubs are always responsible for depressions due to bad policy.
And just because, in 1982, when Reagan was President, America had one of its WORST recessions in history, resulting in college graduates all over the US not getting jobs for, in some cases, years, and resulting in the first deficit spending to try to fake our way out of that?? Does not mean Pubs are always responsible for depressions due to bad policy.
Right?
:-)
What are you trying to say here, Mike? 😉
Just because TFG told thousands of already organized and prepared for violence criminals and soon to be criminals to march to the capitol and stop Mike Pence from certifying votes for President Biden, which we watched in horror with our own eyes and ears doesn’t mean Republicans are singularly responsible for trying to overthrow the government. Just because they’ve weaseled their way in through voter suppression and gerrymandering, and helped by foreign governments, dark money, delusional lunatic conspiracy theories and media news outlet that spew falsehoods to millions of Americans telling them how Democrats eat babies, and hate Jesus. Doesn’t mean Pubs are responsible for an insurrection, seditionists seated in Congress at this very moment and a continuing attack on the Constitution, Americans, women, and our economic system. Right?
Karen. RIGHT!
I have copied for posterity and to share with my Republican friends.
Thanks!
:-)
Call ‘em like we see em!
That about sums it up!
According to something I read/heard the other day (can't remember where), 30% of the deficit is a result of TFG's tax cuts to the super-rich and deadbeat corporations. 30%. In 2 years.
Linda, BUT I thought it was OK to run deficits if we make sure that the money goes to Republican donors and the richest pay no tax? Is that not what Reagan taught and sought?
It's only "wasteful" if the money goes out on programs like Social Security for people who don't donate to political campaigns.
"...Social Security for people who don't donate to political campaigns." Because they're living on Social Security and can't afford to! 👿
Nope not to political campaigns but they ALL "donated/contributed" to the Social Security program, tho - its THEIR money these numnuts want to take away! Doesnt it seem as tho that truth should be shouted from the rooftops rather than allowing the R bunch's bs to be believed?
An exercise in irony so the reader should understand each paragraph's final sentence to mean: Pubs ARE always responsible for... ?
Gosh Mike, when you put it like that... ;)
I will just agree with you on all of this, and start working. :-) Though I am retired , I still work. I might drop into the conversation later today. I find everyone´s comments interesting and entertaining. It makes a great break in my day. Thank you everyone. I just discovered this online chat, though I have read Dr Richardson´s posts for years.
Diane, welcome. I mostly lurk, because the people here are so smart and well-informed. There is more accurate information from HCR and the incredible people who post here, than any other source.
Diane,
Welcome to the party! There is enough diversity of thought and good writers to make this board with (some) time.
Welcome! You just spent the best money you have ever spent in your life.
“Welcome to the club”, Diane. We all welcome others, and their opinions. Makes this “Steady” more steady!
Right? “Conservative”?
Misnomers both
Yep.
Nazi's is more accurate.
Here’s an example of how these Dumb ones parade their cluelessness around on a poop stick
https://newrepublic.com/article/170104/go-ahead-republicans-pass-national-sales-tax?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tnr_daily
I am one of those who graduated college in 1981 (into Oregon's decline of the timber industry and in search of a law enforcement position). It took 4 years and testing with multiple agencies in multiple states before I was hired in 1985. That was in the first round of new hires in my department since "the layoffs in 1982" (they'd spent 3+ years hiring back all the folks they'd laid off before getting to us "new hires".)
RIGHT!
New acronymn? DNMRAR?
My money is on Alito. I give him a guilty verdict.
I’m taking Ginni Thomas as #2 suspect. She is a female version of Roger Stone.
Ted Keyes, thank you! It’s so perfect a pair of pernicious influences.
Dumb and Dumber 3
Out now staring Roger Stone and Ginni Thomas, with a cameo by Sam Alito
The "GOP" has been captured, bought and paid for by cynical, self-serving plutocrats. Lincoln would (presumably) be outraged. "Reaganomics", between the lines, and certainly in practice, makes the very rich much richer, the poor poorer, and government of, by and for the people an endangered species. Certainly that has verifiability been very much the trend (with the governments own statistics) over the last four decades.
Agreed.
I'm currently reading "The Economists Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture Of Society" by Binyamin Applebaum.
These "plutocrats" have many "False" prophet economists to thank for their obscene wealth.
Don't rule out Mrs. Alito. (It's always the ones you're not looking at.)
I see it as a two-fer. Both Mr. & Mrs
The new investigation of the leak indicates your conclusion. 100%
Republicans are stingy and mean, and have been since about 1880.
I completely agree. If Roberts doesn't like the low approval ratings of his court, he has only to look at Alito and Thomas (and Ginny) and others who cover their stink with a black robe.
Roberts, himself, is a fully committed white supremacist and been for his entire career. He might like the Court to enjoy better approval ratings but not at the cost of changing its inclination for guaranteeing white control of the government.
I agree with you, Deborah Carroll. I believe it came straight from Alito, which is why I keep envisioning Captain Renault from Casablanca blowing his whistle in Rick’s and ordering “Round up the usual suspects”. What a grifter.
Agree. Even a Junior level investigator could have seen this one coming. The Supreme Court has lost all credibility.
Fomenting disrespect for government institutions is part of the Republican playbook for dismantling democracy. First they cause dysfunction, then point out that government doesn’t work, then the rubes (read working class) vote for the dismantlers, and, voila, we find a kleptocratic autocracy in charge.
That was the cunning part of Reagan's attacks on "government" (of, by and for the people). And of course the ahistorical "high tide lifts all boats" theory, that everybody prospers when the wealthiest rule the roost.
From the rape of the environment to the "Great Recession" to the plutocratic tilt of our courts and laws, we are living the legacy of Reagan, and the corrupt and plutocratic neo-"GOP".
While the media had been gunning for Nixon, they seemed to eat from "The Gipper"'s hand, repeatedly dubbing him "The Great" whatever; or when caught doing dodgy stuff, "The Teflon President"
A poll from 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4631421.stm
"Former US President Ronald Reagan has been voted the "greatest American" of all time by his fellow citizens. Mr Reagan, who died last year aged 93, topped a list of 10 contenders, which featured six former presidents."
"He edged out Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King. Some of the most notable names of US history such as Albert Einstein and Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the Moon, did not make the top 10."
"More than 2.4 million Americans cast their vote by phone, text or e-mail in the poll, organized by the Discovery Channel and AOL. "
seems they are indeed above the Law and superior to the plebes they rule by now creating law.
When Roberts was asked why his court does not observe the code of ethics standards observed by lower courts, my memory is that he literally said that the Supreme Court is above all that, and that anyway no one has the power to enforce it. He presumes their word is law.
The GOP is a party that remains in power by serving the rich, big business and now more openly than ever before , racists. They get money from the former and the racists supply votes. ( along with those who hate anyone getting economic help from the government)The party is a world apart from the party that I grew up with from 1950 to 1970. Once Joe McCarthy, was out of the way, they were mostly honorable men. I will never forget the 147 votes against certifying Joe Biden, only hours after the entire congress was effectively held hostage by the terrorist insurrectionists. These are extraordinary times as Nicole Wallace says each day, at the end of her show. With luck , the GOP will shatter soon.
Even so, a dangerous, wounded predator.
My money’s on Ginny Thomas but this whitewash of an investigation never considered the justices
Want to bet it was both of them? ha ha, It was both of them. Fascists bastards!
Robert Hubbell today describes in detail why the Republican Party is a clear and prenatal=sent danger. http://roberthubbell.substack.com/
Let's take a quick look at the resume of Michael Chertoff, who Chief Justice John Roberts chose to conduct the investigation of the Dobbs case leak:
- Special counsel on the Senate Whitewater investigation of Clinton
- Protege of Rudy Giuliani in the SDNY
- Fundraiser for W Bush and other Republicans
- W Bush campaign advisor on law and order issues
- DOJ appointee who helped establish the CIA's enhanced interrogation program
- Bungled DHS response to Hurricane Katrina
- Appointed by W Bush to US court of appeals
- Member of defense team in US prosecution of Dmitro Firtash, an ally of Vladimir Putin who funneled Russian money to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine
So, I guess your point is: If any of the right wing justices came to him and said: "Hey, I released that leak to make sure my big payments from the Federalist Society don't stop".
He would not report that fact out to anyone.
This episode looked like a clumsy right-wing false flag stunt from the beginning. Liberals had nothing to gain, and much to lose. The incentives laid with the conservatives, staff and justices.
Exactly the sort of resume you want if your goal is to protect conservatives at all costs. As soon as I saw who was appointed to lead the “investigation”, I just shook my head and moved on, knowing we would never hear the truth.
Yep! That the Supreme Court has devolved into a political instrument is terrible to witness.
Now that is compelling Philip...
Ah, yes. We can only applaud the wisdom of the Chief Justice's choice.
Wow! Good job; thank you.
Wow.
❗️ ❗️ ❗️
Perfect choice? Wouldn't he know where the rocks are buried underwhich proof and the guilty party would be found?
He would know which ones not to turn over and when to stop looking under rocks.
I spent many years in DC, where Lucy is always inviting Charlie Brown to kick the ball. It is a place where cynicism and naïveté often, but not always, prevail.
The SOP for quietly suffocating a controversy is to appoint a sympathetic gray eminence to look into it, who then buys time before rendering an innocuous "judgement" after everyone has moved on.
Rather like the designed-not-to-find investigation by the FBI of Brett Kavanaugh's alleged sexual abuses.
THAT is 'weaponization of FBI' that Jim Jordan should be looking into!
He'd be more impressive wearing a suit coat. And dark-rimmed glasses. For looking into things.
🤣👏
Hahahahaha....thanks for the (cynical) chuckle. No-jacket "Gym" Jordan will go for the exact opposite direction--in full cry (like a pack of hounds on the wrong scent).
Nice one!!!
TY--I think we both have the same disdain for Gym's sloppy sartorial trademark "look".
good point!
Did you see the Speaker of the House in shirtsleeves and hunting vest?
Would he know which was the right scent?
Good grief, no I did not. When was this?😲😬
Thank you, Heather. You’re a haven of solid information in a world of bad reporting. Just today, I turned on MSNBC around noon and all they talked about was Biden and the documents. I turned it off. Curious, I turned it on about 15 minutes later, and it was still about Biden and the documents. It makes me crazy when there are so many important and crucial things occurring which are dangerous to our country and our people.
Heather, I am so grateful for you.
Network news is pretty much useless if you ask me. They fill in between real disasters with fear mongering. Once in a while they have a story that I would describe as a cute puppy story to show their loveable side. If I want to try and understand what is happening I mostly do that thru my Substack subscriptions and other reading on my own. Oh and also through League of Women Voters. The sad thing is the networks could step up and be useful but their raison d’être is to make money.
Add NPR to that. I used to depend on them. Yesterday’s noon headlines started with Alec Baldwin. Then something else so newsworthy I’ve forgotten what it was. Only third did they mention, seemingly in passing, the Republican attempt to hold the world economy hostage.
Yes. NPR is no longer a “go to”source. My friend’s daughter worked for Politico and changed jobs because of shifts in news quality.
Stopped watching ALL broadcast and cable news about a year and a half ago. Read only. Mostly on Substack and other sources that used vetted information by actual journalists.
I still watch network news but its all just a mashed review of what I’ve already read from reliable sources during the day
I got tired of the talking heads. Just the news please, you can wink, wink, nod, nod, smirk and give those “knowing” looks to the camera on someone else’s time. Not mine.
Edward Bernays (the godfather of public relations) has an astute quote: “If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” Language is powerful indeed!
Yikes!!! I guess I'm not as think as I smart I am.
Scary, but becoming more obvious each day
Journalism and medical care for profit are contaminated endeavors.
Sad, but so true.
And 1440.com
I read her column in the morning before I read the newspaper, and her reports are far more insightful than most articles in my not so humble opinion
Absolutely agree!
And I wish they’d get rid of Andrea Mitchell.
“I am struck today by how language—its silences, obfuscations, truths, lies, and hopes—shapes our world.”
Now, that’s an admirable conclusion!
Joseph Goebbels would, no doubt, agree.
With words he, and a few Nazi's, converted a huge fraction of Europe into an enthusiastic, massive mass murder operation, the largest in the history of the world.
And? Just a few lies and off they went.
What a final paragraph reported by HCR! Yes, a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United is sorely needed. For starters, people are people, not random groups of people. And secondly, money doesn't equal free speech obviously.
Corporations, etc., can not pull a voting lever. That's the point I've always centered on.
Corporations are nothing more than a kind of business license for people operating a business. Those people have a legal firewall between their finances and those of the corporation, but they still are the actors behind the logo; they still are the decision makers behind whatever a corporation does, as are you when you operate an automobile.
So it is nonsensical when someone like the fabled Milton Friedman says something like "The only corporate social responsibility a company has is to maximize its profits" since a company is has neither a mind or agency; people do; and the company is an assembly of people. If people have no social responsibility (except getting rich) then who does?
You get this sort of doublethink (or is it zerothink) even from Obama's former AG Eric Holder who said :
"But it remains true that, at some institutions that engaged in inappropriate conduct before, and may yet again, the buck still stops nowhere. Responsibility remains so diffuse, and top executives so insulated, that any misconduct could again be considered more a symptom of the institution’s culture than a result of the willful actions of any single individual. "
OK, but it is ALWAYS PEOPLE doing any inappropriate conducting (and in the Subprime Crisis, some of this was felonious). The corporation is just the way those people are organized. Surely all of those people have rights and responsibilities just like anyone else? No?
The corporation is just a convenient legal fiction, and where laws and regulation have been abused or violated, the "organization" in the abstract simply has no agency or responsibility whatsoever. The people who make up the organization do. Those people who decide and those who act is the only place the buck can stop. No?
Such an apt comment. In line with HCR's closing words today.
Well said.
Business entities which must choose a systematic form going forward as they are created become locked into the quality engendered by the legal language counsel selects to form the entities constraints. Bad lawyer equals bad contract language. Once signed the contract language is locked in. This new “business entity” is tied then to language used during its formation. The language may be altered but is a cumbersome venture if all parties involved are not like minded. Experience herein is the tutor of good counsel. A business is not always the expression of its ownership but rather an expression of contract language. Sometimes the buck runs amuck. Just saying.
They also can't feel pain, hunger, or do time.
My heart lifted at the words "constitutional amendment". There are so many excellent people in the Democratic Party. And nobody else is going to get America out of the quagmire.
Even if said amendment is destined to fail, it at least will grab attention towards a positive change instead of whatever the House Republicans come up with.
Unregulated money is corrupting our democratic republic to the core. If we don't find a solution to that problem, little else can be accomplished; and a number of the tasks before can be matters of life and death.
It may not be destined to fail. At any rate, it gives them an example of Congress serving the purpose for which they are known as "lawmakers". It might even push open a door in their minds marked "THINK".
We have to make a "thing" out of it. When I write to a lawmaker on a Web page, they often want me to select a list of "issues", and typically mine is not on the list.
It has to be a "thing" before it gets attention. That's part of what social movements supply.
I like this. No amendment has been swift but this may be one that “we the people” can champion. After all, Soros is the big bad wolf to the right, correct?
Uh-huh.
Hence, the effectiveness of phone calls? Every day?
The ultimate buck stops with We the People since self-governance is DIY by definition. We hire professional (or at least ostensibly professional) agents to champion our collective cause, but we have to figure out what we want, and live with our collectively wise or foolish decisions.
What could possibly go wrong?
It would seem that what can go wrong will go wrong, but...
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" -Churchill
And our democracy might yield much better results if we collectively cleared a lot of the anti-democratic clutter.
JL this business of governance as you are well aware is tied up in our contractual documentation known as the “Constitution “. As we all are aware people have put forward their own interpretations of what that contractual language means. The more rigid the contract the more difficult justice becomes to administer to a world which is in a constant state of change. I.E. the changes we are currently embroiled in. That the “Times they are a Changing” has never been more evident and has become a gut wrenching reality whether we like it or not. Going forward we need our finest minds and consensual backing to as you say “clear the clutter.” Language must be found to attract all parties to the table. Yes all parties! I didn’t particularly like squash in my childhood. My father was the law (whenever mom said so) and he forced me to eat squash. Mom negotiated by saying, “ Paul, that’s not a good idea.” As for my part I followed the rule of law. As I downed the squash it turned right back around and became a tsunami of projectile vomit covering the table with all eight of us in attendance. Sometimes negotiation is a better way forward in order not to ruin every one else’s supper. Although there was some cautious smirking at the table mom maintained protocol by not telling dad “I told you so.” Dad for his part, excused me from ever eating squash again. We all cleaned up the mess together and managed to become a cohesive family able to move on to more pressing matters.
Our Constitution endures because it's amendable. "Conservatives" claim to be able to read the minds of the framers, but I never put much faith in Ouija boards, and anyway, it ultimately doesn't matter. We the living are now "We the people", and it is the *principles* of law and justice that the Constitution expresses that survive the test of relevance to the present day.
No written words are free of interpretation when the meet with a human nervous system, and the best we can do is attempt to anchor them to evidence and compare our notes. It is the principles of liberty and justice that are sacred, not any one person's frame of mind, especially one those of the dearly departed. We can consider precedent, apply science, and search our collective souls to tease a just path from present circumstances; but it is its relevance to our continuously evolving circumstances keep the Constitution alive, and it's in its expression as principles of justice that allows us to do that,; rather than attempt to cram our current circumstances into a supposed freeze-frame of ultimately hidden inner world of the long dead*.
* There is a lot of remarkable wisdom supporting us from accumulated insights extending back many, many centuries, but it is useful to the degree we square it with with what we now know and need today; the region of space-time that for time being, we are a part.
That's such a good post! Yes, that's exactly it. (Mine was boiled tripe in white parsley sauce. It took 20 years and residence in Europe before I learnt that there were ways of preparing tripe which actually made it enjoyable and swallowable). I'd like the whole of Congress to read that little story.
My wife has a similar story regarding tomatoes. She still cannot eat fresh tomatoes (but ketchup and salsa are OK).
Yep. (Sigh)
It remains a logical puzzle to me that one can declare something "free speech" without being allowed to know who the speaker is.
go to Move to Amend! and call your congressional Rep.
All evidence to the contrary.
"But the main culprit, the cancer on the body politic, is money: Money, money, money. When I ran 6 years ago, in 1998, I raised $8.5 million. That $8.5 million is $30,000 a week, every week, for 6 years. If you miss Christmas week, you miss New Years week, you are $100,000 in the hole and don't you think we don't know it and we start to work harder at raising money.
As a result, the Senate doesn't work on Mondays and Fridays. We have longer holidays. The policy committee is adjourned and we go over to the campaign building because you can't call for money in the office. So we go over to the building and call for money and obviously we only can give attention to that. We don't have time for each other. We don't have time for constituents, except for the givers. Somebody ought to tell the truth about that." - Fritz Hollings
How could unlimited money to influence election results, and the media calmly accepts as a given that funds applied to political purposes in do fact influence political outcomes, not only as in important factor in determining which candidates are taken seriously, and win, but which laws are and are not passed. Certainly Senator Hollings (or anyone who thinks about it) was in a position to know. And is that not patently anti-egalitarianism and anti-democratic? Not that money is the only determent of political outcomes, but like athletes using dangerous "performance-enhancing drugs" it a big fat thumb on the scale.
The two "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" for which "the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction" stated explicitly by the Constitution are treason and bribery. Is de facto bribery, which may be technically distinguished from a direct, detailed purchase of political outcomes, yet results in a very similar dynamic, any less damaging to the integrity of rule and equal protection of law than the classic envelope of cash thrown over the transom? I don't think so.
Al Franken ( Lion of the Senate) described a similar situation to Hollingsworth.
And Senate Dems crucified him. Still pissed
Yes we did, Jeri. I wanted him to be Hillary Clinton’s VP candidate in ‘16. I feel only he could have wrangled with the t-circus adeptly. Yet, timing is everything. ME-TOO was a movement that needed to happen. Yet, we got brilliantly wrestle-pinned to back up our “outrage” at t. As Heather said, language is powerful. It’s a tool we do not always use effectively, and then spend news-cycles back peddling.
Oh, yes, he could have wrangled!
Me, too. I agree. Pun not intended.
From ‘This leak undermines the process of the Supreme Court, and I am determined to find out who…’ to ‘… move along, nothing to see here’ is astonishing. How dumb do you think we are, Justice Roberts?
The thing is, Jane, who cares who leaked the Roe v Wade finding. It didn't change a single word of the bogus decision. The decision stands and will be enforced in those States so downtrodden and bankrupt as to allow this misogynistic travesty to occur. For the rest of the States we've already enacted legislation and State Constitutional Amendments enshrining a woman's right to choose.
What matters is the degree that "justices" act ethically and professionally, and we seem to have a problem here.
Roberts described the “damage” leaking the draft inflicted on the court, but now, is the damage not so bad? If leaking the draft served it’s purpose to line up the conservative justice soldiers, then what damage was done? If Roberts is actually protecting Alito from his own investigation, it’s just another sign SCOTUS has gone from a deliberative, collection of independent thinkers to a paid army.
(No real new thoughts here, just more examples of the hot mess SCOTUS is.)
Said the person who posted the same thing twice
I’m not sure what you mean by Democrats are dumb. Maybe you should look up what it takes to put forth a constitutional amendment. In the meantime, Republicans have broken down any semblance of the Voting Rights Act and ethics in campaigning. You say they didn’t do anything, but there was the ENTIRE OTHER HALF OF CONGRESS who saw voting rights as their demise, cause they just aren’t popular. In the end, archaic rules about the filibuster and a couple of egotistical senators killed the legislation.
Is that what you meant by Democrats are dumb?
But that brain trust called the GOP…
“I am struck today by how language—its silences, obfuscations, truths, lies, and hopes—shapes our world.” Thank you, Professor, for clearly stating the repub strategy for confusing policies and reasons for their proposed laws and regulations. Could be “1984,” the George Orwell dystopian novel.
Life imitates Art or is it the opposite? Tax cuts, tax breaks, deficit spending, supply-side economics, all confuse voters, and on and on, become lies and just rhetoric to many citizens, exactly their design. They stop listening and then vote their party. Even when their vote will hurt them. I just finished watching a PBS “Firing Line” interview with Margaret Atwood, about the “Handmaid’s Tale.”The author compared some American attitudes, policies and attempts to change laws as strategies to control women, with her story of Handmaids. Who votes against abortion and even birth control? At the same time voting against family and child policies like increased subsidies for daycare and parental leave? Against Women, who they see as baby machines and belong at home. Who votes against Critical Race Theory, Truth? Who votes to make voting harder not easier? The same answer since that party voted against the ERA, Equal Rights Amendment. https://pbs.org/video/margaret-atwood-tgvkxq?source=social
Words are powerful tools.
"Words are powerful tools".
No doubt Joseph Goebbels would agree with you and Dr. Richardson.
Yep, that guy turned the entire German state, along with France and, umm, a lot more people than just Germans, into enthusiastic mass murderers........through words.
Trains were running from all over Europe filled with Jews. Jews headed for the gas chambers.
All done with words. And? It was not even hard.
Just say the same thing over and over and over again for three or four days on Fox News?
Like, for example: "Communist Democrats are stealing your money and taking over our country, let's build some ovens and FIX this problem". I guarantee the guy who lives across the street from me would start building an oven.
Only, he would have a bit of a time getting me into it.
I bet most Americans don’t know who Goebbels was and how propaganda provoked the traumatized post WW I Germans into irrationality
Dumbing down of Americans (education)...easier to control. Part of the playbook of authoritarians..and dare I say churches. Look at the evangelicals supporting things that their savior spoke against. But can they critically think??
DeSanctimonious defunding Florida public schools and giving vouchers for private schools.
Seth,
Goebbels who? Was'nt he on Saturday night live or something?
Reichspropagandaleiter Goebbels: the most influential politician of the past 200 years and, arguably, longer.
Absolutely true
Good questions. But thought processes take time and energy. That’s why such crap as “Make America Great Again” resonates with those who can’t add two and two.
Art imitates life, or is it vice-versa? The first flip phone designs were strongly influenced by the communicators on "Star Trek". The most beautiful poetry is about real experiences. Creativity exists in all spheres of human endeavor, and not all creativity is aimed at furthering the arc of justice. Some of it is dark. Identify the truly creative people in any movement/sphere and you will know who its leaders are. Everyone else mostly follows and imitates. The Right is led by members of ALEC, the Left by people like Raskin, Schiff, and AOC.
ALEC, the “below the radar” group that rules us all
All must be in service to the continuation of the Patriarchy.
Isn't failure to raise the debt ceiling a violation of the 14th amendment which forbids withholding any debts already occurred by the government 🤔 the debt ceiling needs abolished anyway it's a redundant accounting measure that's irrelevant because the nation’s debt will always grow just like America 🇺🇸 will always grow 😉
We also need fair representation in congress instead of only 435 representatives in the House the last 100 years almost doesn't not adequately represent the actual population 🙄 statistically if it was same % as when 435 limit set we would need over 600 I read in article awhile back 😉 that's the answer to the GOP gerrymandering and undue influence now of the radical rednecks
Bravo dq ! I've thought the same regards the number of reps. We are far under-served. Just try to advance an issue to one of your reps. I've been trying for 10 years unsuccessfully and one of them is democrat. (?)
YES!!!!!! And DC and Puerto Rico need (voting) representation in Congress.
Puerto Rico needs to be let in from the cold.
One person, one vote. Isn't that supposed to be the ideal? Isn't that the only way it's fair?
If Corporations are People, why can they not vote in elections?
They do. It’s just not in the unimaginative way we all think.
No, seriously, if Corporations ARE people, as John Roberts insists, a petition from a friendly Corporation that demands voting rights in Federal elections should be put forth, at which point the Roberts Cabal would be forced to accept the new voting block on the basis that it previously ruled “Corporations are People”
The response would likely be “They’re only People when we say they are, nice try Rookie, but no cigar”
The best news I've heard this year, kudos to Congressman Adam Schiff for proposing the Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United. Of course, we'd need 78 honorable Republican Congresspersons to join us to pass it and that's a tough job. We need to get the House of Representatives back in 2024, which means both the DCCC and the DNC will have to actually do their jobs and recruit viable candidates, and the Democrats here in California will need to put more effort into defeating MAGgots in the rural areas. Because we are a blue State there is a tendency to say oh, what difference can12 or so Republicans make when we field 40 Democrats, but when one of them is creepy crawly on his belly Kevin McCarthy and another is Kevin Kiley who'll lick the slime trail McCarthy leaves - we need to do better. There are some decent people in the mountains, lets help them too.
And get back the New York House seats Dems lost through a combo of Dem overreach during redistricting and Repub dark money from NYC funding vicious attack ads designed to stoke fears about (nonexistent) crime with numbing repetition. Better state-party leadership strongly indicated.
"...78 honorable Republican Congresspersons..." Isn't that a contradiction in terms? 😈 Seriously, though, totally agree about my home state CA and my former home state NY.
"Schiff has re-introduced his constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United since 2013..." https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-phillips-jayapal-mcgovern-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-rein-in-unrestricted-campaign-spending
That's why we're all here, yes! 🤗
Hasn’t it historically been TFG’s MO to hurl frivolous lawsuits at those who, say, want him to pay his bills, honor his contracts, etc.? Finally we get a Judge Middlebrooks to call him out on the practice and make him pay. Hurray for Judge Middlebrooks!
At this point, what kind of law firm would take TFG on as a client? I know that if I were shopping for a lawyer, any association with TFG, past or present, would be an immediate disqualification.
And finally;
“I am struck today by how language—its silences, obfuscations, truths, lies, and hopes—shapes our world.”
And I am struck by how beautifully, poetically, HCR uses language to make her point.
Ralph, Trump understands the American system much better than you and I and has navigated that system beautifully to enrich himself at the continuous expense of the world around him.
However, America was founded on the ability of rich men to get what they want.
John Hancock was illegally running rum into Boston harbor to keep the Irish immigrants drunk and make himself vastly wealthy.
When the British put a tax on Hancock's rum running Hancock was outraged!! He hired John Adams (a good man who believed taxation without representation was a bad thing) to work to make sure that Hancock paid little or no taxes.
At any rate, we all know where that went: The Americans rebelled and, Hancock probably never paid any taxes and spent his life in wealth after the Revolutionary War.
So, the very foundation of America is based on making rich white men richer.
This is important to understand I think. We were built this way. Accumulating wealth was always the driver of our nation. The first people came to get rich quick and did that by arriving ahead of rules, regulations, customs, ethical considerations (enslave other humans, destroy native peoples) and that has been the mechanism since. Hoard resources and squeeze out as much $ before people notice the damage you are doing. When they notice and try to rein you in keep them on the back foot as long as possible and once you can no longer do that, get out. In our world today it sometimes means forming a nonprofit charitable foundation and congratulating yourself all the way to the grave.
“We were built this way. Accumulating wealth was always the driver of our nation.” Wearing the cloak of religious-purity, I might add.
The culture of the colonizers runs deep
Back then, it seems that rich white men didn’t resemble Rupert Murdoch that much.
Well,
John Hancock DID make SURE that none of his RUM was thrown into Boston harbor by carefully directing the Boston "Tea" Party gang over to another ship carrying, tea, but, not one of his ships.
Although, Hancock and Sam Adams organized the event.
I noted the tongue in cheek or unnderstated euphemism in her statement. As in "I am surprised and appalled by how language ...."
This article starts at the heart of the problem: income disparity/wealth disparity and no one wants to pay more tax. It's been so easy to give tax breaks and so irresponsible. The mess will only continue until the tax issue improves.
When I was growing up, state colleges were very affordable (though I attended a moderately priced private one). Now we have a student debt crisis that hurts kids launching their careers and arguably hurts society. That has to do with tax subsidies which fell out of favor. But who is really richer now than they were before all the tax cuts? Mostly, the very, very wealthy. Rank and file, not so much. My dad got a robust, defined benefit pension, which has become a rarity. Jobs seem far less secure now than before the "Reagan Revolution" and perma-temps and gig employment much more common. Living wage jobs for those with less than a college degree seem scarcer so far as I can tell, and optimism seems in the toilet, especially among the younger people I speak to. What was in the deal for us?
I agree completely My state university tuition was under a thousand dollars a year if I recall correctly.
Along with Amazon, isn't it like 70 corporations that don't pay taxes? I mean, how un-American and un-patriotic is that?? Corporations in Finland love paying their taxes because it ensures that their employees are healthy and well-educated. How novel....
It would surprise me if anyone actually loves paying taxes. I don't, and I look for legitimate deductions; and yet I vote in favor of levies that serve the common good, and I support a robust public sector, such as tax supported research, emergency services, aid to the poor, education, etc. I believe that there are some things that private enterprise does very well, and some thing best done by the public. I firmly believe that some services are too vital and/or too dangerous to outside public control and supervision, and that "We the People" legitimately get to set the ground rules for *both* private businesses and government. And either way:
"Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people." - John Adams
Our President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party has the better idea : to give the common middle American a break on income taxes and by not increasing taxes on everyday necessities and for the wealthy to pay their fair share. We need commonsense policies.
Separate from the tax issue: everyone should be able to receive an education according to ability to be able to find a job after high school and if a person is able and interested, the ability to have an affordable opportunity for further career training at an excellent two year institution.
Capable teachers are needed in every area ..... a certificate or diploma is worth nothing if our students are not well taught and given work experience in their field of choice, from basics
to advanced.
Fair taxation and an excellently trained workforce, properly paid and insured will assist in providing a healthy nation.
it is with so much thanks that we read your daily views on the affairs of the world, and in particular during these tortured and challenging times. Thank you, many times, over for your work and your persistence. We as a people are the better for it.
If they mess up our economy, along with the World’s too, I think I’ll buy voodoo dolls. I’m open to learning new things if anyone has experience! /; )
That’s quite an intriguing closing paragraph. The silences and obfuscations often reveal far more than intended. They can point directly to the truth.
Silence can be deafening.
They are much used in theatre, for this very reason.
lol..
Citizen's United is one of the most egregious example of SCOTUS legislating from the bench. It has completely changed the political landscape in the US since 2010. It was decided 5 to 4 with Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito in the majority. Interestingly the dissent written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor says that the ruling went far beyond the issues brought before the court and the majority had "changed the case" so they could make a broader ruling. He also used the originalist argument that the understanding of the founders of "We the people" did not included the concept of corporations as people--but apparently the conservative majority only uses originalist arguments when it supports their view.
It will be impossible to amend the consistution to correct this given all the corporate money that will pour in to sway the members of Congress and then if it somehow manages to get through there, that will be poured into state legislatures during ratification. The only hope is that just like Roe this is ruled incorrect by a subsequent Court. The knife can eventually cut both ways.
But Democrats need to win the national Trifecta for at least another 20 years before the composition of the Court can be changed to do that.
You are so right, sorry for the “descriptor.”