Republic’s End: Trump’s National Emergency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Che Pasa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet AIPAC and ADL are defending this scumbag.

@nihil obstet

The
internet doesn’t seem to agree with you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ponderer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Hugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Constitution is a suicide pact.

DMC

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

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

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

Che Pasa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, slavery is in the Constitution:

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

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

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

[This allowed the importation of slaves until 1808.]

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

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

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

[This dealt primarily with runaway slaves.]

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

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

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

[Abolished slavery.]

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

[Denied restitution and compensation for freed slaves.]

@nihil obstet
@Hugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per the 1790 Census

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Hugh

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

@different clue

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

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

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

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

@ponderer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ponderer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ponderer,

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

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

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

@Hugh

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

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

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

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

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

@different clue

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ponderer

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

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

@nihil obstet

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

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

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

Or perhaps it was

@ponderer

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

No, it isn’t.

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

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

@ponderer

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

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

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

@ponderer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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