Showing posts with label 14th Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 14th Amendment. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 01, 2026

Born a Citizen... For Now

If there's any good news at the moment, it's that the Far Right Supreme Court didn't go completely evil and nuke birthright citizenship from orbit (via Lawrence Hurley at NBC News):

The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s contentious attempt to limit citizenship at birth for those born on U.S. soil, delivering a major blow to his agenda.

The court, divided 6-3, ruled that the executive order Trump issued Jan. 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, was unlawful. Five justices said the order fell afoul of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to bestow birthright citizenship on almost anyone born in the U.S.

One justice, conservative Brett Kavanaugh, said the order violated federal law but not the Constitution.

It's like, Brett, what the hell you thinking about when the other five Justices are pointing to the obvious 14th Amendment answer but you're out there waving a different flag no one asked you to wave? If you're trying to impress that one law professor you gave you a C in Legal Arguments 101, it won't work...

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said there was “scant evidence” for the Trump administration’s radical reimagining of how the law has been understood for decades.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he wrote.

The 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to ensure that everyone, including former slaves, would have those rights, he added. “We keep that promise today,” he said.

Three assholes Justices in Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch argued that 14th Amendment allowed trump to dismantle birthright citizenship: Thomas arguing the 14th Amendment only applied to freed Black slaves - which is wrong - and Alito arguing this would encourage more illegals sneaking across our borders - way to be a hater, Sam.

Thing is, on an obvious and direct matter such as birthright citizenship - literally written into a constitutional amendment as clear as possible - we shouldn't even be seeing a split Court like this. A 6-3 ruling isn't anything to sneeze at, but if you consider Kavanaugh's concurrence is an attempt to negate the 14th outright (making it at heart a 5-4 narrow ruling) then we're looking at only five Justices who think the amendment's language should be enough.

So this isn't going to be the end of this fight. The racists on the Far Right - desperate to end unwanted immigration from non-Whites from Central/South America, Asia, and Africa (trump is only letting in Whites from SOUTH AFRICA for God's sake) - are going to keep pushing at the 14th Amendment - where a lot of our civil rights as we know them reside - until the courts pretend it doesn't even exist.

The only way to stop that America, the only way to make sure our rights as citizens never go away, is to STOP VOTING FOR THESE RACIST REPUBLICANS. 

Goddamn this. Citizenship should be easy, not broken.

Sunday, May 18, 2025

The Far Right's One True Plan

There's a simple reason why trump's lawyers couldn't answer this question about their fight over birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court (via Amanda Frost at the Atlantic (paywalled)):

Forty-six minutes into the Supreme Court’s oral argument in the birthright-citizenship litigation, Solicitor General D. John Sauer got a question he couldn’t answer. Arguing on behalf of the government, Sauer wants the Court to prohibit nationwide injunctions, allowing President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship—along with many of his other policies—to go into effect. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, wanted to know how, exactly, the government would administer a rule denying citizenship to potentially hundreds of thousands of babies every year.

“On the day after it goes into effect,” Kavanaugh asked, “how’s it going to work—what do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?”

“We don’t know,” Sauer candidly told the Court, saying that “federal officials will have to figure that out.” Later, he added, “Hopefully, they will do so.”

Really? With this one exchange, Sauer inadvertently revealed why nationwide injunctions are at times the only way to protect the public. The administration has no workable plan for its unconstitutional order, yet it wants to take away the best legal pathway for those affected to challenge the government’s action.

The Trump administration has had plenty of time to prepare for this moment. During his first administration, Trump claimed authority to end birthright citizenship by executive order. Last year, he repeated that threat at rallies across the nation. His campaign website prominently featured a video in which he personally pledged to end birthright citizenship on “day one” of his presidency.

On January 20, 2025, Trump delivered on that promise, signing an executive order denying citizenship to all children of undocumented immigrants, as well as all children of immigrants with temporary legal status, who are born after February 19, 2025.

That order is at odds with the clear text of the Fourteenth Amendment, the original understanding, long-standing judicial interpretation, and multiple federal statutes. And it would destabilize the citizenship of many of the 3.6 million babies born, on average, in the United States every year—including those born to U.S. citizens. According to the executive order, a birth certificate alone would no longer demonstrate citizenship. All of those parents would have to somehow prove their own citizenship or immigration status before their child could be recognized as a citizen. Additionally, even babies born to lawful temporary immigrants—including temporary workers and students who have been living in the United States for years—would be denied citizenship, losing access to Medicaid, SNAP, and other federal and state benefits. Those children would be born undocumented, some stateless, all at risk of being deported on the first day of their life.

Yet Sauer conceded that the Trump administration does not have a plan—does not even have a concept of a plan—to implement this radical change in U.S. law and policy...

For one thing - as an aside - trump and his anti-immigrant allies especially Stephen Miller likely do a have in place. They just didn't want to admit it in open court, knowing full well that on-the-fence Justices like Roberts, Gorsuch, Barrett, and maybe even Kavanaugh would recoil from it.

Because the real answer - not even part of what Kavanaugh asked - is that the Republicans led by trump and by a score of Far Right sycophants who've spent decades railing against their culture war enemies want to go farther than just denying citizenship rights to newborns.

This has always been about the hardcore Conservatives of the Far Right wanting the power to take away citizenship rights of everybody else.

Remember what Frank Wilhoit spelled out

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

By taking away a person's citizenship here in the United States, you're taking away any legal protections they may have to things like Due Process, property rights, voting rights, employment rights, the right to their own bodies for God's sake. We're seeing part of that now as trump and his ICE brigands are rounding up every documented migrant - even the ones who have legal rights to be here in the US - and loading them into planes to ship them to overseas prisons, ignoring every judicial order to uphold Due Process and maintaining their rights as human beings.

Unspoken in all of this right now is how these acts can lead to American citizens - even those who can trace their lineages back well before the turn of the 20th Century - losing their rights as well. Because if birthright citizenship can be taken away by the Executive branch on the President's orders for any contrived excuse, that birth certificate you think protects you becomes a worthless piece of paper.

This has been an issue among the Far Right well before trump showed up on the political stage: I noticed this back in 2010, and it was worrisome then

See, one of the ongoing issues with the crazed Far Right Wingnut crowd is how... emphatic they are about going after those they oppose.  Anyone who makes the Republican Party looks bad gets personally demolished by the next FOX Not-News cycle.  Anyone questioning the efforts of Republicans to lower taxes for the super-rich and deregulate every industry to the point that nothing will be safe or reliable will get demonized as SOCIALIST ZOMG.  And above all, the best way they can dismiss, ignore or invalidate anyone that wants to debate them?  All they have to do is point a finger and accuse their opponents of being "Un-American."

What could happen then in a world where Citizenship is not an automatic given based on birth but instead vulnerable to the whims and interests of whichever political party is in charge of Congress, the White House, and the Courts?  Nowadays the Republicans can call you "Un-American" and that would be just another insult.  If the 14th Amendment were gone... A Republican With Authority can call you "Un-American" and mean it... which would also mean no rights under the law, no protection from immediate arrest, no Habeas, no home, no life...  This is the true danger of what the Republicans are proposing to do by getting rid of the 14th Amendment.  They claim it'll be to get rid of unwanted Illegals... but also consider that the Republicans have no love of Muslims right now, and not much love for Blacks, and very little love for Liberals... and so on, and more, and also...  Repeal the 14th Amendment and NO ONE would be safe from the charge of being "Un-American."

When we're talking about a Republican Party controlled by Far Right extremists obsessed with denying rights to Blacks, Women, Gays/Lesbians/Trans, college students, anybody they deem a "Pinko-Commie Agitator" and how the Far Right would LOVE to take away their rights to vote, work, even live in their own homes... We're talking about purges of entire populations from every legal protection we're supposed to have.

We went through this kind of nightmare before, during the McCarthyist era of "Commie" witch hunts going after anyone the Republicans deemed "Un-American." Back then, there was still a 14th Amendment in place that protected their victims' Due Process rights and overall status as citizens. People still lost jobs and livelihoods and spent decades under hostile surveillance, alas.

But if trump and his cohort can ignore the 14th Amendment when it comes to defining WHO is a citizen, they will happily take away those rights for every one of trump's perceived enemies as well as everyone on the GOP Shit List since 1972. We'll be getting McCarthyism on steroids, where not only will people lose jobs, lose homes, lose families, they'll lose any chance to fight back in the courts.

The reason we HAVE birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment comes from the fallout from the odious Dred Scott decision, where the conservative (slave-owning or slavery-friendly) Justices like Chief Justice Taney ruled that not only did Black slaves have no rights under the law, neither did the freeborn Blacks in Free Soil states. It took a Civil War and that amendment to undo the damage of Dred Scott, but the goddamned Far Right want to bring that power to deny citizenship to any group they deem a lesser class. 

Only this time, they're looking to take away citizenship from everyone not in their own ranks, not genuflecting to trump, or not offering up their worship and their fear to the Far Right Gods of Hate and Violence.

I am praying to the better Gods of Sanity and Hope that our current Supreme Court sees the dangers of what will happen in a trumpworld devoid of the Rule Of Law for all citizens and residents of the United States.

Because if trump gets his way, if the wingnut Republicans get their way... Every Black, every Woman, every Latino, every Gay/Lesbian/Trans, every Democrat, every anti-trumper will suffer. And we'll be deep into another bloody civil war cleaning up the mess of racism and hate we didn't resolve the first time.

Sunday, February 23, 2025

Erasing America

Update: Thanks to Steve In Manhattan over at Crooks & Liars for including this blog in Mike's Round Up! Please take a look around, and I am getting close to my 2,500th post so keep an eye out for anything special I'll do for that moment (haven't figured it out yet).


Ta-Nehisi Coates warned us, years ago:

His political career began in advocacy of birtherism, that modern recasting of the old American precept that black people are not fit to be citizens of the country they built. But long before birtherism, Trump had made his worldview clear. He fought to keep blacks out of his buildings, according to the U.S. government; called for the death penalty for the eventually exonerated Central Park Five; and railed against “lazy” black employees. “Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” Trump was once quoted as saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.” After his cabal of conspiracy theorists forced Barack Obama to present his birth certificate, Trump demanded the president’s college grades (offering $5 million in exchange for them), insisting that Obama was not intelligent enough to have gone to an Ivy League school, and that his acclaimed memoir, Dreams From My Father, had been ghostwritten by a white man, Bill Ayers.

It is a shameful yet common view among racists that Blacks are "unqualified," a long-standing myth since the (first) Civil War that Blacks can't be literate, intelligent, or successful. Frederick Douglass spent his adult life as abolitionist defending his eloquence, writing skills, and self-learning. It's a myth that defined the segregationist Jim Crow era that prevented Blacks from achieving better employment, and reaching higher ranks in the military until the Second World War; when the more vicious racism of the Nazis compelled America to look for our better angels.

Even after all of the efforts of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s - after all the attempts to equalize educational and employment opportunities - that racist world-view is what got trump his electoral chances to enter the White House and impose his fearmongering and rage onto the nation's already broken psyche.

To Trump, whiteness is neither notional nor symbolic but is the very core of his power. In this, Trump is not singular. But whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies. The repercussions are striking: Trump is the first president to have served in no public capacity before ascending to his perch... that is the point of white supremacy—to ensure that that which all others achieve with maximal effort, white people (particularly white men) achieve with minimal qualification. Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that if they work twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump’s counter is persuasive: Work half as hard as black people, and even more is possible.

As Coates noted, trump entered the White House as the least-qualified person ever - since arguably Andrew Johnson, who at least had political skill to win elections in his career - only because he exulted his whiteness. trump was a disaster as a businessman, filing more bankruptcies than people have had hot dinners, and yet marketed himself as a deal-making "genius" all to get people to buy his next scam. 

If a black man had even filed once for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, he'd never get another loan to start a new business ever again. But trump did repeatedly, even after banks realized he was a money pit from which they'll never get their interest back. 

If a black man got exposed as a sex offender, his political career would end in a heartbeat. trump exposed himself repeatedly, was even found liable for sexual assault that the judge equated to rape, and most of the media and national leadership ignored it all while enough Americans voted for the monster to gain - and regain - the presidency.

All of the warning signs were there that trump is a monster, and yet his whiteness became the very thing that lifted him into power. And now, he's using that power to drag the rest of us backwards into our racist past to rebuild an America that was never all that great. As Adam Serwer noted this weekend at the Atlantic (paywalled):

Since taking office, Trump has rescinded decades-old orders ensuring equal opportunity in government contracts and vowed to purge DEI from the federal government, intending to lay off any federal worker whose job they associate with DEI. Yesterday evening, Trump fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Q Brown, and replaced him with a lower ranking white official, a retired three-star Air Force officer named Dan Caine. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had previously attacked Brown as an unqualified diversity hire based on the fact that he is Black. Trump’s Department of Justice has implied that it will prosecute or sue companies that engage in diversity outreach. Elon Musk’s DOGE is attempting to purge federal workers “that protect employees’ civil rights and others that investigate complaints of employment discrimination in the federal workplace,” the Washington Post reported. Colleges and universities are being threatened with defunding for any programming related to DEI, which the free-speech organization PEN America has noted could include “everything from a panel on the Civil Rights Movement to a Lunar New Year celebration...”

Under the Trump administration, schools within the Department of Defense system that serve military families—American service members are disproportionately Black and Hispanic—have torn down pictures of Black historical figures and removed books from their libraries on subjects such as race and gender. This record, within a school system entirely under the administration’s control, offers an alarming preview—one in which a historical figure like Harriet Tubman is no longer a welcome subject in educational settings because she was a Black woman.

An OMB memo ordering a federal-funding freeze illustrates the ideological vision behind these decisions. The memo states that the administration seeks to prevent the use of “federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies,” Acting Director Matthew Vaeth wrote. Equal opportunity in employment is described here as “Marxist,” because it affirms what the desegregators see as an unnatural principle: that nonwhite people are equal to white people, that women are equal to men, and that LGBTQ people deserve the same rights as everyone else...

It should be noted that Marxism - and Communism, and even Socialism, all equated to Liberalism by the Far Right - is the go-to dismissal of civil rights, painting the Civil Rights movement as a Soviet plot to undermine American greatness (it was also accusations by the South African Apartheid system to suppress Blacks in their country). The Far Right didn't want to accept those equality gains of the 1960s, and they are desperate to undo everything LBJ, hell everything Truman and FDR and even Teddy Roosevelt ever did to advance the rights of all of us.

If the Great Resegregation proves successful, it will restore an America past where racial and ethnic minorities were the occasional token presence in an otherwise white-dominated landscape. It would repeal the gains of the civil-rights era in their entirety. What its advocates want is not a restoration of explicit Jim Crow segregation—that would shatter the illusion that their own achievements are based in a color-blind meritocracy. They want an arrangement that perpetuates racial inequality indefinitely while retaining some plausible deniability, a rigged system that maintains a mirage of equal opportunity while maintaining an unofficial racial hierarchy. Like elections in authoritarian countries where the autocrat is always reelected in a landslide, they want a system in which they never risk losing but can still pretend they won fairly...

Serwer seems to think that these acts of erasure by trump and his wingnut allies will only go as far as resetting our nation back to the segregated days of Jim Crow. But I see something more ominous, tied into the efforts by trump and his cohorts to undo birthright citizenship. They may be currently aiming at the children and families of Latino immigrants, but going after those rights opens the door to allowing whoever is in power - and right now it's that racist bastard trump - to expand denying citizenship to so many others.

I wrote about this before, when wingnut punditry and politicians were talking about undoing the 14th Amendment years ago:

What could happen then in a world where Citizenship is not an automatic given based on birth but instead vulnerable to the whims and interests of whichever political party is in charge of Congress, the White House, and the Courts?  Nowadays the Republicans can call you "Un-American" and that would be just another insult.  If the 14th Amendment were gone... A Republican With Authority can call you "Un-American" and mean it... which would also mean no rights under the law, no protection from immediate arrest, no Habeus, no home, no life...  This is the true danger of what the Republicans are proposing to do by getting rid of the 14th Amendment.  They claim it'll be to get rid of unwanted illegals... but also consider that the Republicans have no love of Muslims right now, and not much love for Blacks, and very little love for Liberals... and so on, and more, and also...  Repeal the 14th Amendment and NO ONE would be safe from the charge of being "Un-American."

We're looking at a reality where trump - backed by a cowardly Republican-controlled Congress that won't stop him and a supine Supreme Court that's already enabled trump's criminality - can erase the rights of any group he despises, which is a lot of us who aren't rich, white, and male.

With citizenship gone, the minority groups across America - Blacks, Latinos, Asians, even women (the GOP will try to carve out exemptions for White women who register Republican, no doubt), and even the handicapped (trump has a serious hate-on for them) - will lose their right to vote which Republicans hope would ensure their control of government forever, will lose their rights to own property, will lose any possibility of getting good jobs at good wages because companies will ignore or abuse them, will lose any chance at higher education (and see their basic education weakened to the point of uselessness), will lose any standing before the courts where in theory (alas, not in practice) we're supposed to be equal before the law, which was the major horror of the Dred Scott decision, when Taney proclaimed Blacks - even freedmen - had no rights. That was why the birthright citizenship clause was formed in the first place

It won't matter how qualified a Black or Latino or Asian person will be with their education, their experience, their genuine skills. It won't matter how qualified a woman will be with her education, her experience, her genuine skills. It won't matter how qualified a military veteran or handicapped person will be for those jobs or educational opportunities offered through the civil service. They will all lose their standing compared to White men who have not enough education, not enough experience, not even the skills for the jobs and opportunities that are out there. All because trump and his ilk are convinced "unqualified" minorities are taking all the good jobs away from "deserving" White men who aren't competent or deserving at all.

In this version of trumpian dystopia Black- Latino- Asian- and Native Americans, the poor and starving, the women and families fighting to feed and care for their own, will have no recourse but to submit to every demand and folly the powers that be - the patriarchy of mediocre white guys - can squeeze them and get away with it. All because mediocre White guys can't abide sharing anything with others they can't perceive as being human. They will all be erased - from the history books, from our archives, from our rollcall of legends and heroes - to allow these mediocrities the delusion that they alone are superior over everyone, even fellow Whites who won't play to those fantasies.

It's been noted before: White Privilege White Grievance is a hell of a drug.

And our nation is truly going to suffer for this. Any and all competency and expertise we tend to see in our civil service - our communities even at the municipal and county levels, where the lack of federal aid and quality of service will be felt most - will disappear in a wave of cronyism and hackery that would make the Spoils system of the 19th Century seem quaint.

All because trump and his racist allies cannot see the beauty and strength of a diverse and unified community that America could be.

That long arc bending our history towards justice is no longer tied up in a pretzel. It is now a solid u-turn back to the dark ages of ignorance, racism, and fear. The next thing we'll see is the campaign of violence and terror that defined the horrors of the Jim Crow years, and arguably a nation caught up in a tyranny of martial law under the worst White man to ever sit in the Oval Office.

Gods help us.

Monday, March 04, 2024

The Limits of the 14th Amendment, and the Need to Get The Damn Vote Out America

Knew this was coming but it still hurts. The Supreme Court ruled today that Colorado - or any other state - doesn't have the standing to disqualify donald trump from the 2024 election ballots over his act of insurrection (via Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog): 

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices held that only Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in the wake of the Civil War to disqualify individuals from holding office who had previously served in the federal or state government before the war but then supported the Confederacy, against candidates for federal offices.  

All nine justices agreed that Colorado cannot remove Trump from the ballot. But four justices – Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a separate opinion and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in a joint opinion – argued that their colleagues should have stopped there and not decided anything more...

In a 13-page unsigned opinion released shortly after 10 a.m., the justices reversed the state supreme court’s decision. The justices explained that the 14th Amendment was intended to expand the federal government’s power at the states’ expense. And in particular, they noted, Section 3 was designed to “help ensure an enduring Union by preventing former Confederates from returning to power in the aftermath of the Civil War.”

But before disqualifying someone under Section 3, the justices observed, there must be a determination that the provision actually applies to that person. And Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives the power to make that determination to Congress, by authorizing it to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the 14th Amendment. Nothing in the 14th Amendment, the court stressed, gives states the power to enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office, nor was there any history of states doing so in the years after the amendment was ratified...

In their six-page joint opinion, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson agreed with the result that the per curiam opinion reached – that Colorado cannot disqualify Trump – but not its reasoning. The three justices acknowledged that permitting Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot “would … create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork.”

But the majority should not, in their view, have gone on to decide who can enforce Section 3 and how. Nothing in Section 3 indicates that it must be enforced through legislation enacted by Congress pursuant to Section 5, they contended. And by resolving “many unsettled questions about Section 3,” the three justices complained, “the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President...”

To a layman, it seems confusing how the Supreme Court is arguing that Congress has to set the law and enforcement of Section 3 through Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, but then arguing over how that has to work in the first place. To someone like me, it's as though the conservative majority was simply trying to keep it safe for trump to stay on the ballot now and then argue over semantics later.

We need to recognize several points. The Court did not even address the underlying finding of the Colorado courts that trump engaged in insurrection over the January 6th riots and its planning, with the implication that those courts' findings proved trump did. The Court may have ruled in favor of saying Congress has to oversee enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th, but they are divided on how that could get implemented. SCOTUS may have declared Congress has to handle this mess, but they're doing so knowing full well our modern Congress is a hyper-partisan dysfunctional mess, meaning this will not get resolved anytime soon anyway.

There was a hope that disqualifying trump through the 14th Amendment would end the high risk of trump - facing criminal charges at the state and federal level (depending on how fast this Supreme Court hears trump's Absolute Immunity claim), and threatening to unleash plans to behave worse on immigration and foreign policy than he did between 2017 to 2020 - getting anywhere NEAR the White House again. Now that hope is clearly gone.

We Americans now have to hope that the 81.2 million voters who showed up in November 2020 for Biden/Harris will return to vote Biden back to a second term as President; and that trump - whose support is not as strong in the primaries as an 'incumbent' candidate should have - loses a significant chunk of the 74.2 million who showed up for him so there's no fudging or denying Biden's Electoral wins.

For all the potential schemes that trump and his Republican allies have for this election cycle - the disinformation, the gerrymandering, the voter suppression - all of that can be defeated by honest-to-God voter turnout on a scale they can't suppress.

Democrats, Independent voters who oppose the Far Right's Culture War, even disgruntled Republicans tired of trump's rampages: ALL of us need to show up at the ballot box across all 50 states (and DC) and give all support to Biden and the Democratic ticket down the line (Senate, House, state level elections, state referenda, all of that).

GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT, AMERICA.

And for the LOVE OF GOD AND COUNTRY, do NOT vote trump at all.

Thursday, February 08, 2024

That Could Have Gone Better

Update: Thank you Steve for including this article in Crooks & Liars' Mike's Blog Round-Up! I would say GO BUCS but they're not in this year's Super Bowl alas. In the meantime do sing Happy Birthday to my cat Mal the Krazy Panfurr who was born on a Super Bowl night 10 years ago! ;-)


The U.S. Supreme Court heard the matter of Colorado Supreme Court's decision to ban donald trump from the 2024 ballots over his January 6th insurrection, and by most accounts the Justices came out swift and painful against anyone in favor of a 14th Amendment Solution. Mark Joseph Stern over at Slate pretty much noted the "goose is cooked" regarding SCOTUS' view on the matter:

The Supreme Court is not going to let Colorado, or any other state, remove Donald Trump from the ballot in 2024. That’s the upshot of Thursday’s arguments in Trump v. Anderson, the blockbuster case contesting the former president’s constitutional ability to run for office. A clear majority of justices expressed overwhelming skepticism toward the plaintiffs’ claim that Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment because he “engaged in insurrection.” The only real question is what rationale the court will use to reject that theory—though one emerged as a probable consensus: Justices across the ideological spectrum suggested that individual states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal candidates, at least not without congressional approval...

The notion that individual states can’t take unilateral action to strip federal candidates from the ballot has immense practical appeal, and arguably aligns with broader constitutional principles. But it is not what Section 3 says on its face, nor is it clearly borne out by the original meaning of the amendment. Many of the justices’ questions on Thursday amounted to policy arguments thinly cloaked in the language of textualism and originalism...

Amy Howe over at SCOTUSBlog covered how much of the conservative Justices looked at the matter, arguing over the history of the 14th Amendment's actual implementation:

A central issue at Thursday’s argument was whether the question of how Section 3’s ban on government service by individuals who have “engaged in insurrection” can be enforced – do states like Colorado have the power to enforce it themselves, as the voters contend, or (as Trump argues) can it only be enforced through laws passed by Congress?

Some justices looked to history, pressing Murray to provide examples of other scenarios in which states have relied on Section 3 to disqualify candidates for federal office. Murray pointed to an 1868 congressional election in Georgia, as well as to state elections and candidates disqualified by Congress, and he noted that the dearth of examples was “not surprising” because elections operated differently then, with ballots for political parties rather than individual candidates. Therefore, he reasoned, “there wouldn’t have been a process for determining before an election whether a candidate was qualified.”

But that answer did not mollify Justice Clarence Thomas, who observed that the “plethora of Confederates” still present in public life in the post-Civil War era would suggest that this issue would come up.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed Thomas’ emphasis on the absence of any historical examples as evidence that states do not have the standalone power to disqualify candidates under Section 3. He cited Griffin’s Case, an 1869 decision by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, serving on a lower court. In that case, Chase ruled, Section 3 can only be enforced through laws passed by Congress.

Although the decision is not binding on the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh suggested that one year later Congress had Griffin’s Case in mind when it enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870, which gave the Department of Justice the power to bring lawsuits seeking to disqualify federal officials. For 155 years, Kavanaugh concluded, no state has attempted to disqualify a federal officer from the ballot under Section 3 because “there’s been a settled understanding” that states don’t have that power. Moreover, he added, “Congress can change that” but hasn’t done so.

Murray pushed back, suggesting that no state had tried to disqualify candidates for federal office because there had not been a need to do so. Virtually all former Confederates had received amnesty by 1876, so that there would no longer be a need to disqualify them from the ballot, he observed. And since then, he contended, there had been no reason to invoke Section 3 because the country had not previously experienced anything like the Jan. 6 attacks...

But on the question of enforcement, the court focused even more specifically on the possible implications of upholding the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision. Justice Elena Kagan was among the most vocal in expressing her concerns. Why, she queried, should one state be able to disqualify a candidate from the ballot and, in so doing, effectively determine who becomes the president of the United States? Rather than sounding like an issue for an individual state to decide, she said, that “sounds awfully national to me.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to agree. If the court upholds the Colorado ruling, she posited, it will as a practical matter decide the issue for all the other states. Like some of her colleagues, she envisioned possible logistical problems, observing that the court would have to make its decision using the facts developed in whatever state-court case made its way to them first. In a scenario in which the factual record isn’t well developed, she asked, how should the court review those findings? It “just doesn’t seem like a state call,” she concluded...

When the liberal-leaning Justices are questioning the validity of a matter alongside the conservative ones, it doesn't look good. That Kagan was looking at the question of jurisdiction - and that Jackson was looking at the historic element that the 14th Amendment focused on ex-Confederates reaching Congress instead of the presidency - suggests that applying Section 3 to trump running for the White House - for the moment - won't happen.

The way SCOTUS is framing the debate, they could well make it that the 14th Amendment could apply but that it's up to Congress at the federal level to enforce it. The issue of what "insurrection" actually is - Jackson did berate trump's lawyer over whether an insurrection can be "organized" or not - could also get applied to the final ruling here, although it may force a set of concurrent rulings that would muddle things further.

I had hoped earlier last month when Colorado Supreme Court made their ruling that this would be the way to prevent a violent, vulgar force like trump from regaining presidential power. I did fear that the conservative-controlled U.S. Supreme Court would try to find a way to excuse trump's behavior in some way: Thing is, the point of contention that today's arguments aimed for - the question of who has the power to enforce the 14th Amendment - did reach valid conclusions. I have to admit that banning trump from the ballot over his calls for insurrection on January 6th may not work after all.

There is still the matter of the federal court case charging trump on four counts over his misdeeds that day, with the question of trump's efforts to delay that trial set to get resolved soon - this Monday at least - and whether the Supreme Court will hear that and rewrite all of reality to grant trump his request for Absolute Immunity. THAT seems less likely to pass judicial scrutiny even for the conservative justices like Roberts.

But then again...

We voters have to take into consideration that the legal system is not going to let us off the hook anytime soon. It is up to us - to the 81 millions who voted for Biden in 2020, and any newer voters rising to join those ranks - to return to the ballot box this November and ensure trump and his Republican lackeys get denied any claim to power by our power to vote.

For the LOVE OF GOD AND COUNTRY, America. Do not vote trump, at all.

Saturday, January 06, 2024

Dare Call It Insurrection, What trump Ordered This Day

Much like the days of national tragedy - April 14th, December 7th, November 22nd, September 11th - January 6th is now entering the American memory as a major anniversary.

The day donald trump talked a mob into raiding the United States Capitol to disrupt the formal vote on the Electoral College results that named Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election.

We're now at the point where our elected leaders - President Biden himself - are making speeches about the impact and seriousness of this anniversary. As quoted from Biden's Valley Forge Speech:

Today, we gather in a new year, some 246 years later, just one day before January 6th, a day forever shared in our memory because it was on that day that we nearly lost America — lost it all. 

Today, we’re here to answer the most important of questions.  Is democracy still America’s sacred cause?  I mean it.

This is not rhetorical, academic, or hypothetical.  Whether democracy is still America’s sacred cause is the most urgent question of our time, and it’s what the 2024 election is all about...

Three years ago tomorrow, we saw with our own eyes the violent mob storm the United States Capitol.  It was almost in disbelief as you first turned on the television. 

For the first time on our history, insurrectionists had come to stop the peaceful transfer — transfer of power in America — first time — smashing windows, shattering doors, attacking the police. 

Outside, gallows were erected as the MAGA crowd chanted, “Hang Mike Pence.” 

Inside, they hunted for Speaker Pelosi [of] the House, was chanting, as they marched through and smashed windows, “Where’s Nancy?”

Over 140 police officers were injured.  Jill and I attended the funeral of police officers who died as a result of the events of that day. 

And because Donald — because of Donald Trump’s lies, they died because these lies brought a mob to Washington. 

He promised it would be “wild,” and it was.  He told the crowd to “fight like hell,” and all hell was unleashed...

There's hundreds of video clips out there highlighting the rioters attacking, getting into places that should have remained secure, waving the historic flags of insurrection and cheering each other on as trump watched his followers do his dirty work. In spite of all the attempts by the Far Right and the Republican leadership to downplay the violence of that day - claiming it was peaceful, focusing only on the parts where the mob stood around not knowing what to do next - people died. People were scarred.

All because donald trump is terrified of being seen as a loser. All because trump dare not lose the legal protections the presidency gave him.

Everything trump did on January 6th - and all the things he did leading up to that riot - were violations of the Oath of Office Presidents are sworn to: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

trump was NOT faithful to the Constitution or the office of the Presidency. trump did NOT act to the best of his ability to Preserve or Protect or Defend the Constitution. he actively attacked the Constitution, tried to stop the Electoral Count, got his followers to raid the legislative branch to undo that count, and then continued to lie about the election results - to deny that he lost - to keep his mob ready to fight in the next Presidential election cycle (which is now).

It is that violation of the oath of office that is a serious matter today, this anniversary of trump's betrayal. It is because of that betrayal of the oath that trump is on the brink of being denied from running for office again. The Colorado State Supreme Court ruling - and the Maine's Secretary of State's findings - found that trump engaged in insurrection when he incited his mob:

Trump’s attorneys also had urged the Colorado high court to reverse Wallace’s ruling that Trump incited the Jan. 6 attack. His lawyers argued the then-president had simply been using his free speech rights and hadn’t called for violence. Trump attorney Scott Gessler also argued the attack was more of a “riot” than an insurrection.

That met skepticism from several of the justices.

“Why isn’t it enough that a violent mob breached the Capitol when Congress was performing a core constitutional function?” Justice William W. Hood III said during the Dec. 6 arguments. “In some ways, that seems like a poster child for insurrection.”

In the ruling issued Tuesday, the court’s majority dismissed the arguments that Trump wasn’t responsible for his supporters’ violent attack, which was intended to halt Congress’ certification of the presidential vote: “President Trump then gave a speech in which he literally exhorted his supporters to fight at the Capitol,” they wrote...

Even the judges who are giving trump his due process are finding he incited violent insurrection, which means he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This all matters on today's anniversary because the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Colorado ruling by February 8th, leaving it to them - the highest arbiters of constitutional law - to determine what trump truly did reaches the level of insurrection. SCOTUS would have to accept or overrule the lower court's findings that trump incited insurrection, they would have to figure out what the 14th Amendment means by "taken an oath of office" and if Presidents are officers of the Untied States (you would think by common logic that both apply here).

If the Supreme Court fails here - if they go by partisan design and grant trump the right to run for office in spite of the public acts he's done - we are guaranteed future insurrections every four years on January 6th as rioters disrupt another Electoral count. It won't stop with trump, it will continue on with all the mini-trumps following in his wake.

If the Court finds that trump did engage in these riots - which doesn't require the Due Process of a criminal court trial (which trump is still facing this March) - and applies the 14th Amendment to deny his spot on the ballot, we may get MAGA riots in the streets soon after: But the anniversary of January 6th will fade into a calm reminder that violence had no place in the American democratic republic. It didn't work in 1861 and it shouldn't work in 2021.

Let justice prevail, SCOTUS. trump violated his Oath of Office that January 6th. Hold him accountable to it.


Monday, December 25, 2023

What If: The Colorado Ruling Applies to ALL of 2024 Primaries?

So, let's just say the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that said trump should be barred from the presidential ballot because he engaged in insurrection regarding the January 6th riots goes to the US Supreme Court, and even the majority conservative bench of six Republican jurists rule against trump in some fashion.

It's not a given that the six will rule for trump outright. Doing so would go against their own Originalist opinions the Far Right justices had been arguing over the years. They would have to flush down the toilet the Colorado court's detailed opinions, some of which used a SCOTUS Justice's - Gorsuch - own arguments to make the decision that the states are obligated to defend the electoral process. In some respects, trump is asking the Supreme Court to ignore a constitutional amendment - or interpret it into utter uselessness - which bodes ill for any future rulings that could ignore other amendments to the Far Right's detriment. The justices may feel territorial about holding onto their powers of judicial review, after all.

There could still be some kind of ruling where Chief Justice Roberts can retain some integrity for the high court all the while giving trump what he wants - to stay on the ballot to avoid his criminal fate as much as possible - but that would be threading the smallest eye of a needle in legal history. 

This is as much a YES or NO legal decision as we will see: Either trump committed acts in violation of the 14th Amendment and should be barred from future elected office, or the 14th Amendment section insisting on blocking insurrectionists is unenforceable and trump stays on ballot (they shouldn't be able to argue if trump engaged in seditious/insurrectionist acts to begin with, because the lower court and state supreme court both found trump did, and that it violated the 14th's requirements. The lower court ruled that it didn't find trump was an "officer" as defined by the amendment, which the state court overruled).

So, let's say the Supreme Court rules 5-4 at the least that trump did violate the 14th Amendment, and that Colorado and other states could remove trump's name from the ballots for the 2024 Republican primaries.

Okay, after all the MAGA rioting settles down, what would actually happen?

The most likely thing is that the heavily Democratic-controlled (Blue) states will take trump's name off the ballots. The Republican Party and the media may scream that it denies the voters a choice; but this isn't about the voters this is about the constitution, and the constitution restricts choices all the time (after all, the Natural Born requirement for Presidents is why we don't have a President Schwarzenegger - who was popular nationally - after his stint as California's governor in the 2000s).

It's likely the heavily Republican-controlled (Red) states will ignore the legal efforts to block trump's name, even if the state courts follow through on any lawsuits filed over the matter (it would then be a matter if the state courts will hold Republican elections officials in contempt over this). The question mark will then be the battleground states where governments split between parties for legislatures, courts, and executive branches decide to bar trump as an insurrectionist from the ballots.

How would any of this affect the 2024 elections cycle.

If we look at the primaries themselves, trump can't afford to be blocked from too many state ballots. Based on the information at the Green Papers website tracking the primaries, the Republican nominating process requires a winning candidate lock up 1215 delegates.

Why is New Jersey, a state in the top 20 for population,
stuck with so few delegates?

So let's say the states that we know are solidly Democratic - California, New York, Illinois, about 16 others - and several battleground states that may agree that trump can be barred - New Hampshire, maybe Virginia, maybe Georgia considering all the local opposition from the governor and other state officials going on - take trump out of the primaries? How many delegates will that be? 



Given that the delegate total of blocked states is around 1093 (out of 2429), it looks like trump could still eke out a delegate victory with the remaining Red/pro-trump states and get his name on the Republican general ballot.

This all depends on which states actually follow through on removing trump from the ballot. Some of these states I added may not, and who knows one or three of the Red states may see it happen if their courts rule on it and can enforce those rulings. If enough states bar trump to where he can't reach 1215, he's screwed.

This also depends on if the US Supreme Court rules against trump outright, finding his actions on January 6th are punishable by disqualifying him from every state (or at least encourage all 50 states to do so).

This also depends on if the Republican national leadership doesn't change their own primary rules in case trump does get thrown off ALL the ballots. They could try pulling a last-minute rule change to negate primaries and just go with a convention floor vote in spite of the 14th Amendment's enforcement.

While the state primary ballots are at play now, if trump survives that he still has to deal with a general election where the states that barred him on the primaries can do so again with the November ballot. The Electoral College math is slightly different from the delegate math, and if enough battleground states deny him a spot on the ballot - and refuse all write-ins - he could once again lose enough Electors to face defeat (that he could be barred in nearly half the states will definitely lower his popular vote total across the nation).

This is all speculation, of course. We still have to see how the Supreme Court rules: If they abide by the judicial review process, if they agree with Colorado's ruling, if they find trump accountable under constitutional law. If Roberts' Court gives trump carte blanche, then partisanship wins out and the legal system is truly dead under trump's inevitable misrule.

The one thing we know for certain is that elections matter, that voter turnout matters, and the majority of the nation that dares not let trump back in the White House better fucking show up in 2024 to stop him. Get the damn vote out, Americans. Stop trump, save the world.

Update 12/28/23: I may have misspoke too soon, in that Colorado has not fully removed trump's name from the ballot, as they're awaiting the Supreme Court decision and the Secretary of State won't be doing it for the primary vote.

Michigan's Supreme Court agreed with a lower court to allow trump to remain on their ballot, although I've read elsewhere - need to find that link - that the state would revisit the matter if trump is convicted in the federal case regarding his involvement in the January 6th riots.

In the meantime, Maine's Secretary of State held her own hearing on the matter and determined trump violated the 14th Amendment, so she IS removing his name from the ballot. This will clearly go to the courts as well.

Just a reminder kids that this isn't about the voters' choice, this is about the rules etched into the Constitution itself.

Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Insurrections Have Consequences. Colorado Can Block trump From the 2024 Ballot

This is breaking news:

 

Let me find a more detailed news report. Ah here, NPR has it... no wait it's the Colorado regional version of NPR, Bente Birkeland reporting in:

In a landmark decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that former president Donald Trump is disqualified from appearing on the state’s primary ballot next year.

The Justices’ 4-3 ruling concludes that Trump engaged in an insurrection with his words and actions around the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and therefore cannot hold the nation’s highest office again. 

“We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory,” wrote Colorado’s Supreme Court in its unsigned 213-page decision.

This is the first time a state’s high court has concluded the 14th Amendment’s Civil War-era Disqualification Clause applies to both the office of the presidency and the actions of the former president. Supreme Courts in Minnesota and Michigan dismissed similar complaints.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the Justices. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach...”

The ruling overturns the finding of a district court judge that the Disqualification Clause does not cover the office of the presidency. It also reaffirms that, under Colorado law, the court has jurisdiction to bar disqualified candidates from the Republican Party’s primary ballot. They also concluded that the judicial branch is empowered to apply the clause...

Earlier this year - as the January 6th rioters found themselves charged and convicted for their role in disrupting Congress' duty to confirm the 2020 Electoral votes - there were calls from various Constitutional legal experts that trump - now facing his own federal charges for his role in that insurrection - could and should be blocked from having his name on the primary (and general) election ballot. As I quoted experts like J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe earlier:

Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.

The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause...

What happened in the Colorado matter was that the lower court judge ruled that trump did engage in an act of insurrection, but failed to accept that the Amendment's definition of "officer" did not apply to Presidents. The state's Supreme Court overruled that view, determining trump was an officer under the Constitution and thus can be barred. 

Either way, the courts are finding that trump's behavior that January 6th - and the months leading up to it - fit the definition of insurrection. This is something every state dealing with these filings - I need to find out how many more states have ballot challenges - because if enough of them do block trump from even the GOP primaries, we're talking massive chaos in the 2024 election cycle.

Consider the situation if trump's name stays on in various Red states, but those tend to be the smaller states with fewer primary delegates at play. Considering the nature of the courts in Texas and Florida I doubt they will kick trump off the ballots, but big states like California, Illinois, and New York could. We could be talking about a delegate split between trump and whomever is left standing next year - it's looking like Nikki Haley, with half everybody else dropped out save for Christie, Ramsaway, and DeSantis (although he's so doomed he might not even stay in before New Hampshire) - to where neither have enough to outright win the first ballot. Chaos would be an understatement.

Consider also the wrath trump and his handlers will invoke if he's officially blocked off enough primary ballots to doom his re-election efforts to avoid criminal trials starting next year. The MAGA crowd are already primed for violence. If trump is convinced he can't regain the safety of high office through election, don't be surprised if he tries to avoid his legal woes by inciting secession or getting his congressional allies to stage some coup (even more than the failing impeachment scheme they're trying to inflict on Biden).

These are unprecedented days. All of it due to a rabid Far Right voting base that chose a crooked con artist to lead them, while the rest of the nation tries to get the legal system to establish some form of sanity and accountability to the Constitution our elected officials and officers of the law are sworn to uphold.

Hold onto your hats. The crazy train is speeding up as we head into 2024.

Saturday, August 19, 2023

Disqualifying trump

As we bear witness to the growing indictments surrounding donald trump, as we enter into a historic moment where every alleged crime in trump's name and on trump's orders all build into the Trial of the (21st) Century, there are serious questions about how far the consequences should apply to trump should he be found guilty on even one felony out of the 91 (so far) he's facing.

The implications of a guilty verdict are staggering: Not only because we've never had in American history any former President convicted like that in a court of law, but also because trump is frantically campaigning for another term as President to use that office to avoid any conviction or jail time.

It's been discussed elsewhere, and mentioned a few times at this blog, that trump could be blocked from his Presidential campaign, to avoid the risk of a convicted candidate somehow winning the Electoral College votes. There's a provision in the 14th Amendment Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof...

Considering the charges trump faces regarding his - and his allies' - efforts before and during the January 6th Insurrection, there is hope that a conviction on any of those charges will trigger that clause and bar trump from any office no matter how much he screams "unfair".

There are now arguments - from respected legal and constitutional scholars - that we don't even need a conviction to bar trump from the Presidency (and his last remaining refuge from justice). Just on the evidence alone trump's conduct merits the disqualification, according to J. Michael Luttig - former federal judge from the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals - and Laurence H. Tribe - Emeritus professor of constitutional law at Harvard - over at The Atlantic (paywalled):

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.

The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause...

And by "we," Luttig and Tribe are asking the federal officers currently upholding the Constitution - the judges, the prosecutors, the elected officials - as well as the public at large to make the call.

Someone, somewhere in the chain of command between the Justice Department or the Judiciary branch of government is going to have to step up and enforce that clause.

Someone among the ranks of Republican candidates for 2024, any of trump's challengers for those primaries, needs to consider filing a legal ruling to have the GOP remove trump's name from consideration due to that amendment. Someone among the ranks of the Republican party leadership itself - elected officials in Congress, party administrators, financial backers, anybody - has to make the hard decision here.

It can't be a Democrat making this move: Too many people - even fellow Democrats - would consider it too much a partisan ploy.

Thing is, whoever steps up to do this is also stepping up to take the hit when trump's rabid voting base goes on the warpath. We are talking about cultish MAGA followers who believe every trumpian lie, buy every trumpian grift, and revel in every trumpian call to violence. There's already been a trump supporter in Texas put in jail this week for issuing death threats against the judge overseeing trump's January 6th indictments

trump himself is still - even after multiple warnings from different judges about his public statements threatening juries and prosecutors as well as themselves - posting social media rants designed to keep his MAGA believers riled up and ready to rise up.

Anybody actively stopping trump from regaining the Oval Office - even using a lawful method - will see a bloodthirsty rampage against them.

trump may be courting potential contempt charges and detainment if he keeps doing this, but in all respect this is one of the few means left at his disposal to avoid all accountability. I wrote before that trump's political "career" - such as it is - is the last con game he's got left. There is nothing else past this that will refill his coffers to pay off his (growing) debts. trump needs to re-enter the White House and receive that OLC protection from criminal liability to save his own ass.

And we all know what will happen if trump does regain the Presidency. he dare not leave that office again. he and his Far Right allies will shred whatever's left of the Constitution under whichever excuse he can wield to ensure he stays in there - grifting and stealing millions more, and inflicting pain upon the people he hates from immigrants to political rivals - until he dies.

Should we dare risk the possibility that trump somehow wins - by hook or by crook, but knowing trump's previous actions in 2016 and 2020 it will definitely be by crook - in November 2024?

Or should we risk the trigger of open civil war with the Far Right population - already eager to fulfill their Turner Diaries fantasies - by stopping trump from campaigning for an office he's already debased and threatens to abuse again? We run the risk of that violence if trump fairly loses the next election, on a far greater scale than the violence they unleashed on January 6th.

There is even the risk that trump and his lawyers can force delays on all of the criminal trials he's facing to where he won't see a conviction before Election Day, leaving open the possibility of his gaslighting enough voters into supporting him even as his legal troubles are so serious he does not deserve that support.

Whoever is in a legal position to do so must refer to the 14th Amendment and prevent trump from a Presidency he does not deserve, and hold him accountable for the oath of office he clearly violated. This is too serious a matter to "leave to the voters," as we've seen time and again the power of the vote twisted or undone to allow the likes of trump to avoid any semblance of justice and accountability.

That may not happen, alas. The political will to make such a move is not hearty enough. It may take a jury convicting trump - either on the documents case in Mar-A-Lago, either on the Insurrection case in DC, in any pending federal indictments trump has yet to face - for one of the judges or prosecutors to push for the 14th Amendment to apply.

We best pray for speedy trials. I've been asking for the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas of this year, but it's looking like January through May in 2024 for now.

Let justice be done. trump deserves disqualification from office. Our nation needs to hurry on ensuring that.

Saturday, August 15, 2020

How To Pronounce Kamala

With Harris now selected to be the Vice President for Joe Biden should they win this November, I have to admit to my eternal shame that I was pronouncing her first name wrong. I was going by Ka-Muhl-ah, my bad.

In light of all the SOBs on the Far Right coming out of the woodwork to reignite their Birther bullshit, I realized we need to confirm the proper pronunciation of her name so we can show our respect.

So here we go: This is how you pronounce "Kamala":

N-A-T-U-R-A-L   B-O-R-N   C-I-T-I-Z-E-N   O-F   T-H-E   F-O-O-K-I-N-G   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Rhymes with AMERICA, you FOOKS.

Also, this:

Are we going to have to go through all that racist Birther shit again? Yes we are, because the fooking Republicans have no other way to rally their voters to them.

P.S. I may be mispronouncing fook. I blame Karl Tanner (Burn Gorman).


Monday, July 20, 2020

There's Something Happening In Portland

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down 
- "For What It's Worth," Buffalo Springfield

What trump is doing in Portland Oregon should terrify you. Via Trevor Timm at The Guardian:

A remarkable and nightmarish scene playing out in Portland should terrify anyone who cares about the US Constitution: unmarked vans full of camouflaged and unidentified federal agents are pulling up next to protesters on street corners, then snatching and arresting them with no explanation.
If this were happening in Venezuela or Iran, the US government would be threatening international sanctions. Since it’s happening in the US, Trump’s acting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary is defending the decision and even promising more.
The stories from witnesses and those who have been picked up by the unmarked vans – apparently being operated by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is under DHS’s control – are downright terrifying. One victim told the New York Times: “One of the officers said, ‘It’s OK, it’s OK,’ and just grabbed me and threw me into the van. Another officer pulled my beanie down, so I couldn’t see...”

Most of the earlier stories from the abducted had them shoved into vans, dragged through one or federal buildings, and then let go as though they were training runs. Later stories are more frightening with people grabbed off streets, bound as though arrested, warned they were being charged usually for things they weren't even doing, forced to sit in cramped conditions with many of them coping with beatings and bleedings, and then let go. The obvious next stage is actually keeping the abducted held on "charged" without even a chance of speaking to lawyers or loved ones.

I may be an amateur with the law, but I have a basic enough understanding to know that a lot of this violates core principles like Habeas Corpus, the Sixth Amendment guarantee to legal counsel, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee to due process, and the general idea that police brutality is a goddamned no-no (it's why the protesters are out there in the first place).

And the acting DHS, Chad Wolf (seriously? I guess Roy Stalin was already taken) under the claim of "increasing mob violence" in other major cities is threatening to spread these unbadged - and turning out via reports they are untrained at crowd control - thugs to enforce trump's vision of a cowed and quiet population.

Comparisons to Nazi Germany Gestapo have been rampant.

It is doing nothing to clamp down on the protests in Portland, by the by. Mothers are now placing themselves in harm's way to keep the DHS thugs away from everyone else (although the thugs are now firing on the women as well).

But this is trump, struggling to invoke fear in the voters so he can cheat his way to a November re-election, needing violence in the streets to make the middle class Whites terrified of the chaos. The kind of fear that stirred reactions in 1968 leading to Nixon's win.

But this is also trump, losing the suburbs over his screwups handling the pandemic, and there's no evidence that the middle class Whites are going to buy what trump is selling: The suburbs are supporting the protests against police brutality.

And this is us, the United States facing a new threat from trump's regime, one that had been focused on hurting Latino and Asian immigrants and hurting Muslims and hurting Blacks now looking to hurt more Americans.

It won't just be Portland or Chicago. It's going to be Atlanta, and Los Angeles, and Manhattan, and Boston, and Miami, and Orlando, and New Orleans, and Houston, and anywhere else trump is desperate to impose fear and suppress opposition.

He dare not win. trump's cronies dare not win.

Stand up, America.



Navy veteran Chris David stood up. The thugs hurt him. But he stood. They withered. We can stand too.


Tuesday, October 30, 2018

First They Came For the Americans Born Here, Because The Far Right Are Hate-Driven Bastards

Civis Romanus Sum.

There is power in being a citizen. The power to vote. The power to speak up. The power - in theory, sadly not so much in practice - to walk down streets and go to work, and go to eateries and clubs and temples and events without harassment. The power to stand against tyrants and say "No."

This is why tyrants twist the laws of citizenship, why dictators demonize those they would deem an underclass without rights or power, why corrupt forces do everything they can to demean and harm those they view as inferior or "sub-human".

This is why trump and the Republican Party are threatening to subvert the entire concept of "birthright citizenship" and violate the 14th Amendment to pursue their godless war against legal immigration.

This isn't about illegals crossing the border: what trump and his ilk are looking to do is deny rights and protections to anyone they would NOT deem American.

The 14th Amendment exists precisely because conservative extremists we know as the southern slaveowners pushed for the Dred Scott legal decision, where Chief Justice Taney committed serious overreach in declaring ALL Black Americans - even the Freed Blacks who lived in Free states - had no rights under the law. Horrified by the implications, the Abolitionist Republicans - no relation to the Far Right GOP we have today - made sure after the Civil War that: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's it. If the First Amendment and Second Amendment and all the other Amendments are set in stone, then the 14th Amendment should be as well. If you're here, born here or worked to become here, you are a citizen and you have rights.

To a group like the Far Right, desperate to fearmonger and demonize the Other, they despise the 14th Amendment more than any other (even the First).

I wrote about this before. The haters now in charge of the Republican Party would like nothing more than to white-out (literally) this amendment that prevents them from abusing their political power to persecute anyone. Just think of all the groups that Republicans led by the demagogue trump repeatedly insult on Fox Not-News or the other outlets: Gays, Blacks, Latinos, Jews, Feminists (really just Women in general)...

The Conservative rank-and-file from the McCarthyism Era just loved pointing their fingers at people and accusing them of Un-American behaviors. They ruined a lot of lives over rumor and lies, and that was even with a 14th Amendment assuring Due Process and legal protections. Those McCarthyites never went away: Just look at media screechers like Coulter, and Limbaugh, and Hannity, and O'Reilly; Just look at politicos like Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham so eager to violate every other person's rights with glee. And now they want to go further and bloodier than their 1950s progenitors ever went.

Do you HONESTLY THINK the Far Right will respect any Gay or Trans or Black or Latino or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Female if every member of those classes no longer had citizenship, no longer had the power to defend themselves and speak up for their rights?

And do you HONESTLY THINK those haters on the Far Right will STOP the persecutions of others as they succeed in hounding each victim into flight, cages, or the grave?

If we as Americans ever lose the 14th Amendment protections of citizenship, the Far Right will immediately go on the warpath against ANYONE they deem Un-American. And that's a list of people that can grow faster than a lot of you realize (just ask Paul Newman).

Just remember the poem from Martin Niemoller, a German pastor who was a supporter of Hitler's Third Reich up until 1934 (when he found out his own phones were tapped by the Gestapo), and who became enough of a critic to end up in a concentration camp in 1938 (He later regretted his support of the Nazis and had to answer for some of his own Antisemitic statements from that era).

He wrote later (there are variations of this, but they all follow the same pattern):

First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Where do YOU think you're gonna be on that list? Sitting comfortably on the sidelines while trump's MAGA Hat Brigades coming knock down everyone's doors once our citizenship rights are gone? You think you can last past the union people, or the religious groups?

These haters are not going to stop until they purge everyone on their personal Shit List. Your skin color, your gender, your religious belief, your political belief... ALL of that will be under scrutiny and you WILL be found wanting unless you sell yourself completely out.

You willing to do that?

What IS the cost to you if the Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment goes away?

I will tell you now: the cost will be your soul AND your life.

Stand up. Get off your GODDAMN KNEES and STAND UP AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

RIP Republican Party 1856 - 2015

(Update: Hello to the Crooks and Liars readers!  Hope you enjoy reading my blog!  Check back in, I should have a Drinking Game rules for the September GOP Debate up this weekend...)

What we once called the Republican Party here in the United States is officially dead.

Oh, the dying has been going on for some time, and in public view for the world to see.  It's just nobody did anything to stop it, and indeed far too many people within the ranks of the party encouraged and hastened the demise.

The structure and body of the Republican Party still remains, of course: however, the soul and spirit that once animated this august body has now departed.  What we have left is a shambling ghoul, with enough brain power to endlessly loop the same one-liner bursts of outrage but unable to perform more recognizable human traits such as empathy, adaptability, and long-range planning.

The Republicans began in the mid-1850s to fill the vacuum of the dying Whig Party at the most tumultuous period in American history.  While the party took on many of the Whig traits - a federalized Union, pro-business merchant/industrial class which required increased education and improved transportation networks (aka massive construction projects) - it also rallied around a radical agenda opposed to chattel slavery.  This became the singular trait of the party as the threat of slavery - driven by the southern states led by the upper class Democratic Party slaveowners -  spread to all states including ones that had been Free states for generations.

The fights between the Democrats and the Republicans in the 1850s revolved around: whether slavery should spread into Western territories, whether Northern states should assist Southern states in detaining any Blacks that Southerners accused of being runaways, whether slavery should even exist as it violated various concepts of religious and social decency.  To the Democrats, led by rich Southern slaveowners who could not comprehend a world without cheap labor to fuel their cotton empires, the call to end slavery came across as a call to their destruction.  To the Republicans, led by religious and civil rights leaders who could not accept the evils of physical and spiritual abuse, the push to spread slavery was a horror akin to war.

Those opposing views - intractable, uncompromising - led to war, the bloodiest our nation had ever seen.  The results of that war solidified the Republicans as the political power of the nation well into the 20th Century and kept the Democrats as a secondary yet stabilizing political presence that held onto power at a regional level through populist efforts and reactionary (Jim Crow) fervor.  By 1900, we as a nation were stuck with a two-party system, which keeps the balance.

There's another thing to mention called the Iron Law of Oligarchy: that any organization in a democratic/republican form of government will evolve into a group that serves its "oligarchic tendencies" (that is, it serves the needs of the elites rather than the needs of the lower-rung members).  A variation on that Law is that any party or organization reaches a moment where that group must either compromise on its founding principles to survive as an organization, or else collapse upon itself.

In the American system of governance, compromise was built into the process in the first place: the entire system of checks and balances is supposed to ensure that the three branches work in harmony, and when the factions of party emerged the rules were tweaked and re-enforced to ensure the checks and balances would make the parties aim for bipartisanship.  It becomes an issue of which oligarchs hold sway over other oligarchs to maintain a balance, through which they keep the lower classes mollified with reasonable laws and policies.

Most of the times, this worked: whenever needed, a shift in the political paradigms allowed one party to gain favor and enact reforms.  The Progressive Era of the early 20th Century, for example, was when reformer factions in both parties were able to direct legislation that fixed most corrupt practices in business and politics and also led to serious reforms such as the women's vote.

But something changed.  A restructuring of the parties after the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s led to a realignment of party ideologies.  Where conservative and liberal values were split between Republican and Democratic as social, religious, and economic agendas - Republicans were economic conservative and social liberal, Democrats were social conservative and economic liberal - in 1968 the Republicans made the conscious decision to court all conservative thought into their own ranks.

It was called the Southern Strategy, because the Democrats had gone in on passing civil liberties laws that alienated their Southern factions left over from the Civil War.  Rather than let those Southern votes alienate themselves into a regional third-party element (the Dixiecrats of 1948), the Republicans realized they could count on those voters as a cohesive bloc that would secure state and legislative powers and even the occasional Presidential win.

As a result, the Republican Party became more conservative on ALL issues, and those issues began to intermingle to where economic policy blended into religious policy and overwhelmed social policy.  Where there were points of moderation, of seeking common ground between ideological poles, the Republicans shifted Hard Right on all gears and kept going Right.

The conservative media keeps calling the strategy a "myth" or a liberal lie - and like to point out that it used to be Democrats who relied on such a strategy during the New Deal era - but the evidence is pretty strong (Hi, Lee Atwater!) over the decades that the Republicans made the moves to court and hold such voters, and to pander to them to win elections.

The Republicans keep priding themselves on being "The Party of Lincoln" yet it's been the Republicans since the 1990s who have actively sought to suppress voting rights for Blacks.

The Republicans keep pushing their own goalposts, resetting the ideological purity for their party so far Right Wing that the party no longer respects the very concept of bipartisanship, no longer considers the need for checks and balances within government to promote compromise and acceptance of issue resolutions by the majority.

As a result, we're seeing the proof of that Iron Law of Oligarchy.  Where a party must choose between survival by compromise or else self-destruct by adhering to dogma.  Rather than survive by compromise as parties did before to continue onward, the Republicans are now choosing self-destruction much in the same way the Southern Democratic leadership did back in 1860 when they chose secession over dealing with a Lincoln-led Republican victory.

The Republicans are openly choosing to nuke from orbit any much-needed immigration reforms.  The drum-beats by Trump and now pretty much the whole Presidential primary field - which will dictate the entire party's platform going into 2016 - has been one of racist demagoguery of Hispanics.  The party is pretty much burning down every bridge to a voting bloc the party was desperate to win over after their losses in 2012 proved that ethnic group was needed for elections at the national level.

The Republicans are openly running against immigration reforms that a majority - or at least a plurality - of Americans want to make it easier for immigrants to come legally to the U.S. and apply for citizenship.  The only thing the Republicans take away from that polling is just the "enforcement" part of border security, which they want to implement by building Trump's Wall (and creating a black market on high ladders and tunnel diggers) as a costly boondoggle (and no, Mexico WILL NOT pay for your damn wall, Donald).

And now the Republicans are making a mockery of our Constitution by openly calling for repeals of the 14th Amendment and its citizenship clause.  They want to end "birthright citizenship" at the expense of alienating hundreds of thousands of existing citizens - four of whom are primary candidates! - and also threaten the very concept of citizenship for millions of Americans those conservatives would well seek to purge as "Un-American" if they ever got the chance.

And there's even spokespersons among the media conservatives openly calling for slavery (!) - effectively ignoring the 13th Amendment - imposed on illegals as though that would be a good thing.

What had been two of the signature achievements of the early Republican Party -back when the Republicans were those who championed civil rights - are now sitting targets for Republican ire and proposed destruction.

And I haven't even touched on how the Republicans are calling for an end to women's right to vote.

All because the Republican Party isn't the Republican Party anymore.

It's the Southern Slaveowner Party.  Back from the ashes of 1865 and hoping to tear the United States apart again.

This is what you are now, people.  You aren't the Party of Lincoln or Grant or Teddy Roosevelt.  You're the Party of John C. Calhoun.  You're openly calling for an end to voting rights for people not from your tribe, you're openly race-baiting anymore, you're openly calling for a return to slavery as a means of social and economic dominance.

The Republican Party is dead.  All that's running in its place now is an imposter force looking to con more voters.