A Few Things to Chew On
Between the Holidays and bugs that have laid low both my respiratory and digestive systems, this blog has lain fallow for a week. Let’s get back into action with a cursory review of several recent news items.
WILL THE SUPREME COURT FOLLOW THE LAW?
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. – 14th Amendment, Section 3
Ever since both the Supreme Court of Colorado and the Secretary of State in Maine ruled that Trump could be removed from the ballot in those states under this amendment, there has been voluminous commentary about whether those actions are legitimate under the plain language of the provision…as well as asking, SHOULD THEY BE EXECUTED EVEN IF LEGITIMATE?
The Colorado courts found Trump to have met the definition of being an insurrectionist, and/or giving such aid and comfort. The CO Supreme Court also found the amendment to apply to the office of the president. So they followed the law to its obvious conclusion.
SCOTUS will be facing this question sooner rather than later. What will they do? The awkward reality is that the dominant wing of the court claims to adhere to “textualism” and “originalism,” i.e., what does the plain language say, and what did the initial authors intend?.
Seems clear to me. Will it to them? And will Clarence Thomas, whose wife was neck-deep in the plot, recuse?
Many voices are calling for Trump to be on the ballot, because enforcing the constitution would have the “undemocratic” result of taking the decision on Trump’s fitness for office out of the hands of voters, and further erode trust in the institutions of our government…or because it would anger his legions of cult followers, some of whom would resort to violence.
As for that first argument, I’d respond that NOT enforcing the plain language will further erode that trust – trust that has been undermined, intentionally I’d argue, by Trump and his minions. As for the second argument – incipient violence – enforce the law when they act out. Period.
Let’s not forget that the conundrum the Supreme Court and the country face regarding whether to remove Trump from the ballot is before us because a Republican Congress – especially those in the Senate – failed to hold him accountable in EITHER impeachment trial, despite masterful, fact-filled prosecutions…and because the DOJ dragged its feet on investigating until finally appointing bulldog Jack Smith.
NIKKI HALEY CAN’T MANAGE TO SAY “THE CIVIL WAR OCCURRED BECAUSE SOUTHERN ARISTOCRATS WANTED TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO ENSLAVE PEOPLE”
First of all, let’s get this out of the way – it is pretty bizarre that a 2024 Presidential candidate is asked for her thoughts on what caused the American Civil War, a war that began in her state 163 years ago!
Nonetheless, her response, which was a mash-up of words without coherent meaning that did not include the word “slavery,” matters. It matters for two reasons: first, it speaks to her timorous character; second, because it sheds light on the character of the party that she is seeking to lead.
Had she been honest, her fellow Republicans would accuse her of being an adherent of “critical race theory,” i.e., recognizing that in many aspects of daily life racism has long been endemic to American society.
Is she the person we want heading government? Is anyone in her party? Your thoughts in the comment section, please.
“LOST CAUSE” MYTH A MODEL FOR THE BUDDING JANUARY 6 MYTH
Speaking of Civil War history, The Lost Cause, the propaganda myth that lionized Confederates as fighting for “states’ rights,” and for their “heritage” and homeland rather than for their “right” to enslave their laborers gained remarkable purchase in the early 1900s. In recent years, that farcical notion is being widely debunked. Finally. But not without a lot of resentment. Think Charlottesville 2017.
The same sort of myth was cropping up about the J-6 riot even as it was occurring…and continues to this day. Conservative media was hypothesizing that the riots were really by Antifa…and BLM…and even FBI agents, all acting to discredit Trump. Here’s a sampling…
“Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures. You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.” – Andrew Clyde (R-GA) at a hearing in May 2021
“…Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens participating in legitimate political discourse..” – RNC resolution to formally censure them and discontinue any support for them in the Republican Party.”
“How many of these guys are feds?” – Utah Senator Mike Lee, in twitter post that included footage of a violence between rioters and police
“Why am I the only person, on this stage at least, who can say that Jan. 6 now does look like it was an inside job?” – Vivek Ramaswamy, GOP presidential hopeful (guffaw!) at their December debate
