My apologies for the length of this comment and for my mis-posting this in response to a different piece.
I suppose time will tell whether any of the means of reshaping muscle memory, particularly governmental and judicial muscle memory will come to fruition. Regrettably I think not. It’s not for lack of want, it is simply that the masthe…
My apologies for the length of this comment and for my mis-posting this in response to a different piece.
I suppose time will tell whether any of the means of reshaping muscle memory, particularly governmental and judicial muscle memory will come to fruition. Regrettably I think not. It’s not for lack of want, it is simply that the mastheads we see in the distance are ships of our democracy having already sailed. Through the muscle memory you eloquently recognize we have not only set the trap but sprung it. I fear that if it is the framework of our Constitution that we will rely upon to resume some semblance of what was “in the before times” that we will eventually die in the trap awaiting rescue.
For the Congress each of the remedies you suggest require control of the House and then co tell of the Senate, the former to impeach, the latter to convict
and so long as the house remains in control none of what you correctly point needs to be done will be done. No investigations, no contempt citations, no subpoenas and certainly no impeachment proceedings. It is true that there are three special elections within the next few months which, if Democrats win, will tip control of the House back to Democrats and given the public’s growing unease about what is happening, unease expressed by those who voted for and against Trump, one would expect those elections to produce the victories needed for control. Thing is. I don’t see that happening. Too much work and money has gone into creating this nightmare to allow a little thing like a special elections within to get in the way. I admit to my paranoia about election integrity but one way or the other, whether by vote manipulation or voter suppression these votes will not produce Democratic victories. I hope upon hope that I am wrong but suspect my suspicions will be borne out. The remarkable thing, as has been recognized in many quarters is the willingness of Republican members of the House to standby and let this happen. Party loyalty is one thing but abdicating duties CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION is stunningly quite another.
*All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”*
It is the House that has sole responsibility for taxation and spending, not the executive, not the courts and certainly not a private citizen, that is in the context of governance that has served us for more than 250 years, yet House Republicans appear perfectly content to standby by and allow a private citizen (with the support of a President who frankly has no understanding of nor interest in understanding the Constitutional framework for governance) to cancel departments, programs and numerous forms of spending, all created by law, without as much as “by your leave”. To be clear it is the job of Congress to control taxation and spending. It is frankly its most consequential job and if it’s Republican members aren’t in the House to exercise that power then what the fuck are they there to do? Vote on Trump’s policies? As has been made clear he doesn’t need them to do that…he and Musk and Vought and the others have made clear their disdain for Congressional oversight in any form so why are they there? Why did they bother running? Easy access to media attention? Great health benefits? At some point, perhaps not in our lifetime this will turn around and history will again record with some semblance of factual correctness what Republicans are doing and ask why
As for the Court with respect the reshaping of the Supreme Court was not Trump’s doing. Yes, he presided over the appointment of three of its current members (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett) but their nominations were all the product of efforts by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society which has poured millions of dollars into creating the supermajority that currently has a stranglehold on the court. While this Court, the Robert’s Court, has rendered numerous decisions that have served to gradually erode protections many came to rely upon, two decisions at, in particular, responsible for the dismantling we are currently witnessing: *Citizens United* and *Trump v. United States*. The former has been sufficiently dissected for its impact on our body politic to obviate the need for further discourse. The *Trump* decision, however is playing out in real time and is certain to have so critical an impact in the months ahead that the very fate of our democracy will hang in the balance. The decision, of course, dealt with the question of whether Trump (broadly and disingenuously referred to as “a President”) is to be immune from prosecution for actions which are alleged by prosecutors and grand juries to be criminal during his/her tenure as President. The dicta of the decision…the language which both explains and expands upon the reasoning behind the decision…however not simply explained the decision but went well beyond the confines of the appeal to expand and redefine the role of the executive. To that point, the actions of Richard Nixon were the standard against which Presidential authority was to be gauged and from that conduct a clear understanding that the President was not above the law and could and should be held accountable for his criminal conduct. Roberts obviously disagreed and in so doing provided so broad an interpretation of Presidential authority that there is virtually nothing a President does is illegal. To ensure that Trump (and, to be clear, he was writing about and in anticipation of a Trump presidency) was afforded a wide buffer between himself and accountability, Robert’s bestowed not simply absolute immunity but “presumptive immunity” so-called, “presumptive privilege”, meaning that every action he takes regardless of its character and intent are presumed to be privileged and thus protected unless the government, in prosecuting claims of criminal conduct, can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions were not taken in his official capacity lest the President be “chilled from taking the bold and unhesitating action required of his office. Despite the breadth of the safety net afforded by this extreme interpretation of presidential power, Roberts didn’t stop there, extending the immunity to what he called “the outer perimeter of his presidential authority”, writing, “Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”
To be sure much of Project 2025 was written based upon Robert’s’ decision and given the connection between the Project and the Court via the Federalist Society the Roberts decision may very well have been written to provide the Project with the cover it needed to write policy that cut the role of Congress out of the picture and provide Trump with the power he and they crave.
As I said, Mike, we are ensnared by a trap of our own design. I would count on neither Congress nor the Courts to free us from its grip. If there is hope perhaps it lies with the will of the people, through protests in the streets and confrontations at town halls…quiet but pointed protest and resistance that will continue to grow and attract more folks as the impact of the trap is brought home to millions regardless of who they voted for. Short of that resistance being put down by force (there is a reason why Hegseth, Patel and Bondi are where they are) the weight of those protests may…may…begin the turn the tide. While I hope I am wrong about the coming elections, fear nothing else will work.
My apologies for the length of this comment and for my mis-posting this in response to a different piece.
I suppose time will tell whether any of the means of reshaping muscle memory, particularly governmental and judicial muscle memory will come to fruition. Regrettably I think not. It’s not for lack of want, it is simply that the mastheads we see in the distance are ships of our democracy having already sailed. Through the muscle memory you eloquently recognize we have not only set the trap but sprung it. I fear that if it is the framework of our Constitution that we will rely upon to resume some semblance of what was “in the before times” that we will eventually die in the trap awaiting rescue.
For the Congress each of the remedies you suggest require control of the House and then co tell of the Senate, the former to impeach, the latter to convict
and so long as the house remains in control none of what you correctly point needs to be done will be done. No investigations, no contempt citations, no subpoenas and certainly no impeachment proceedings. It is true that there are three special elections within the next few months which, if Democrats win, will tip control of the House back to Democrats and given the public’s growing unease about what is happening, unease expressed by those who voted for and against Trump, one would expect those elections to produce the victories needed for control. Thing is. I don’t see that happening. Too much work and money has gone into creating this nightmare to allow a little thing like a special elections within to get in the way. I admit to my paranoia about election integrity but one way or the other, whether by vote manipulation or voter suppression these votes will not produce Democratic victories. I hope upon hope that I am wrong but suspect my suspicions will be borne out. The remarkable thing, as has been recognized in many quarters is the willingness of Republican members of the House to standby and let this happen. Party loyalty is one thing but abdicating duties CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION is stunningly quite another.
*All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”*
It is the House that has sole responsibility for taxation and spending, not the executive, not the courts and certainly not a private citizen, that is in the context of governance that has served us for more than 250 years, yet House Republicans appear perfectly content to standby by and allow a private citizen (with the support of a President who frankly has no understanding of nor interest in understanding the Constitutional framework for governance) to cancel departments, programs and numerous forms of spending, all created by law, without as much as “by your leave”. To be clear it is the job of Congress to control taxation and spending. It is frankly its most consequential job and if it’s Republican members aren’t in the House to exercise that power then what the fuck are they there to do? Vote on Trump’s policies? As has been made clear he doesn’t need them to do that…he and Musk and Vought and the others have made clear their disdain for Congressional oversight in any form so why are they there? Why did they bother running? Easy access to media attention? Great health benefits? At some point, perhaps not in our lifetime this will turn around and history will again record with some semblance of factual correctness what Republicans are doing and ask why
As for the Court with respect the reshaping of the Supreme Court was not Trump’s doing. Yes, he presided over the appointment of three of its current members (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett) but their nominations were all the product of efforts by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society which has poured millions of dollars into creating the supermajority that currently has a stranglehold on the court. While this Court, the Robert’s Court, has rendered numerous decisions that have served to gradually erode protections many came to rely upon, two decisions at, in particular, responsible for the dismantling we are currently witnessing: *Citizens United* and *Trump v. United States*. The former has been sufficiently dissected for its impact on our body politic to obviate the need for further discourse. The *Trump* decision, however is playing out in real time and is certain to have so critical an impact in the months ahead that the very fate of our democracy will hang in the balance. The decision, of course, dealt with the question of whether Trump (broadly and disingenuously referred to as “a President”) is to be immune from prosecution for actions which are alleged by prosecutors and grand juries to be criminal during his/her tenure as President. The dicta of the decision…the language which both explains and expands upon the reasoning behind the decision…however not simply explained the decision but went well beyond the confines of the appeal to expand and redefine the role of the executive. To that point, the actions of Richard Nixon were the standard against which Presidential authority was to be gauged and from that conduct a clear understanding that the President was not above the law and could and should be held accountable for his criminal conduct. Roberts obviously disagreed and in so doing provided so broad an interpretation of Presidential authority that there is virtually nothing a President does is illegal. To ensure that Trump (and, to be clear, he was writing about and in anticipation of a Trump presidency) was afforded a wide buffer between himself and accountability, Robert’s bestowed not simply absolute immunity but “presumptive immunity” so-called, “presumptive privilege”, meaning that every action he takes regardless of its character and intent are presumed to be privileged and thus protected unless the government, in prosecuting claims of criminal conduct, can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions were not taken in his official capacity lest the President be “chilled from taking the bold and unhesitating action required of his office. Despite the breadth of the safety net afforded by this extreme interpretation of presidential power, Roberts didn’t stop there, extending the immunity to what he called “the outer perimeter of his presidential authority”, writing, “Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”
To be sure much of Project 2025 was written based upon Robert’s’ decision and given the connection between the Project and the Court via the Federalist Society the Roberts decision may very well have been written to provide the Project with the cover it needed to write policy that cut the role of Congress out of the picture and provide Trump with the power he and they crave.
As I said, Mike, we are ensnared by a trap of our own design. I would count on neither Congress nor the Courts to free us from its grip. If there is hope perhaps it lies with the will of the people, through protests in the streets and confrontations at town halls…quiet but pointed protest and resistance that will continue to grow and attract more folks as the impact of the trap is brought home to millions regardless of who they voted for. Short of that resistance being put down by force (there is a reason why Hegseth, Patel and Bondi are where they are) the weight of those protests may…may…begin the turn the tide. While I hope I am wrong about the coming elections, fear nothing else will work.