Supreme Court Must Decide: Is Trump An Insurrectionist?

I've heard a lot of prognostications that the Supreme Court will find some procedural justification to ignore the 14th Amendment and keep Trump on the ballot. That probably means they will ignore whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist.

If they do find some way to keep Trump on the ballot, maybe we can at least put to rest the farce that conservative justices are textualists and believe in originalism.

If they allow him on the ballot for some weak procedural issue, is it to much to ask them as individuals to state whether are not he is an insurrectionist as defined by the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment does not require a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  If they leave Trump on the ballot, every voter will have to decide whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or gave aid or comfort to someone who did.  

As justices of the United States Supreme Court they have sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Their legal training, experience and oath to the Constitution should demand that they state clearly whether or not they believe that by the text of the 14th Amendment Trump is an insurrectionist or gave aid or comfort to an insurrectionist.

This issue it before the court and they swore an oath to defend the Constitution.  If they can't say if he is or is not an insurrectionist, what good are they?

Don't Give In To Threats Of Political Violence

I've been seeing comments that using the 14th Amendments to keep Trump off the ballot is unconstitutional and will lead to violence.

As everyone should know, the 14th Amendment is part of the United States Constitution.  So using the 14th Amendment is literally constitutional!

As for violence, Trump lied about the 2020 election being stolen from him and then attempted to stop the transfer of power and in doing so incited violence.

So if he is kept off the ballot we can expect violence.

If he loses the 2024 election we can expect claims the election was stolen again and violence.

If he wins the 2024 election he will implement the plans he has been telling about and we can expect violence.  Violence from Trump's retribution and, possibly, violence from people who refuse to let him: 

 

* Destroy the non-partisan FBI

* Destroy the independent DOJ

* Destroy the rule of law

* Destroy our non-partisan and independent judiciary (he will ignore the courts)

* Use the military for domestic control

* Put his political opponents in jail

* Shut down media that criticize him.

Basically the same goals he had for his first administration, but now with better execution and still no Republican party that will rein him in.

Threats of violence should not be allowed to further any domestic political goals. So I vote to keep him off the ballot and use our intact FBI, DOJ and independent judiciary to handle any domestic violence he incites.

Why Is Trump Stalling Trials?

I hear a lot of politicians and pundits espouse that voters, not courts, should decide if Donald Trump should be president again.  As described in previous blogs, the 14th Amendment in clear text says he should not be allowed to be re-elected.  But courts are the place where Constitutional issues are resolved or at least we hope they would be resolved.

But if politicians and pundits believe so strongly that voters should decide Trump's fitness, why are they not calling for Trump to stop the judicial stalling?  If voters should decide the election, don't they have a right to know if Trump is guilty of any of the dozens of crimes he has been indicted for?  And know before the nomination and election?  If Trump is innocent it would be in his interest to get these trials over with.

If Trump is as innocent as he keeps telling us, he should fighting to get before a jury as soon as possible and be exonerated.

Silly me, I know why he is stalling.  He thinks the DOJ, the judicial system, jurors, the majority of voters, bankers, bus drivers, little old men, election workers, etc. are all against him.  The whole system, actually the whole world is against him and he can't possibly get a fair trial.

Truth is, he knows he is guilty as hell and will do anything to escape punishment for his crimes.

14th Amendment Was Written For Trump

After carefully reading the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, I was struck by how it seems to be perfectly written to fit the situation we currently find ourselves in.

I'm obviously not a Constitutional or legal scholar, but as I hear the comments from people who are experts I'm taken by how we are facing issues similar to those that legislators faced after the Civil War when the 14^th Amendment was written and adopted.

The South was defeated and brought back into the Union, but there were many southerners who would never concede they were wrong or they actually lost (sound familiar?). What was to stop these people from picking up where they left off before the war started and again elect people to state and federal offices to continue to try to break or harm the Union?  Congress believed laws were needed to prevent this. I've heard several ideas were floated and rejected before the 14^th Amendment was adopted (with some later changes). I'll admit the amendment language seems somewhat out of step with other parts of the Constitution, but I think it was intentional.

Let me conjecture why I think the amendment was written as it was and so clearly matches our current needs. The 14th Amendment applies to certain federal and state office holders (civil and military).  For this discussion I'm focusing primarily on the presidency.

The amendment says people are disqualified from holding office again "if previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,... 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.".

These are people who have shown they can't be trusted.   They broke their oath.

The amendment does not require that an insurrectionist be convicted of a crime. I'm guessing that this may have been for several reasons.  The number of people who could have been taken to court for engaging in an insurrection or rebellion after the civil war would have been in the millions.  How could you find enough unbiased jurors in the south to hear the cases?  Most southerners were themselves insurrectionists or had given aid or comfort to an insurrectionist.

Another reason for not requiring a conviction was that in general it was obvious who was an insurrectionist.  Most people did not hide what they believed and what they did.  In fact they were defiantly proud of their actions.  Again, sound familiar?

Since the vast majority of the population of much of the country were obvious insurrectionists the authors set the bar low for disqualification. If a person has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. the 14^th Amendment finds the person is disqualified from holding office again. That disqualification could then be appealed to Congress. This put the onus for prompt action to reverse their disqualification on the insurrectionist rather than on election officials or courts.

Why didn't the authors add text that said if an insurrectionist were elected by voters, that should override the disqualification language of the 14^th Amendment? As stated above, in former Confederate states, how many Confederate officers (civil or military) would be overwhelming elected or selected again?  Many voters would clearly believe that insurrectionists had done nothing wrong. They agreed with the insurrectionists. So the 14^th Amendment does not disqualify insurrectionists from voting, it just says you can't vote for a former insurrectionist. Punish the oath breakers not the average voter.

Trump brags that he could shoot someone in a public space and his followers would still vote for him. Or he could be convicted of a felony and they would vote for him. Those supporters are telling us clearly that many of them will vote for him even though his participation in an insurrection is obvious to anyone willing to objectively look at the facts. These voters seem to believe that a person who did not honor their oath to uphold the Constitution or the rule of law should be allowed to further damage our country.

Donald Trump publicly tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. If you don't believe that, you have to be willfully ignorant. On an almost daily basis he tells us how little he believes in the Constitution and the democratic institutions that have made us the leader of the world. He tells us how he will use his presidential and political power to remake our country. He had one term as president and we know how it went.  It ended with him trying to stop the peaceful transfer if power, a hallmark of our country

If we allow him to be elected again, and he begins to reshape our country in the illegal ways as he is promising, what do we do? (And no, he is not joking. Trump is only about Trump. Anything he says or does is just to help Trump.). Unless Democrats have super majorities in the House and Senate the constitutional solution of impeachment will not be an option (remember, we already tried that).  That will leave Donald Trump free to work very hard to remake this country in his image (as he is telling us he will) with few restrictions on his efforts. 

The Constitution make is clear that there are some candidates that are disqualified from holding office (age, citizenship, impeachment conviction, insurrection). Why should we make an exception for an insurrectionist Donald Trump?

14th Amendment Is Not Unfair to Trump Or Voters

This blog entry is a follow-on to my previous blog on whether the 14^th Amendment should be used to prevent Donald Trump from being president again.

Many Republicans believe that voters should be allowed to make the decision about Trump's fitness to be president again. They think it is unfair and possibly undemocratic to keep him off the ballot using the 14^th Amendment.

Of course they know that the Constitution disqualifies people from the presidency who were not citizens from birth or who are less then 35 years of age. I can only guess why the authors of those provisions thought it was important to include those restrictions in the Constitution. Certainly there are many foreign born, naturalized citizens who are obviously fully qualified to run for the position, but those restrictions are in the Constitution and will be enforced until they are amended.

Conviction in the Senate of impeachment carries the possibility of a sentence that includes the disqualification from holding office again.

So the argument that the use of the 14^th Amendment is merely a political maneuver by Democrats is false. Using the 14^th Amendment is proper use of Constitutional law just as disqualification based on age or citizenship status.

Should Voters Determine Trumps Fate?

Many Republicans are upset with the possibility that Donald Trump may not be allowed to run for the presidency because of his participation in an attempted insurrection. They believe the voters should decide whether or not he is fit to be president.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument. But then I believe Al Gore and Hilary Clinton should have been president because more voters voted for them then for their opponents. Unfortunately, the Constitution and the archaic Electoral College dictated different winners.

I would be more sympathetic to Republican voter complaints of the unfairness of the 14^th Amendment if they coupled it with calls to replace the Electoral College with a simple counting of the votes for each ticket. 

I think the authors of the 14th Amendment specifically meant to exclude voters being allowed to vote for an insurrectionist candidate.  More to come...

14th Amendment Disqualifies Trump From Presidency

You don't see presidential candidates who are less than 35 years old or who are not US citizens by birth because those qualities are required by our constitution. Thanks to former president Trump there is another constitutional requirement that applies to presidential candidates that needs to be considered this cycle.

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the US Constitution makes it clear that a former office holder who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution and then participates in an insurrection or gives aid or comfort to a participant is disqualified from holding office. The 14th Amendment does not specify the criteria for imposing disqualification. It also does not require the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or a conviction. We may eventually want an amendment, law or Supreme Court ruling to make this more clear, but for now we are faced with an immediate need and the Constitution provides a solution.

One obvious answer of who would enforce this requirement and decide what criteria they would use might be the person or offices in each state who would determine if a candidate meets other requirements to be on the ballot (such as age and citizenship).  I think the person who makes those decisions in most states is the Secretary of State.

Another option is a court ruling. A court in Colorado was asked to remove Trump's name as a presidential candidate from the Colorado ballot. The judge agreed that former president Trump “incited” the January 6, 2021 riots and backed that with evidence including testimony given to the House January 6^th Committee.

After clearly stating that former president Trump had participated in an insurrection, the judge accepted the defense claim that the presidency was not an office as required in the amendment. The judge agreed that if the authors of the amendment intended for it to apply to a former president they would have explicitly said that. The judge then refused to remove Trump from the ballot.

Granted that the amendment wording is very vague, but that sounds like a judge searching for a way to not remove Trump's name from the ballot. This will have to go to the Supreme Court and would have even if the judge's decision had gone the other way and had removed Trump's name from the ballot.

The most important thing is the judge clearly said former president Trump had participated in an insurrection. Of course, the January 6^th Committee also proved he incited an insurrection. I would argue there is stronger and more timely proof that Trump incited an insurrection.

Former president Donald Trump was impeached by a bipartisan majority in the House (including ten Republicans) for “incitement of insurrection”. Although there were not enough votes in the Senate to convict him, there was a bipartisan majority in the Senate (including seven Republicans) who believed he was guilty as charged. Every Representative and Senator who voted to impeach or convict knew that their vote would not remove former president Trump from office. President Biden had already been sworn in before the final Senate impeachment vote. However, their vote did show they believed former president Trump had participated in an insurrection and should not be allowed to be president again (impeachment conviction means the person is removed from office and disqualified from holding office again).  Their votes had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, but they clearly declared he had participated in an insurrection and should not be allowed to serve again.

I believe the bipartisan majority votes for impeachment in the House and Senate are enough by themselves to satisfy the constitutional requirement to disqualify former president Donald Trump from becoming president again on a national basis, not just the state level. As I said, this will need Supreme Court approval, but a clear reading of the text should support his disqualification.

I hear a lot of claims that Trump's fitness to hold office again should be decided by voters.  I'm sympathetic to that claim, but the 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to prevent southern sympathizers from electing people to offices in a government they violently tried to destroy.  That sounds close to the situation we face today.  We have a large segment of the citizens who seem very willing to re-elect a man who lies that the last presidential election was stolen, incited an insurrection, tried to overthrow the validly elected government (as certified by all state governments and many court cases) and continuously brags he will take unconstitutional actions if re-elected. The 14th Amendment is still in the Constitution and until it is revised  or revoked we should use it to counter a charlatan who seriously threatens our country.

 

Text of the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, to the United States Constitution

“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.”

The highlights are mine.

I'm The President! Get Off My Yard Or I'll Nuke You!

Hey you kids, get off my yard!

When I first saw Trump's mug shot I started laughing.  My first thought was he looked like some grumpy old man yelling at the neighbor kids who were walking on his grass again.  

I'm sure he spent a lot of time thinking about what image he wanted to project and then practicing that glare until he got it just right.  He wanted to make sure that his first mug shot looked presidential.  

What a clown.

Presidential Bathroom Reading Material

Mar-a-Lago bathroom reading material.

I've heard of people keeping reading material in their bathroom for when they expect to be in there for a while, but this is ridiculous.

I know political pundits have been wondering why former president Trump took so many presidential documents to Mar-a-Lago, but who would have guessed this is answer?

No Get Out of Jail Free Card for Trump

As one of the justifications for his vote against conviction during the second impeachment of former president Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell said that the acquittal did not allow Trump to escape consequences for his actions before and during the January 6th insurrection. McConnell correctly said Trump could be prosecuted for any crimes committed during or after his presidency after he was no longer president.

Donald Trump faces indictments this year from the DOJ and/or the state of Georgia. Convictions on any one of these additional indictments would be serious enough to disqualify him from ever holding office again. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says any federal office holder, like Trump, who engages "in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or who give aid or comfort to enemies of the United States" is prohibited from holding office again.

Trump is no longer president, but he is already complaining that any legal actions against him should not be allowed since he is a presidential candidate.

By DOJ rules, but not by the constitution, Trump had a "get out of jail free" card for prosecution of any federal crimes while he was in office. (Note, this GOOJF card never applies to state or civil court cases.) Now that he is out of office, we need to make it clear that these cases will go forward whether or not Trump is a candidate or even if he is again elected president.

A wealthy person can't suddenly file for the presidency to delay any federal indictments or convictions until the next presidential election. 

I am not aware of any laws on this subject, but Trump and voters should expect that any indictments this year will be be handled as they would for any other citizen. They won't be delayed by campaign contingencies, the actual election or, should he win, by any responsibilities of his new status as president-elect or president.

Trump and his supporters have to accept the possibility that Trump could be inaugurated in a jail cell or the Oval Office moved to Leavenworth.  

We've all seen enough of Trump's play book to know that once he is indicted he will use every opportunity to slow down the judicial process. He is entitled to the same legal options as any other defendant, but he and his supporters need to accept that these slow downs increase his chances that the legal processes against him will interfere with what they see as his need to campaign or serve. If you can't accept that, don't vote for him in the primary.

Trump supporters have been able to turn a blind eye to Trump's inadequacies for years. From the day he walked down the escalator it has been been very clear that Trump lies about anything and everything. He has only a superficial understanding of the Constitution, science or the Bible. He has no idea of what is expected of a US president who is responsible for the entire country. He does not understand the concepts of independent and impartial judiciary system and justice department. He has practically no understanding of the US place in the world as an advocate and defender of democracy and as a leader who protects us, our allies and and world from countries and organizations that would harm us. Laws and norms that have guided us for centuries mean nothing to him.

Trump believes the world exists to serve him. He has repeatedly shown he is willing to sacrifice the constitution or country if he thinks that is needed to further his goals. His supporters must believe this also since nothing he does seems to affect their fealty. That is why he must face the law as any other citizen would until he is acquitted or convicted and his sentence is completed.

 

Could PI Be A Rational Number?

This is not a normal post for me. Sometimes a combination of observations interest me and generate a train of thought that occupies my idle thoughts for a while. It often helps me to try to explain my thoughts as a way to guide my reasoning which is why I'm writing this post.

My mathematical skills are limited and I would guess that a mathematician could easily answer my simple question.

In math, a fractional number with no repeating number or recurring sequence of digits is called irrational. In decimal, PI is an irrational number. My question is: Is there any base/radix where would PI would not be irrational?

My guess is that the answer is no, PI will always be irrational. But working with computers has shown me that numbers that are irrational in decimal are not necessarily irrational in another base and that decimal numbers that are not irrational may be irrational in another base. (See further below for a further explanation of bases).

Here is a simple example comparing a fraction (one third) in decimal (base 10) and the same fraction (one third) in trinary (base 3).

The decimal fraction 1/3₁₀ is written in decimal as 0.3333...₁₀. The digits 3333... at the end recur an infinite number of times. When dealing with numbers in multiple bases the base is written as a subscript. The equivalent of the decimal fraction for one third (1/3₁₀) is written in trinary as 1/10₃ (again, see below). So one third is written in decimal as 1/10₁₀ or 0.33333₁₀ and in trinary the same one third is written as 1/10₃ or 0.1₃.

This is a simple example of an irrational fraction in decimal that is a simple number in trinary. My guess is that PI is probably always an irrational number, but I would like to hear why that has to be true. If there is a base where PI is not irrational, does that generate additional questions or novel solutions to other questions?

If there is a base where PI is not rational I'm guessing it would be a base that is a prime number or some exotic, non-integer base.

If you are interested, here are some further explanations of number bases.

As we learned in grade school, decimal numbers are made up of 10 digits, 0 thru 9.

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, etc

Numbers in binary (base 2) are made up of digits 0 thru 1 and numbers in trinary (base 3) are made up of digits 0 thru 2. There are many other commonly used bases such a octal (0 thru 7) and hexadecimal (0 thru F). I would guess there are an infinite number of bases and some bases are not just sequences of integers.

When numbers are written the base can be shown with a subscript. 1₂ means binary, 1₃ means trinary and 1₁₀ means decimal. A number without a subscript is assumed to be decimal.

Here are the beginning numbers for decimal, binary, trinary, octal, hexadecimal so you can see the differences. Octal and hexadecimal are basically just different (more compact) ways to represent binary numbers and are shown here just because I wanted to show them. Decimal and trinary were used in discussions above.

decimal₁₀  binary₂  trinary₃  octal₈  hexadecimal₁₆
1        1      1     1     1
2       10      2     2     2
3       11     10     3     3
4      100     11     4     4
5      101     12     5     5
6      110     20     6     6
7      111     21     7     7
8     1000     22    10     8
9     1001    100    11     9
10    1010    101    12     A
11    1011    102    13     B
12    1100    110    14     C
13    1101    111    15     D
14    1110    112    16     E
15    1111    120    17     F
16   10000    121    20    10

and so on

While thinking about this problem, I used the simple number line from grade school to explore some issues.  (Sorry, the blog editor doesn't allow accurate placement of the arrow, but you get the idea.)

Below I show decimal 3 1/3 on a decimal number line and a trinary number line.

In school we used decimal integer number lines like
+4     +3     +2     +1     0      -1     -2     -3

|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|
     ↑
3 1/3 or 3.3333... in decimal approximately

We can expand the section of the number line from 4 to 3 and then sub-divide.

+4.0   +3.9   +3.8   +3.7   +3.6   +3.5   +3.4   +3.3   +3.2    +3.1  +3.0

|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|
                                                                                        ↑
                                                                    3 1/3 or 3.3333... in decimal approximately

We can expand the section of the number line from 3.4 to 3.3 and then sub-divide.

+3.4   +3.39  +3.38  +3.37  +3.36  +3.35   +3.34 +3.33  +3.32  +3.31   +3.3

|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|
                                                                                        ↑
                                                               3 1/3 or 3.3333... in decimal approximately

We can keep expanding and sub-dividing, but we would never find a place to draw a line for exactly 3.3333.... We could get closer and closer, but we can never get to decimal 3 and 1/3.

If we try a number line again using trinary, we easily find a precise spot.

+11.0  +10.2  +10.1  +10.0
|______|______|______|
                             ↑
Decimal 3 1/3 in trinary exactly

May The Best Fraudster Win

Elephant Shit

Kari Lake, a Trump acolyte and candidate for governor of Arizona, was asked if she would accept the results of the election.  She replied something like "I expect to win the election and I will accept the results".  When pressed if she would accept the results if she lost, she repeated "I expect to win the election and I will accept the results".

The fact the she basically refused to answer that simple question means she will not accept the results if she is not elected.  She obviously is a believer in "heads I win, tails you lose".

She logically can't object if her opponent makes the same election results statement.  That would mean that no matter who wins, someone is going to claim election fraud.  Of course that is insane. 

If Kari Lake really believes she can only lose if there is fraud, why is she campaigning?  Why try to convince voters you are the better candidate if you believe the other side is going to manufacture votes?  She can't know how many fraudulent votes her opponent could muster. 

If Kari Lake really believes the other side is going to produce fraudulent votes, wouldn't she be smart to tell us how the fraud will be committed so it can be prevented? Or maybe manufacture some fraudulent votes for herself? 

So extending Kari Lake's philosophy she believes both candidates will attempt to commit fraud and the winner will be the candidate that was the better fraudster.   

Kari Lake is wrong and should not be elected.  All candidates should commit to accepting the results of elections and to doing their part to make sure that elections are fair and accurate.   

 

MAGA Voting Sticker

 

On behalf of democracy loving Americans, we thank you!

 

Trump, Stay Healthy

It recently occurred to me that I didn't want anything bad to happen to former president Donald Trump. No cancer, no heart attack and certainly no death. It's not because I'm a supporter of his or I'm such a good person that I'm above evil thoughts.

I wouldn't mind at all if Putin soon met his maker.

I think Donald Trump was certainly the worst president in my lifetime.  He has done immense and possibly lasting harm to this country. I think he is despicable and I would be happy to see him gone.  Except that if anything does go wrong with him (other than his current incurable mental illness) his cult following will amaze us all with the astounding conspiracy theories they will concoct.

All the usual suspects will be accused of somehow causing him harm. The fact that they can't find any evidence that would prove that Democrats caused his heart attack will just convince them there was foul play. Probably some some deep state cabal used the most sophisticated science to clog Trump's arteries. Remember, Trump's world class doctor said Trump was so healthy he could live to be 200 years old.

I'm sure we'll hear that there is proof that Democrats promised aliens from outer space they could use earth as a second home for as long as they like if they would just find an untraceable way to get rid of Trump. Possibly by putting small doses of something in the greasy hamburgers he eats. And that may be one of the saner theories.

If the MAGA cult can work themselves into such a rage that they attack the Capital based on Trump's fake hissy fit over a lost election, what will they do when they are convinced the Dear Leader has been physically harmed?

What we need is for Trump to lead a long, healthy, quiet life at Mara-a-Lago reading his Kim Jung Un love letters. Once the MAGA crowd has moved on to the next autocrat, Trump is also free to move on.

 

Repeal The Second Amendment

The United States Constitution is in many ways an amazing document. It has allowed our country to become the envy of the world, but it was not and is not perfect. There have been amendments to correct some flaws and it is now time to fix a remaining flaw.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed. Just take it out of the Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Repealing the second amendment doesn't mean all guns become illegal and will be confiscated. What it means is that the laws about guns must be legislated from the perspective of how we as a country want them to impact our society and not from the perspective of a constitutional right where we argue about what the founders actually meant. Gun ownership and use should not be some inalienable right. It should not be a foundational part of our country and enshrined in the Constitution. It's inclusion in the Constitution is one of the reasons we have such a terrible gun violence problem.

Most us drive cars and depend on cars to support our daily lives. But we also know that operating a car is not a right. We have to be licensed and provide insurance among other restrictions. There are rules for different types of vehicles and when and how they can be operated. Those rules are determined by legislation to fit our changing needs. For example, self-driving cars will require many new laws and regulations.

This is the way gun laws should be handled. Laws to define how guns can be used for self-defense, hunting, target shooting can be legislated just like laws that govern drivers, driving, cars, trucks, ATVs, motorcycles, etc., and without needing to quote the founding fathers or the Federalist Papers.

I believe the Second Amendment was written to provide the country with a service; citizen soldiers in militias to defend us from foreign threats which we no longer face. We now have well trained people in the military services, National Guard and Reserves that provide for our defense.

For the constitutional originalists/textualists, I don't see anything in the Second Amendment that provides guidance about personal self-defense or suggest that the amendment was meant to provide ready weapons for citizens to overthrow a misguided government. I also don't understand how the initial dependent clause can be ignored, although that is convenient since militias were male only institutions so the Second Amendment wouldn't apply to women.

And how well has the Second Amendment worked? Are we better off having it? How is our record on gun violence and the number of citizens killed by guns compared to the rest of the industrial world? We've been told for years that all we need is more good people with guns. Yet while gun purchases continue to sky rocket, gun violence increases and still more and more people are killed by guns. Clearly more and more guns are not making us safer or decreasing gun violence.

In my city we have an interstate highway where people are wary to drive for fear of being shot for an awkward lane change or just by a stray bullet. Kids are being killed in their homes from stray shots coming from outside their houses. Do we really want to live this way? And the situation keeps getting worse.

What does it say about us that guns are now the leading cause of childhood deaths? We should be ashamed. More importantly, we must do something about that.

Let's repeal the Second Amendment and start creating laws that allow reasonable ownership and use of guns.

 

Self Defense Begins At School

I suggest that the NRA rephrase one of its old sayings.

The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun in a school, is a child with a gun.

 

Possible Concomitant Consequences

I have not been closely following the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.  Rittenhouse is the Illinois teenager who says he traveled to Wisconsin with his assault rifle to defend people and businesses from rioters.  He is accused of killing two people and wounding another person while he was in Wisconsin.  There is video evidence showing he shot them.

I did take notice when the trial judge, Bruce Schroeder, ruled that prosecutors could not use the term "victim" or "alleged victim" to describe the people who were killed or shot.  I believe I read he thought that calling these people "victims" would bias the jury against Rittenhouse when he has yet to be convicted of anything.  I don't think that explanation makes sense.

Dictionary.com defines victim as "a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action...".  These victims were injured.  Whether or not they were injured by Rittenhouse, and if they were, whether or not the injuries were legally justified is what this trial is all about.  We won't know if these people were victims of Rittenhouse until the trial is completed so why not use the term "alleged victims".  The term "alleged" is just acknowledging that this is what the trial is going to determine.  

But the judge has legal training and experience that I don't have, so I was ready to give him the benefit of the doubt.  At least I was until he expanded his ruling.

He went on to say the defense could use the terms "rioters", "looters" and "arsonists" to describe the people who were shot if the the defense presented evidence supporting these descriptions.  

What?

These people have not been convicted of any crime so why can they be labelled by the court as law breakers?   The judge is not willing to allow possible negative bias against Rittenhouse during the trial, OK, but he has no problem labeling the victims as felons and giving Rittenhouse backing from the bench for any self-defense claims.  

I thought justice was supposed to be blind. I don't know of any charges the wounded person is facing. If there are any crimes, they would be alleged until he is convicted.  The two victims who were killed can't be tried or convicted.  They can't defend themselves, so why can't we at least call them "alleged victims"?

I would imagine the prosecutors will call Rittenhouse a murderer which presumes there are victims. So if prosecutors can't call them "victims" what do they call them?  They are not plaintiffs.  How about "possible concomitant consequences"?

 This blog was originally written in November, 2021, before Rittenhouse was acquitted.

Save Our Democracy, STOP THE BIG LIE

Republican Elephant Shit

It is clear the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capital on January 6th were hoping to prevent the certification of the election of Joe Biden to the presidency and have Donald Trump reinstated as president.  It is becoming clear that former president Donald Trump and his allies (including some elected officials) were also trying to use quasi-constitutional schemes to prevent the certification of the election of Joe Biden and instead certify that Donald Trump had won.  How closely these two groups were working together to complete an insurrection is still being investigated.

These subversive actions were planned even though Joe Biden won the election by roughly seven million popular votes and 76 electoral college votes.  There were various recounts, court cases and certification by all states which affirmed that there was very little if any voter fraud and Joe Biden was the winner.

Yet Donald Trump and most Republicans keep spreading the Big Lie that there was widespread fraud and the election was stolen.  This lie is ominous because it seems to be setting the stage for future manipulation of election results.

The courts and congress will have the final say on how the insurrectionists should be punished and what changes are required to defend our constitution, but I have a different question.

What did the insurrectionists and the people who support them think would happen if they had been successful on January 6th?

Do conservatives think the Democrats would just say something like "Aw shucks, lost again", give up and walk away?

In 2000, Al Gore and the Democrats used all the legal actions at their disposal to get an accurate count of votes in Florida which they believed would show Al Gore won and would be the next President of the United States.  Yet when the Supreme Court (on a purely political split) stopped the Florida count and therefore gave the state to George W. Bush by a roughly 800 vote margin, Gore graciously conceded and Democrats reluctantly accepted the result.

If today's conservatives were on the losing end of a vote count like 2000, what would they do? Keep in mind former President Trump has no intention of ever conceding the 2020 presidential election.  He has made it clear that he does not believe in the peaceful transition of power.  More upsetting are the number of his supporters who agree with his actions.

Now we see Republicans in many areas trying to change state laws to make it easier to manipulate election results in the future to favor them and possibly override election results.  

Speaking for myself, if Republicans someday succeed in overruling voters and changing the results of elections, I, and I expect many other Democrats and independents, will not calmly walk away.

I would prefer that we put in laws and rules that prevent the subversion of our democracy.  If there are differences in how our democracy should be run, I would prefer that those differences be settled in the courts and legislatures, but if those processes fail to defend our democratic principles and processes, extraordinary remedies may be required.  Once a democracy is lost it is difficult to bring it back because the insurrections are even more emboldened to use their illegally won power to retain their positions.

I beg all voters, especially Republicans, who understand how radical and dangerous the Big Lie is to help defend our constitution and country.  Do not support politicians that are willing to damage our democracy to retain their political power.  Don't accept changes to election laws that are claimed to be needed to stop future election fraud.  If a politician won't publicly and clearly state there was no wide spread fraud and Joe Biden is the properly elected president, don't vote for them.  Don't accept a mealy mouthed, elephant shit answer that there were irregularities or state laws were not followed.  Politicians need to say that the states all certified their votes and Biden won. Any other answer damages our democracy.

Credit Due

 I would like to give a shout out to all the people who have declined receiving their COVID vaccine shot.  Those of us waiting for our shot appreciate the chance to move up in line.

I would also like to give a shout out to those people who refuse to wear a mask. I understand we need to have 70 to 80 percent of people vaccinated to get to herd immunity.  That number of people is decreased by people who have already recovered from a bout of COVID.  The brave mask deniers actions that put them at risk of death and serious long term disabilities will decrease the time needed to reach herd immunity.  Mere words cannot express my awe of their selfish and stupid actions.

Mask deniers should also get credit for the family, friends, co-workers and even strangers who they recruited to their cause. Those additional victims will have contributed to the goal of beating the virus with out giving in to the tyranny of the mask.

So mask deniers, what else can I say except "stay the hell away from my family, friends and me!"

Bring On The MAGATES

As a proud Democrat it has long aggravated me that Republicans insist on disrespecting the Democratic Party (its official name) by calling it the Democrat Party.

We may soon have payback.

Donald Trump is threatening to create a new party called the Patriot Party or maybe the MAGA Party.  In either case I propose we call members of the new party Magates.

Rubio Opposes Trump Impeachment Trial - Part 2

Republican Elephant Shit

 

By the way, Marco Rubio also believes we shouldn't impeach Trump because Trump supporters are already so riled up that an impeachment would be like throwing gasoline on a raging fire.

 Does that mean he really thinks that coercion by mob violence is a valid reason not to defend the Constitution? 

Does that mean we should ignore the fact that it was a mountain of incendiary lies built by Trump and his Republican enablers that fired the insurrectionists up?

Rubio Opposes Trump Impeachment Trial

Republican Elephant Shit

Senator Marco Rubio says that he is not in favor of holding the Senate impeachment trial of former president Trump since Trump is already out of office.

That certainly makes sense from Rubio's perspective. Although he voted against rejecting any state's electors, he wouldn't say how he would vote until near the actual vote. Now he wants to put his and his party's involvement in an attempted insurrection behind him.

Any Senator or Representative that didn't early on clearly state they would not vote to invalidate state certified electors bears some responsibility for the insurrection and riot at the Capital on January 6^th.

The trial of Donald Trump in the Senate is absolutely required. Donald Trump with the help of many elected Republican officials encouraged their supporters to take actions to overturn an election. All these people and all the insurrectionist at the Capitol need to be held accountable.

For the “what about club”, yes, there have been a few cases in the recent past where a Democrat or two has voted against a slate of electors. But those situations were different. Before this year who knew that this counting of electors process even took place or remembered who might have ever voted against a set of electors? Did any of those Democrat's encourage violence to overturn the election? How long will this year's violent insurrection and rejected elector votes be remembered? Correct answer----FOREVER!

What did Republicans think would happen if they had succeeded in overturning the validated results of the election? Maybe 80 million Democratic voters would just quietly accept that result? I don't think so. Clearly some insurrectionist wanted to start a real civil war that included violence. We can't afford to get that close to a civil war ever again.

All the states with electors that the Republican's planned to vote against were won by Biden. So Republicans think there was no fraud in states won by Trump? And only the presidential votes in these states were fraudulent? Votes in other contests were not affected? Some of the races in these states were won by Republicans and in other races Democrats won. In the 2020 election Democrats lost their firm hold on the House and now narrowly holds the majority. Democrats knew that they also really needed to win the Senate which they barely did. But if it were so easy for Democrats to fraudulently win the presidency by changing votes in so many states, why didn't they throw in a few more close Senate and House wins?

The idea that the presidential election was stolen was a big lie led by the biggest liar, Donald Trump. But many Republicans were complicit in convincing their supporters that the election was stolen and convincing these supporters that any action to reverse the results of the election was acceptable.

Donald Trump needs to be convicted in the Senate for his lies and actions before and after the election in support of the big lie. He needs to be barred from every running for the presidency again. Future presidents need to understand that efforts that undermine the Constitution will not be allowed.

Republicans that echoed the big lie need to admit to lying. Perpetrators of the big lie need to pay a big price. We need to make sure that big liars and big lies cannot put our democracy in jeopardy again.

Convicting Donald Trump in the Senate is a good first step.

Give Trump A NY Times Subscription

Former presidents are normally provided some forms of classified information. I've heard the reason for this is that their valuable experience along with up-to-date information might be of value to their successor.

President Biden should make sure former President Trump gets absolutely nothing.

We know Trump has divulged classified information accidentally. At least we think it was accidentally.

We know that Trump seems to have an unexplainable obsequious relationship with Putin.

We know that Trump is going to be under extreme financial pressure and may have to sell things of value.

We know Trump will do anything to harm President Biden. Even things that could hurt our country.

Let Trump get his national security information by reading the New York Times.

In The U.S. Everyone Deserves Legal Representation

 I read that former President Donald Trump (former, doesn't that sound good?) is having trouble finding lawyers willing to represent him in his up-coming impeachment trial in the Senate.

I would suggest he request help from public defenders.  I think they have to take on clients no one else will represent.  Even insurrectionists.

Donald Trump is COVID-19 Personified

Bob Woodward's new book, Rage, is an documentation of parts of the Trump presidency from a respected journalist.  It is based on facts and research using interviews with President Trump, the public record and trusted sources.  Much of what I'm reading confirms what I had already heard, but Woodward brings them together in a time line.

Woodward clearly shows Trump is a liar.  That is, a person who does not tell the truth.  President Trump is clearly a liar, but I'm convinced most of his lies are not really intentional because he does not actually understand the concepts of truth or facts.  Occasionally he seems to logically determine what response is best for him.  But in many cases, he seems to just say whatever his gut tells him is most expeditious at the moment. That is why he can say something and them shortly thereafter he can say the complete opposite.

I must admit I've long believed President Trump is an idiot, but Woodward recounted incidents that make me pause to consider maybe Trump has more substance than I gave him credit for.  That was until I read chapter 33.

In chapter 33 Woodward describes the advice he received years ago about writing biographies.  An English professor suggested finding true "reflectors" of the subject.  People who are or were close to the subject.  People whose close experiences with the subject allow them to make accurate assessments of the person.

Woodward choose President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as such a person.

In February, 2020 Kushner suggested four texts that should be consulted to help understand Donald Trump.  Texts in this case meant writings, not text messages.

The first is a 2018 opinion piece by Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal.  In this piece she describes the President as a "crazy act", "a living insult", and "epic instability, mismanagement and confusion".

I think Noonan was basically saying Trump is not rational and has no desire to use rational thought to perform his presidential duties.

The second text Kushner recommended consulting was Alice in Wonderland.  Specifically the Cheshire Cat whose strategy, according to Woodward, "was one of endurance and persistence, not direction”.

I understand this to mean Trump does not think ahead. He doesn't believe that goals and steps to achieve those goals are needed. He just needs to survive the moment, psychologically satisfy his narcissism and boost his low self-esteem.

Then Kushner suggested the book The Gatekeepers: How White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency, by Chris Whipple.  I think Kushner recommended this book to high light that while other presidents chose people with talents, knowledge and experience to help them determine how to handle difficult issues, Trump feels he needs little help since he is more qualified than anyone to best decide what to do.

I believe, President Trump wants people who just do whatever he says and sometimes realize what he wants done without him having to put himself in jeopardy by saying something incriminating. He also wants people who will tell him what a great job he is doing and people to blame when things go badly.

The final text was Scott Adam's book, Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter.  Scott Adams is the creator or Dilbert. Adam's argues that Trump's lies "are not regrettable errors or ethical lapses”. In Adams' words, Trump “can invent any reality”.

We see this all the time. Trump lies and some people will accept whatever he says. Trump supporters have been conditioned to believe that anyone who tries to correct Trump is the liar. They are just creating fake news.

As I said earlier, I'm not convinced Trump's lies are that strategic. He knows his followers will believe whatever he says. He suffers no penalties for repeating and expanding a lie. In Trump's world, the old saw, “go big or go home” is a guiding principle for his lies.

Woodard summarizes Kushner's insight into Trump by saying, “When combined, Kushner's four text's painted President Trump as crazy, aimless, stubborn and manipulative.”. It sounds like neither Kushner or Woodward think Trump is a stable genius.

I would phrase Woodward's analysis a little differently. President Trump is not rational, has no goals other than surviving, only needs people who will serve him and has no compunction abusing people to meet his needs.

That sounds a lot like COVID-19.

To make this comparison even stronger, President Trump would like to be King Trump and COVID-19 is a corona virus.

The Election Should Decide Who Picks The Next Justice

 I do not agree with Senator McConnell's rule that an opening on the Supreme Court in a presidential election year should be filled by whoever wins the election that year.  Oh yeah, that was the rule last election.  Since that no longer works for him, he has a new rule this election.  Does anyone doubt that he would go back to his earlier rule if that worked better for him?  Or make up a new rule?

As I have suggested before, I would like laws that require some kind of bi-partisan vote on Supreme Court justices.How about requiring a super majority of 60 votes with at least 10 votes from outside the majority party?

But that is for the future.  

If  Trump wins the election, he can nominate the next justice. But...Since I believe Republicans stole a Supreme Court justice from President Obama, if they insist on forcing a Senate vote either before the election or after the election if Biden wins, then it is time to play hardball like the Republicans.

If Biden wins and Republicans insist on confirming a new justice this year, I suggest that Democrats declare that they will impeach this justice as soon as they can.  I don't believe they need any justification other than that seat on the court was stolen.

I know that opens the possibility that Republicans will do the same when they have a chance, but they show no principles now.  They will always do whatever suits their current needs.  Precedent be damned.  Norms be damned.  Principles be damned.  So what do we have to lose?  You have to stand up to bullies.

The hope is that Republicans will understand we can treat governing like a death match or we can try to govern with the understanding that for the good of the country we must try to work together.

President Trump's Troubling Projection

 There are several things we know about President Trump.  

 He seldom tells the truth.  The more impassioned he is about an issue, the more likely it involves a lie.

He has mental health issues.  He is a narcissist and is very insecure. One of his coping mechanism is to project what he believes are his issues and weaknesses onto others.

It is therefore very troubling that President Trump has, without any proof, accused Joe Biden of taking drugs to sharpen his public speaking.

We need to watch how often President Trump makes this baseless claim.

How Do You Know That A MAGA Hat Is Authentic?

 

How do you know a MAGA hat is authentic?

 

Look for the tin foil lining.

 

 

Rehabilitating Michael Flynn

Republicans are once again trying to warp reality to excuse President Trump's delusions.

President Trump and Republicans are outraged over the unjust treatment of former National Security Advisor, former general Michael Flynn by Obama's FBI. They have Attorney General Barr's dismissing of the prosecution of Flynn as proof that Flynn was mistreated and set-up by the FBI.

This story is more long and more involved then can be discussed here, but I'm dismayed by several things.

What should the FBI have done when they found the Russian's had tried to interfere with our elections? Factor in the public appeals by Trump for Russia to provide him help, the unusual and considerable number of contacts between the campaign and Russia and the overwhelming electronic proof that the Russians were helping Trump. I would be outraged if they hadn't opened an investigation, including the actions of Flynn. If the investigation spiraled out of control, and I don't think it did, it is was certainly in part because there clearly was a lot to investigate and involved people at the highest levels of our government.

But what now bothers me about the rehabilitation of Flynn is the attempt to completely forget the basic facts.

Flynn had contact with the Russian ambassador and then lied about it to the FBI and Vice-President Pence. President Trump cited these lies when he fired Flynn. And then to make it worse, Flynn lied to federal prosecutors and a federal judge.

When Flynn denied his contact with the ambassador, one group knew for sure he was not telling the truth, the Russians. This is a classic example of how to turn a person into a spy. The Russians could then go to Flynn and say something like, “We know you lied about having secret contacts with us. We won't tell anyone about this, but we could use a favor.”. And then they ask for some small favor. They do this a few more times with the requests being more significant each time. It becomes harder and harder for Flynn to say no. At some point they have enough evidence that, if released, would cause Flynn to be locked up forever. Then what would they expect the National Security Advisor to do for them?

If Flynn is so innocent, why did he repeatedly lie?

Who knows, the Russians may have more damaging information about Flynn that we don't know about . If they do, would they hesitate to use it to coerce him? And yet President Trump and Vice-President Pence say they would be open to hiring Flynn again. Really?

The FBI was right to be concerned about these guys. I certainly am.

The Real COVID-19 Plan

It is clear that we will be dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic for months. The task now seems to be how to balance the need to protect people from the serious health risks of the disease against the serious economic and social effects of social distancing. I think the solution has already been determined, but no one is going to openly admit what it is.

Since no vaccine is likely to be available for many months, we need a long term plan for dealing with the pandemic. A reasonable plan has been known for several weeks. Focus on protecting people's health to minimize deaths and serious injuries and thereby prevent the health care system and workers from being overwhelmed. The cost of this is on-going economic pain. At the same time, relax social distancing restrictions and restart some businesses, but that will mean more people will be infected and more people will die.

We would each probably define the proper balance between health and the economy differently.

People who prioritize health have the harder job. They need to keep social distancing in effect until the number of new cases is low enough that rapid testing (which we do not yet have), contact tracing and isolation can control the infection rate. This would prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed until an effective vaccine is eventually created.

On the other side, people who prioritize the economy over health have the easier task. No one likes social distancing and its economic ramifications. That makes it is easy for politicians to call for relaxed restrictions even while the infection rate is not controlled. Even without relaxed restrictions, people and businesses can just ignore social distancing laws and rules. In either case, some  businesses will reopen and maybe have a chance to survive, but more people will become infected. While more people will be sick and die, more people will hopefully now have immunity.

If infections and deaths spike, restrictions can be increased again, but that won't change much. Pandemic overload will eventually desensitize people. Once that spike is controlled people will clamor for eased restrictions again and be even less appalled by the health care side-effects.

While no one will say it, every person who is infected and survives is helping build herd immunity. Many people, especially politicians, are gambling that herd immunity will control the pandemic quicker than a new vaccine. That's the real plan.

Time to Move Dept of Justice out of the Executive Branch

Recent events have made it clear that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice should not be part of the executive branch.  They must be non-partisan.  People smarter than I am should come up with a plan, but I suggest they be moved to the judiciary.

The Attorney General could be chosen by a super majority of Supreme Court Justices (6 or more) from a list of candidates.  One candidate each from the president, the House and the Senate.  Congress would need a super majority vote (>60%) to choose its candidate.  If the House or Senate cannot agree on a candidate, the ABA could then suggest a candidate.

The Attorney General would be appointed for an 8 year term that starts in the year after the presidential inauguration. As the end of the term nears, the nomination process would begin again.  The current attorney general could be re-nominated.

The Justices could, with a super majority vote, remove the current Attorney General.  The process would then start to choose a new Attorney General to serve the remainder of the term.

The Chief Justice, working with the Attorney General, would submit a budget each year.  The budget should have protections to prevent appropriations being used to politically influence Department of Justice decisions.

We would also need a plan to fill and remove Justice Department positions that are now political appointees.  It is probably too much to expect the Supreme Court to oversee an operation of this size.  But I'm sure we can figure this out.

The idea is to remove politics from the administration of justice.  While this is probably idealistic, we should try.

While we are at it, lets make it law that a super majority of the Senate is required to confirm a Supreme Court justice.

Trump's Questionable Meeting With Putin

President Trump will meet with Vladimir Putin in a few days.  The first session is reported to be a private meeting with only Trump, Putin and Putin's translator present.

Why isn't President Trump going to also have his own translator present?  The room is too small for another person?  He is afraid that having a second translator will confuse the conversation?  He trusts Putin's translator and he can't find an American translator he trusts?

Why is there no note taker present?

Why doesn't President Trump want one of his advisors to be present?  This person doesn't have to talk, just listen.  Is Mike Pompeo taking a day off?  Are other close advisors, the people Trump choose, not trustworthy?  Is he afraid they can't keep a secret?  If so, what will be discussed? Remember, these are people currently handling some of the most secret national security issues facing this country.

Does Trump's ego require that he show he doesn't need any one to help him run this country?  Even a translator or close advisor?

Does Trump want to discuss issues that even his closest advisors don't know about? And he doesn't want them to know.

Are Trump and Putin discussing private personal matters that are just too embarrassing to make public?

Are Trump and Putin going to talk about aliens?  I don't mean asylum seekers from Central America,  I mean the kind from outer space.  Maybe we are on the verge of first contact and Trump and Putin have to determine who will take credit.

Whatever the reasons, for a President whose campaign is currently under investigation for collusion with the Russians this looks suspicious.

Maybe that's the point.  After the meeting is over, he can tell us (or not) what was discussed no one can dispute him.  Except for Putin.

There is a conundrum.  Trump and Putin disagree.  Who do you believe?
 

Nobel Prize or Booby Prize?

President Trump is ready to nominate himself and accept the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing North Korea to the table and denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.

He claims he did that by putting maximum pressure on North Korea.  Of course, that included the threat of annihilating the entire peninsula.

So faced with a bellicose and unpredictable dictator who has no problem starving the citizens of his own country, Trump, an equally bellicose and unpredictable president repeatedly threatens war.

Don't tell me President Trump had this all planned out.  Trump, as he often does, just lashed out with threats when he had no plans at all.

Thank goodness Kim Jong-un turned out to be the more rational head of state. 

But then again, this fight over who has the bigger button is not over. What prize will President Trump get if his threats end in another war with North Korean?

Republicans Owe Democrats a Supreme Court Justice

If the Democrats win back the Senate this November, they should refuse to allow a Republican nominee to be added to the Supreme Court.

President Trump can nominate a new justice and Democrats should hold hearings, but Democrats should not vote to confirm the nominee.

The Republicans stole a Supreme Court Justice from President Obama and Democrats.  Until that theft has been repaid, Democrats should refuse to approve any Republican Supreme Court nominee.

I realize that this could lead to a political war that prevents any new justice from being added to the court until the presidency and Senate are both held by the same political party.

That would be terrible, but Republicans started this war.

President Trump could solve this problem by letting Democrats pick the next Supreme Court Justice, should there be one.

In fairness, if there are two openings in Trump's last two years, he can fill the second after he lets Democrats fill the first.

Once the stolen seat is returned to Democrats, we can all hope that both parties agree to nominate only centrists to the court.  Republican presidents can nominate and have confirmed qualified, center-right justices and Democratic presidents can nominate and have confirmed qualified, center-left justices.

We have to get back to working together to keep our democracy strong and stop needless, counter-productive political wars.

Impeachment Plan for Political Cowards

I heard a commentator say many Republicans are privately tired of the incompetence and antics of President Trump, but are unsure how to remove him from office.  They are afraid of challenging him directly for fear of his or his supporters wrath.

Republicans will probably just wait for Democrats to take the House in November.  The best guess is there will be enough Democrats who will vote for impeachment since it only takes a majority of House members. Republicans can sit back and howl with outrage.

The Senate requires a two thirds vote to remove the President.  There probably won't be enough Democrats in November to do this alone,  Democrats can do the hard work and prosecute the case.  Republicans can do whatever they think is politically acceptable.

When the final Senate vote comes, Democrats will have to hope they can find enough Republicans with the political courage to vote to complete the process and remove President Trump.

Republicans who vote to impeach can defend their vote by claiming they will have a more reasonable partner in a President Pence for the last two years of the term.

An added rational is that if Vice-President Pence becomes president with less than two years left in President Trump's term, he is eligible to run for two more full presidential terms on his own.  That means he could be president for almost 10 years.

If NRA Supports You, I Do Not

We should all be proud of the students who are marching to stop gun violence today.  They are very impressive.

As voters, we should all take a pledge to not vote for any candidate, Republican or Democrat or third party, that takes support from the NRA.  If that means we have to write-in the name of a candidate not beholding to the NRA and who is willing to support legislation to prevent gun violence, that is what we will do.

Did Dreamers Break the Law?

Today I watched Fareed Zakaria's program GPS on CNN.  In asking a question he repeated an analogy used by some people to describe their position on Dreamers (people who have signed up for DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  These are people who were brought to the U.S. as children and who some believe are law breakers and should be deported.

As I recall it was something like, letting Dreamers stay in the U.S. is like letting the kids of a bank robber keep the stolen money.

Said that way it seems like reasonable logic for sending adults brought here as children back to the country of their birth.  Except that the analogy is not a fair description of the situation.

I think a better analogy is that rounding up and deporting the adult dreamers would be like asking adult children to repay money stolen by their parents and used by their parents to support the children as they grew up.

Certainly, unspent money or assets purchased with stolen money should be returned, but funds spent to support children (feed, cloth, educate, shelter, etc.) are not the responsibility of the children. 

If the new rule is that adults are responsible for repaying debts for money obtained illegally by their parents and spent to support them when they were growing up, a lot of U.S. citizens should start sweating.

Discuss Gun Saftey Issues Now

In the aftermath of the mass killing of students in Parkland, Florida, the usual cast of characters again claimed that the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting is not the time to discuss policy changes in response to the shooting.  They claim we don't know all the details of the incident at Parkland so we could be suggesting policy changes that won't address the issue or maybe we could make the problem worse.  This is obviously not true, but people like the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, continue to repeat that lie.

Let's give Paul Ryan and others the benefit of the doubt.  Let's us assume they really believe what they are saying and are not just paying off debts to the NRA and some of their base voters.

To these people I would ask, what policy changes would you suggest based on the facts we now know from the shootings at the concert at Las Vegas or at the Pulse night club in Orlando or at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia or at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut or at a small church in Sutherland Springs, Texas or at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado or at ...

We Need To Address Gun Violence Now

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Contrary to strict constructionists, there is more than one way to interpret the Second Amendment.  It is and has been obvious that the interpretation of the Second Amendment by the NRA and its Conservative supporters is not good for this country. 

It is logically inconsistent to ignore the language in the Second Amendment that clarifies it is granting a right to people who are part of a militia and yet legalize the ownership of firearms designed only for war and killing large numbers of people.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does not give citizens unlimited access to arms.  If the Second Amendment is not tied to militia defending the country, there is no need for private ownership of arms only meant for war.

I am tired of hearing politicians express sympathy for the victims of gun violence and then do nothing to try to prevent future tragedies.

I am tired of hearing politicians tell us that now is not the time to talk about changing gun laws.  That is bull shit.  Politicians count on time dulling our outrage and they won't have to take a stand and work on solutions.

We heard that same crap after innocent first graders and educators were murdered at Sandy Hook.  It has been almost five years since the massacre at Sandy Hook.  Is now the right time to talk about common sense gun law changes as a result of the innocent lives lost at Sandy Hook?

Would We Be Better Off Without Obamacare?

Republicans like to argue about how bad Obamacare is.  Obamacare is not perfect.  Some people may have been harmed.  But something like 30 million got access to health care they didn't have it before.

No Republicans voted for Obamacare even though many Republican ideas were incorporated into the bill to address their concerns.  Now Republicans claim that Obamacare is so bad it must be repealed.

I would like to ask Republicans if they believe the overall health of Americans would be better today if Obamacare had never been passed.

I suspect they would find some reason to argue we would all be better if the millions who got health care because of Obamacare received no help. We can be assured of that since they now believe the country would be better off if these people lost their health care.

Health Care is a Right

Whatever happens to Obamacare it will be a success.

Obamacare has planted the seed that health care is a right.  That is a seed that will grow and that all politicians will have to support.

Pardon Is Not A Get Out of Jail Free Card

There is reporting tonight that President Trump is asking for legal advice about his powers to pardon his staff, relatives and himself.  Presumably he is looking for a get out of jail free card if investigators get too close to proving illegal activities.

While that may sound like an easy way to avoid penalties of illegal activities, it may be just the opposite.

I don't know if a President can give a blanket pardon for all prior federal crimes even those that are not identified or not associated with their public service.  That might be possible.  I also don't know if a President can give a pardon for future crimes, but that seems unlikely.

If future crimes cannot be pardoned, there would then be a lot of people who once pardoned could not be prosecuted for their prior federal crimes, BUT those people could still be questioned under oath about those crimes.  They would have to tell the truth or be subject to obstruction of justice charges or lying under oath charges.  We would then be able to ask and expect to get complete and honest  answers about the crimes for which they were pardoned.  Those confessions would silence the Trump forever supporters and possibly expose additional crimes for which these or other people could be prosecuted.

A presidential pardon only applies to federal crimes, so crimes in other jurisdictions may be uncovered and prosecuted.

I'm not sure that the Trump billionaires have enough money to pay for all the legal support they will need after the pardons.

Did Russia Influence Brexit?

It was recently reported that Nigel Farage, a British politician, is being investigated as a possible link between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in our election.

Nigel Farage led a British political party that campaigned for Brexit, which committed Great Britain to leave the European Union.  He has a relationship with Donald Trump and appeared on the campaign trail with him.

Earlier this year Nigel Farage was seen leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy in Great Britain where Julian Assange has been staying to evade extradition to Sweden on charges of rape.  As Farage was leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy he was asked why he was there.  He responded that he couldn't remember.

Julian Assange leads WikiLeaks which during our presidential campaign released the emails hacked from John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee by Russia.

If there are possible links between Russian influence on our presidential election, WikiLeaks and Nigel Farage, is it too conspiratorial to wonder if there may be a links between Russian influence in the Brexit vote and Nigel Farage?

If Russia's goal is to destabilize the west, Brexit and our presidential election would have been prime targets.

The Truth Will Set Trump Free

President Trump has said he is "100%" ready to testify under oath.  If he does, the chances he will be impeached is also 100%,

If there is one thing we know about President Trump, it is that he has no intellectual capacity to distinguish between true and false.

For Trump, true and false is always modulated by the moment.  For him, true is whatever seems to meet the needs of the moment.   Whatever is true one moment can be false the next.  He doesn't care what he previously asserted was true.  He probably doesn't even remember because the previous answer was not anchored to any other "facts" in his mind.  A new moment brings a new chance to determine the truth unencumbered by any previous answer..

So when Trump is under oath and there is legal liability for not telling the truth, President Trump will not be able to provide consistent answers.  A skillful interrogator will have him lying repeatedly.

Impeachment will follow shortly and Donald Trump will be free to go back to the former life he prefers.

President Trump Needs A Health Checkup

I have not seen any reporting that President Trump has received an independent health check up since he was elected. Given the vast number of Trump supporters who seem to have trouble distinguishing reality from obfuscations and fantasy, we need to insist that President Trump immediately have a thorough health evaluation by a team of respected health care professionals.

What little I've heard does not suggest that the President watches his diet or exercises. We do have the word of his personal physician that he is extremely healthy, but that is not good enough. Dr. Oz said Donald Trump was healthy enough to be president, but I would like an independent evaluation.

If the President were to have a sudden, serious health event that incapacitated or killed him, how long would it take for conspiracy theories to convince a large numbers of people that the President's enemies had poisoned him? I suspect that would happen anyway, but it might help to have prior, accurate and public medical facts for counter arguments.

The exam needs to be thorough. The President's personal physician could participate, but not lead the team. Any findings of serious illness or potential issues need to be made public and as many details as possible should be released so independent researchers can do their own analysis.

I would also recommend frequent periodic re-evaluations if the President is not leading a healthy life style or serious health issues are found. I don't think we know if the stress that comes with the office will prematurely age President Trump as it seems to have aged some prior presidents.

Given the ease with which the President's supporters ignore facts, I'm very concerned about what might happen if there is a health crisis and no prior documentation to counter conspiracy theories.