We live in an odd house. There is a dictionary stand in the dining room. Bought on a whim at a resale shop. But my office is too jammed with books to accommodate the stand. So we tucked it near the dining room table, to refer to during family Scrabble games, increasingly rare in recent years.
There is also a copy of the Constitution in the kitchen. Any room where three lawyers periodically break bread together should have one handy to resolve arguments — not used much lately either, until Monday. I was alone, drinking coffee, reading the Sun-Times and thinking about July 4. How this year the holiday finds a bitterly divided country, loping toward an election where one party promises to win or seize power. This was the same day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law doesn't apply tothe presidents if they can couch their wrongdoing in the trappings of office.
What is there to celebrate? The rule of law is a candle guttering in a rainstorm.
I sprang up. The little booklet, published by the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, was in a cabinet, nestled beside plates. To read the whole thing now — it takes only a few minutes — is to realize once again how problems of the past echo today.
Article I, Section 2 goes straight to elections: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People ... ."
If you're wondering where the Constitution allows elections to be ignored if the will of the People isn't to your liking, that line isn't there.
The pamphlet also reprints the Declaration of Independence, the reason for Thursday's holiday, marking this "Action of the Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776." I read it aloud, beginning to end, my voice echoing off the granite counters.
The self-evident truths begin, "all men are created equal." The word "men" is significant because women wouldn't get the vote for another 144 years. And enslaved Blacks didn't count because they weren't even considered human beings, never mind "men" with rights and dignity.
I mention that not to make you feel bad about America but as a reminder: Our entire history is one gradual widening of whose voice gets to be heard. Freedom is always a work in progress. As is oppression: There are always Americans fluttering their hands, clutching their pearls and crying, "Oh no! Surely not these people too!"
The famous beginning gets all the attention. But the bulk ofof the Declaration — easily 2/3 of the text — is a direct complaint against King George III, starting with, "He has refused to assent to laws ..." and faulting him for thwarting the popular ballot, "a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."
There is also a copy of the Constitution in the kitchen. Any room where three lawyers periodically break bread together should have one handy to resolve arguments — not used much lately either, until Monday. I was alone, drinking coffee, reading the Sun-Times and thinking about July 4. How this year the holiday finds a bitterly divided country, loping toward an election where one party promises to win or seize power. This was the same day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law doesn't apply to
What is there to celebrate? The rule of law is a candle guttering in a rainstorm.
I sprang up. The little booklet, published by the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, was in a cabinet, nestled beside plates. To read the whole thing now — it takes only a few minutes — is to realize once again how problems of the past echo today.
Article I, Section 2 goes straight to elections: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People ... ."
If you're wondering where the Constitution allows elections to be ignored if the will of the People isn't to your liking, that line isn't there.
The pamphlet also reprints the Declaration of Independence, the reason for Thursday's holiday, marking this "Action of the Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776." I read it aloud, beginning to end, my voice echoing off the granite counters.
The self-evident truths begin, "all men are created equal." The word "men" is significant because women wouldn't get the vote for another 144 years. And enslaved Blacks didn't count because they weren't even considered human beings, never mind "men" with rights and dignity.
I mention that not to make you feel bad about America but as a reminder: Our entire history is one gradual widening of whose voice gets to be heard. Freedom is always a work in progress. As is oppression: There are always Americans fluttering their hands, clutching their pearls and crying, "Oh no! Surely not these people too!"
The famous beginning gets all the attention. But the bulk of
To continue reading, click here.
Our current Court did not invent immunity for the president. They did their best to clarify what immunity from prosecution entails. I don't feel they engaged in overreach.
ReplyDeleteOver time the president has become the most powerful branch as an executive. The Congress seems to be the least powerful and the court is somewhere in between but they share the power and then as the people we get to vote. I love America. I have no wish to see Trump as president but just because we don't like the decisions that are made and the actions that are taken doesn't mean they're incorrect.
Contrary to popular belief, there is a system in place to address wrongdoing by a sitting president. We all witnessed it. Impeachment
If the Congress fails to impeach, whose fault is that?.
Checks and balances
President executes our laws, the Congress makes our laws and the court interprets our laws
The justice department enforces our laws
Do you have some better idea?
Congress is responsible for impeaching and removing the President from office. It has never happened to forty-six Presidents covering fifty-nine terms over 236 years. Seems to me that there are definite cases when removal was the right thing to do. There have been definite misdemeanors.
DeleteThe simplistic idea that Congress is the only brake on a President leads to a monarch. How can a President's criminal intent be completely immune, including as evidence of another crime, if it is presumptively part of his official duties? How do you handle a President who comits a crime in office and then bribes Congress to stay in office? Executive power reigns supreme!
SCOTUS's decision is pure partinship. Their rush to decide ballot eligibilty and their delay deciding immunity shows which candidate they prefer. Its bad for today and the future.
Political power is being taken away from popualrly elected representatives by unelected judges and a not-so democratically elected executive. It seems that a lot of people are okay with that, as long as their guy is in office. There was a lot of loyalist support for King George III in the colonies too.
I think we need mandatory retirement age for federal offices and judges. And an independent US Attorney General.
Immunity corrupts- absolute immunity corrupts absolutely.
Yes there are problems within our system.
DeleteBut a monarch? No
The voters showed you can remove the president and they have a term limit
FMC, I hope you're right about not having a monarch But the ongong accumualtion of power, ala Unitary President, is alarming.
DeleteVoting out or impeaching an incumbent is a political act. That is not a trial of facts and evidence to determine innocence or guilt of crimes.
Impeachment is a sham. The framers didn't envision the partisanship that exists today, making a two thirds majority for conviction a near impossibility. Even a president who fomented a multi pronged assault on presidential succession was acquitted by his political partners. FME, I have a better idea, let Herr Drumpf stand in the dock and be judged by a jury of OUR peers, people not beholden to the political arena, but fair minded, ordinary American citizens.
DeleteI replied to your first post this afternoon, FME, but that longer comment seems to be lost in (cyber)space. Others have covered things pretty well, anyway.
DeleteOne thing was made quite clear during the Biggest Loser's term. The legendary "checks and balances" you speak of were woefully inadequate in attempting to deal with somebody as craven as the orange guy, supported by a party largely comprised of his cult members.
The Democrats are absolute masters at hand-wringing, unlike the Republicans who seem never to do this. The jettisoning the most consequential president since the War three weeks before a name has to be put on the ballot in Ohio to qualify for the election without a clear winnable candidate who every can back is sheer madness.
ReplyDeleteAs the song goes, "love the one you're with." Calm down, move on, and stop making the debate performance the primary subject of the election when Democracy hangs in the balance.
good point, Anon at 7:53
DeleteDon't want Joe to bow out...or step down. But if Joe doesn't prove he's capable...and SOON...Orangy Boy wins. If he withdraws from the race, it's up for grabs and it's 1968 all over again, with unimaginably worse results...I'd take Nixon in a heartbeat now.
DeleteWho else can could beat Orangy Boy? NOBODY. If Joe resigns, Harris succeeds him...and I believe she would get clocked in November. So it's back to my very first sentence...Joe has to hit one out of the park, or we're screwed. And I have a feeling that...much as I'd like to see him do it...he no longer can. He seems fried.
So we're now back at the line from the 1968 Simon and Garfunkel song:
"Every way you look at it, you lose..."
I believe the Constitution doesn’t mention political parties either
ReplyDeleteYes, I do. Eliminate gerrymandering, institute campaign spending limits so campaigns don’t cost a king’s ransom and severely limit who can afford to run for office, institute campaign contribution limits and transparency in who the donors are, and institute term limits for the Supreme Court justices and establish a code of ethics that failure to follow can result in impeachment. And one more thing, add felony convictions as a disqualifier in being a presidential candidate.
ReplyDeleteAmen Dianne.
DeleteYes, Diane! We probably wouldn't need the felon prohibition if the others were in place.
Deletewell said, Dianne
DeleteDiane it all seems reasonable. But Congress must pass laws to establish term limits and there are unforseen consequences to enacting them. Same with money in campaigns. Congress has to enact legislation that will withstand court challenge. That pesky first amendment.
DeleteI think After you serve your time for a felony you should regain your rights
Dianne, add me to your chorus.
DeleteThat''s a real nice pipe dream Dianne. Real nice.
DeleteI do so agree with Dianne but until we have a Democratic president and Congress few of that will happen I suspect. It's hard not to be depressed and despondent over this weeks turn of events. Tomorrow feels like a funeral.
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing this piece. You've motivated me to re-read the text of "The Declaration of Independence," something I haven't done for many years.
ReplyDeleteIt's a frightening situation. And the SC, or most of it's members, aren't helping.
ReplyDeleteThe fault is not in our stars...it is in us. Something to that effect?
ReplyDeleteThe column itself is beautiful, and encouraging. But I'm reading comments about "hand-wringing", and gerrymandering, immunity and overreach, "felony prohibition" from office...as if these carry weight.
As Mr. Hemingway wrote, and Mr. Steinberg often quotes, "Isn't it pretty to think so?"
Sorry, it's too little too late. I hate it, and apologies for raining on anyones parade, but it is what it is. Buckle in everyone. It's going to be a bad, bad ride.
We treat the Founders as though they were some sort of supreme beings; witness the upper case. But they were just a bunch of rich white men,slaveowners mostly,with the same (or worse) biases and agendae as their present day counterparts. Not to mention that even the wisest person couldn't possibly foresee what the world would be like in 250 years. So this idea that what they wrote must be the law forever is something we as a nation really need to get away from,though I'm not optimistic this will ever happen,much less in my lifetime. Maybe Trump would trash the Constitution so badly in his 2nd administration that there wouldn't be any choice but to rewrite it
ReplyDeleteI doubt that what was "said" in the recent Supreme Court "immunity" decision, is any different from a purely neutral restatement of the law. No doubt they are kicking the can down the road on behalf of Donald Trump. But I don't think it leads inevitably to the conclusion that the former President cannot be prosecuted and legitimately convicted for doing anything whatsoever as long as he is "arguably" acting in his official capacity. That would be the most blanche of cartes that I've ever heard of. And it fails the stink test. Let's not think the worst until we're forced to do so. No capitulation, please.
ReplyDeletejohn
Like the question of a president self-pardoning, a Supreme Court with 3 appointees of the current president should not be allowed to sit in judgement of him, absent their recusal.
DeleteThank you and brava to Dianne. And all the others who have responded to NS today. You are a pretty astute crowd, making very smart commentary. Neil knows how to flip the levers that elicit your voices. EGD makes us stronger and wiser - even when the subject is about tomatoes, which I love. I am a proverbial dinosaur and dream of a better world where all people can live in peace. What is at stake in the upcoming presidential election keeps me awake every night, yet I can only do so much to make sure my granddaughter and her generation survive the tumultuous problems the world faces. What today's entry emphasizes is that America has the best answer and it is up to those who vote to make sure we don't blow this thing. The SC has taken a seemingly political stance and only the voters can change that. The rest is flotsam and hyperbole. Like NS, I'm not a prayerful kind of guy, but I believe deeply that there is a better future for mankind, if only we could bury our anger.
ReplyDeleteIn 1649 King Charles I was tried for treason and other 'high crimes. The
ReplyDeleteMonarch responded with the maxim: "The King Can Do No Wrong and therefore he can not be tried or
convicted.
He was beheaded ten days later.
What a thoughtful, engaging discussion. Thank you, Neal, for sharing your exquisite writing talents and keen intellect in providing this forum for your readers.
ReplyDeleteWhile you are reading the Declaration and flying the flag, you should read this speech by Frederick Douglas. I wonder if this would be allowed in Florida and other states where they are white washing history. https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1852FrederickDouglass.pdf
ReplyDeleteUnder current Supreme Court rules could Biden revoke Trump's citizenship because he's accused of treason? Biden is acting within the duties of office. It's not illegal to revoke citizenship. Citizenship would only have to be cancelled until November 8th.
ReplyDelete