What's the difference between celebrating independence on NO KINGS 3/28 and on July 4? Not much

 What's the difference between celebrating No KINGS and on July 4? I saw an objection to No King's Day...we already celebrate it on July 4th. Obviously, some still do not get it, or else they are just being cute or trolling instead of being ignorant. Here is why we should also celebrate July 4th, in addition to the 8 million-plus who got it on March 28. Believe me, it is one more opportunity to make a point on July 4th. For the ignorant, not for the MAGA trollers, a reminder, here is to remember the reason why we declared independence: No tyrannical kings, and to get out from almost exactly what angered us about what the King did,(Bill of Particulars in the Declaration), which are mostly now enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We also rose up in 1776 because of one issue that resonates today: taxation without representation.

Trump thinks he's a dictator, acts like one, and ignores laws and Constitutional provisions he does not like, treating executive orders like a law, making up his own laws as he will, punishing those who do not support him with retaliatory action by the DOJ and threats of being primaried. Dictators are the modern version of a tyrannical king, and every day he violates those First Amendment rights, particularly press freedom and civil rights of individuals and the 4th amendments. Pro democracy, the protection of the Constitution, and the spirit of 1776 are inseparable.

The other reason for independence was that we were being taxed without representation...another provision enshrined in the Constitution, to make sure we, the people, would control taxation and its use through Congress, especially the House. Trump cowed the House into a bunch of yes people (whatever Trump wants, Congress gives him), whether with tariffs or the cost of war. Now, he wants to make it more difficult for voters to cast their vote, particularly old people, brown people, and women. FYI, we celebrate the freedom our forefathers fought for, now in jeopardy, too, on July 4

The patriots who were the founders of the Constitution and our form of governance sought to preserve our right to govern ourselves, to preserve all who were created equally inalienable rights to pursue happiness, and to keep us from a tyrannical ruler, making those governing subject to the rule of law instead of the rule of an individual. Those who experienced the revolution in 1776 were also given the opportunity to write the Constitution which was approved in 1787. Aside from limiting the power of tyrants with checks and balances of three power centers, legislative, judicial, and executive, they added more safeguards to protect the power of individuals to protest peacefully per the Bill of Rights. They attempted to tackle some of the trickiest problems of governance in the Constitution and in both the amendments and in the regulated election process. How do you provide a peaceful transition of power while still allowing an outlet for the masses to express themselves and let off steam peacefully? They gave those who lost the election the protections and ability through the Bill of Rights to convince a majority of voters that those governing need to be replaced by the ballot box and not by a bloody revolt. 

https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2025/07/my-declaration-of-independence-from.html

Democracy in context: abstract vs reality. Messaging again.

 The defenders of democracy as we have known it for 250 years face challenges. It is how to explain an abstract political science term to those who do not think in the abstract, but have a hard time understanding how it relates to the reality of the lives they are living now. It is a messaging problem that Democrats have not yet learned how to fix.  How do you get it across that a King does away with rights you may need sometime? Some ideas. Just calling Trump a King ( a gentler stand-in term for autocracy, dictatorship, or fascism) or invoking due process and the rule of law, or protecting an independent judiciary, is not enough. These terms must be related to the experiences people are having now. The opportunity is there even in the two major reasons he won the last election: immigration and reversing high prices (the economy).

Update 5/2/2025 My own seat of the pants guess has been that about half of Americans view Trump as a danger to democracy and about half want Trump to have more power to accomplish the goals of which they approve. A recent poll however, shows that more than a majority , 54% of Americans see him as a dangerous dictator. Of course, the divide is still heavily partisan, but it shows a shift that some who voted for him in November 2024 are getting the message that Trump is indeed a danger to democracy. Most Americans Describe Donald Trump as 'Dangerous Dictator'—New Poll - Newsweek    

Continuing with the original post

One blowback from an out-of-control president acting like a King is easy to bring down to reality. Trump has his own agenda that is more important than yours that was to bring down the cost of groceries and gas at the pump. Not only that, he is doing things that you did not vote for: sabotaging social security and veterans' benefits and protections against being ripped off by lenders.

 The real impact of Trump's policies is already being realized by many, but so far, it is a matter of fear about what may happen: The real experience that prices will go up, shelves will be empty, has not even been felt yet. Voters are beginning to grasp t that this will happen and Trump seems not tocare. That explains why his favorability is polling lower. Not only have prices not been rolled back, but they understand they may even get higher if he continues as he is doing now. So what. Trump knows he does not have to face voters again. So sorry, he thinks, he has other fish to fry like tariffs and tax policy, and in time, he will get back to you, he promises and promises and promises. Tariffs will be good for you in the meantime. The lesson to learn from this: Rule by what people want is not the same as what Trump wants in this case. You elected him, but now he is off on his own agenda that hurts you. That is the consequence of having a King,(a strong leader), who is focused on giving himself more power. It is the opposite of rule by what the people want expressed through their representatives in  Washington.  The rule of, by, and for the people is the fundamental meaning of "democracy". People should have the power to set priorities and influence their execution by the government.  Rule by a strong leader who thinks he can do what he wants is the opposite.

 The issue of immigration is much more difficult to deal with than the realities of the economy. Most ordinary citizens do not think in abstract legal terms or think about unintended consequences that could hurt them if due process protections did not exist. When they hear warnings that such and such will happen if, for example, due process, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary are replaced by a strong leader who will ignore or even destroy such niceties, so what? It sounds like political fear-mongering, more political noise, so it is dismissed as just that. That stuff is standing in the way of what they voted for Trump to do on immigration, right?

 What does, for example, the treatment of Abrego Garcia have to do with non-immigrant lives or them as citizens?. That's too bad, or he had it coming to him. Right?  What is at stake is far larger than the fate of an undesirable resident of our country. You are not one of those, so why care?    In short: If no one enforces those rights and protections, they are as good as useless, whether you are a citizen or are in this country with or without documents.  Imagine if you are wrongfully charged with, say tax evasion, or a crime you did not commit. You had better hope you still have the right to your day in court, that the judge is not beholden to the president to rule in his favor, and that you can be fairly treated to defend yourself. That is what due process, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary mean... they can protect you from unfair treatment by a government. However, if the president believes it is in his interest to ignore all of those niceties, and no one stops him, your rights can also be ignored and not enforced on your behalf and anyone else you care about, because the king has already gotten away with it before, and he can do it again in yours or others cases. 

(I am using the accusatory "you" but I apologize. I am a political science major who has a professional lifetime of putting democracy into practice, advocating for people to use it to solve their problems, and explaining it to a wide variety of people, as an author, talk show host, and election commissioner. I have the unique experience of seeing firsthand what it is to live like an ordinary person in a dictatorship. I have a sense of urgency. It is not abstract to me; it is reality.  Democracy has never been questioned or attacked like this before, so our constitutional democracy now needs so much defending. We have been taking our individual rights for granted. We as a nation are just beginning to understand that we could lose them and what that means.) 

 Issues to watch: Trump's use of active military to enforce domestic laws: on the road to fascism. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/trumps-expanded-domestic-military-use-should-worry-us-all?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ9rTFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFxa3RZYUk1eGNIUzZvRDh4AR5FNQQWstd9vC-72FR1pc7wavt5RbVDFxwmOxy0x-ey1rLnUpffrb2XL46vXw_aem_2A5GiPRJPFYVUySi8-cVsQ

https://newrepublic.com/article/194463/100-days-trump-clown-show-fascism

Growing list of Trump's unconstitutional initiatives:

Trump not sure if he has to uphold the Constitution:

https://www.msn.com/.../trump-says-i-don-t.../ar-AA1E9aNM...

THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT HE SWORE TO DO WHEN INAUGURATED!!!

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

msn.com

Trump Says ‘I Don't Know' When Asked if He Has to ‘Uphold the Constitution'

Chainsaw cuts in social security make mockery of budget and may be even unconstitutional

 The old mantra of the GOP, cut federal services and personnel because they are bankrupting our country, is on steroids with the indiscriminate mass Musk chainsaw cuts. That has been the GOP rationale for cutting taxes to the rich as far back as the 1930s.  The theory is that the very rich invest money to increase commerce, and the new taxes resulting will bring down the debt and deficits.  The theory continues that the prosperity it fosters will trickle down to the struggling masses.  It has never worked as the theory he promises anywhere in the industrialized world.  It is the same BS as it ever has, except the numbers in 2025 are staggeringly large and the old fiscal conservative GOP has shut its mouth in loyalty to Donald Trump..  Both Democrats and Republicans share guilt for raising debts and deficits, but what the Trump regime is trying to do is dramatically more.  Trump is seeking 1.6 trillion in government cuts to offset 4 trillion in tax cuts. The math itself is revealing. there is a big gap betweewhat at best could be cut and the hit to the treasury would exceed even if t all works as the Trump regime plans.. The 1.6 trillion is to be taken from the hide of social and human and  that benefit lower income brackets, like social security and  Medicaid, under the cover of only cutting waste, fraud and abuse. 

The attorney general of Arizona has launched an information-gathering activity to record consumer complaints about Social Security. The DOGE cuts of staff providing customer service is so severe, the state AG of a state full of retirees is taking action. In a form developed by the AG is the word "unconstitutional".  What could that be?  What could be the basis of a suit? I wonder if a clause in the Constitution could be the one to which the Constitution is involved.  https://www.azag.gov/socialsecurity

Likewise, the AG in Michigan is beginning to gather information and evidence that could lead to a lawsuit by AGs to save Social Security's consumer access and service. Attorney General: AG Nessel Launches Form for Reporting Social Security Disruptions

State budgets will be hard-pressed to make up for other chainsaw cuts to Medicaid. In Colorado, the proposed budget is already showing a deficit, much less make up for the harm the federal Medicaid cuts would do to its citizens. The medicaid cuts could cost 458,000 Coloradans health care coverage, per a recent study as cited in the publication Colorado Politics. State budgets are already stretched so that it would be very difficult to make up the loss due to chainsaw cuts.

 https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/medicaid-cuts-could-cost-458-000-coloradans-health-coverage-study-claims/article_2803985b-b1f5-5f94-830a-870ba55d0e82.html?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=COPO%20Afternoon%20USE%20414&utm_content=COPO%20Afternoon%20USE%20414+CID_175994c87ac75c991557de56f4eb8a87&utm_source=campaign_monitor_email&utm_term=Medicaid%20cuts%20could%20cost%20458000%20Coloradans%20health%20coverage%20study%20claims

Musk's attack on the "administrative state" is the opposite of trying to  faithfully execute laws Congress passed, especially given the failure of Musk to document any significant evidence of "waste, fraud, and abuse". Instead, wholesale indiscriminate cuts appear to kneecap social services ability to deliver services  in order to reduce any federal government spending to make the tax cuts to the rich to appear less onerous on the national debt.   

The U.S. Constitution, specifically in Article II, Section 3, requires the President to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This means the President, and the executive branch as a whole, must ensure laws passed by Congress are implemented and enforced.  Per Google AI.

So much has already written about this so  here are a few pertinent sources.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61172

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/

https://ncrc.org/cbs-news-50-years-of-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-failed-to-trickle-down-economic-study-says/#:~:text=See%20More-,CBS%20News:%2050%20Years%20Of%20Tax%20Cuts%20For%20The%20Rich,Trickle%20Down%2C%20Economic%20Study%20Says&text=But%20the%20analysis%20discovered%20one,economic%20growth%20and%20low%20unemployment.%E2%80%9D

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/us/politics/trump-economic-plans-debt-costs.html

The January 6 hearings are teaching us what democracy is not

We have heard much of what our constitutional democracy is about. The January 6 committee's public hearings are a great civics lesson of what Democracy is not.      The first three January 6 select committee House hearings present examples of the anti-democratic forces at work that threaten the continuation of our democratic form of government.  The litany of what is American democracy has become a series of cliches: majority rule, free and fair elections, the balance of powers with three branches checking on the power of each, and a whole series of amendments that protect citizens from being depowered by government, the rule of law and peaceful transfer of power when replacing the old administration or with a new one.  The participants in the January 6 riots and Trump's circle of advisors claimed they were the true protectors of democracy and the Constitution, even using some of the same fine words.. What they were advocating and what actions they planned and executed were not democracy in form or in, spirit, or words.  A highly respected conservative justice testified the attempt of the Trump approach on January 6 and its applications to future elections was   "a clear and present danger" to democracy. Jan. 6 hearing: Trump remains 'clear and present danger' to American democracy, retired GOP judge tells panel (cnbc.com)

Here is what we learned from the hearings so far, Note: testimony was given by those on Trump's staff, cabinet, family, and loyal supporters during sworn depositions and live hearings:  Videos of the rioters and their own words were also used in the hearings.

Democracy is not about one person determining the winner of an election.  Pence was pressured by Trump and others to be that person.  A law professor, John Eastman, outlined a legal case in which he claimed Pence had the power to reject a slate of electors or to send the issue back to state legislatures. Even Eastman admitted to White House attorneys it would be declared unconstitutional on a 9-0 vote, but he sold it to Trump, and Trump then attempted to pressure Pence and failed. .

Democracy is not about ignoring, subverting, or failing to comply with the rule of law.  It is not about loyalty to a person, but it is about complying and obeying the rules set forth by a representative democracy. Trump expected being loyal to him meant even breaking the law on his behalf, urging Pence to violate the law in certifying the election. He asked a Georgia election office to "find" the exact number of votes to change the state's vote for Biden, even though there was no evidence of fraud. (This is similar to forcing his attorney to break the law to cover up a pay-off for an evening with Stormy Daniels or to tell a president of Ukraine to find dirt on Biden's son if he wanted his needed anti-tank missiles, though prior investigations found no evidence. ) The implied ask is to lie about what they know it is not true and face legal consequences on his behalf while indicating a pardon if they are loyal and get caught.

Democracy is not about using violence and terror to determine the winner of an election. These laws and the Constitution are rules of behavior needed to make democracy work as it was intended. January 6 was about the use of violence and terror to keep Trump in office by upending the rules. The violent militias like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are not about democracy but about terrorizing others to bow to their goals of establishing a dictatorship of one to whom they pledge allegiance. No amount of chanting and flag waving disguises their attempt to end democracy.  Here is what testimony on June 16 revealed. By January 5, Pence had told the President he would not go along with Trump's plans, either to refuse to accept the official slate of electors or to refer the issue back to the states. He did not have the Constitutional power to do it. When the rioters smashed through the Capitol doors,  Pence took it as if they meant to do him bodily harm.  Subsequent testimony of an FBI embedded informant, the January 6 leaders of the riot revealed they indeed intended to kill Pence because he did not follow Trump's orders to decertify the election. Some of those rioters interviewed at the Capitol on January 6 thought they were there under Trump's orders to be violent. Yet to be determined if Trump intended the rioters to go that far, but in the midst of the violence, he did nothing to call off his Trump banner waiving, "hang Mike Pence" screaming rioters for hours, expressing an opinion Pence deserved to be hung and later praised the terrorists as patriots.  Pence wisely trusted no one on January 6 except his chief bodyguard and refused to get in an escape vehicle driven by even the Secret Service,  per his chief of staff's testimony. He did not trust the driver to obey his desire to stay at the Capitol and to continue the count.  For a running chronicle of Trump's view of the use of violence, see  MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Trump fans the flames of violence yet calls himself the champion of law and order. In fact, the preamble to the Constitution puts domestic tranquility as one of the purposes of its establishment.  The use  and threat of violence to subvert the democratic process is now common as selection officials at all levels, federal, state, and local. Federal law enforcement is now taking action. Nebraska man pleads guilty to threatening Colorado's Jena Griswold | Courts | gazette.com

Democracy is not about one news outlet, and one alone, providing their version of his" truth".. FOX News refused to carry the January 6 hearings on opening night, but when 20 million viewers tuned into the hearings, it will be interesting to see how they cover it and which spin they give it.  They called in partisans (though the GOP had turned down a bipartisan independent commission earlier), and two federal judges had upheld the special committee legitimate.

Democracy is not about those who believe theories that have no evidence and facts to back them up yet claim they are truth and reality.  When laws rule, just execution of those laws demands evidence and proof.  Over 60 federal and state judges found there was not enough evidence of fraud to change the 2020 outcome.  Attorney General Bill Barr's testimony that the 2020 elections were fraudulent was bull..t. He then resigned in part because  Trump still promoted:" stop the steal" when he had been told it was not true.  Others from the Department of Justice reported in testimony they investigated the various conspiracy theories, bags of ballots, dead bodies voting, and more what-ifs and still found no there there. The President, who continued to promote the fantasy,  raised a quarter of a billion d.ollars on the promotion of the lie for an election defense fund that did not exist but was used the money to support allies' funds and to pay for use of hotel facilities he owned.  Trump then tried to install an unqualified loyalist as Attorney General to declare the election was stolen, but so many  Department of Justice threatened to resign that he backed down. 

Democracy is not about one leader claiming his version or the truth reported in the media or the interpretation of the law is the only one credible and to be trusted. Trump and his staff coined the term "fake news" for reports he did not like or called them lies.  Democracy requires respect and access to various views and rebuttals to them so voters can make their own judgments of who is lying and who is not..   

Democracy is not about using the active military to intervene in civilian matters and domestic politics. General Milley took that reading of the Constitution to heart in the aftermath of his being forced to participate in Trump's bible-waiving propaganda walk in Lafayette Square.

Democracy is not about ignoring the will of the majority of people expressed through the ballot box and not permitting a partisan loyal to one ideology, party, or person to pick and choose which votes should be counted.  That was the issue at the heart of the fake elector slates strategy, to let a person choose which slate was to be counted...   Democracy is not about only one party being allowed and given access to count ballots or counting only ballots they assume support them. 

Democracy is not about preventing those in the minority from peacefully expressing themselves individually or in a group.  This is not an absolute right. It is extended to the peaceful nature of the protests and demonstrations., Individuals or groups yelling fire in a crowded theater or calling for a violent revolution are not speech that is protected in a  democracy.  Nonetheless,  those in the Trump camp called acts of violence on January 6, exercising their right to free speech.  Calling "hang Mike Pence" in the midst of an out-of-control riot is not protected free speech. 

________________________________________________________________________________

The Preamble to the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What's next in impeachment

A version of this was published in the Winter Park Times December 6, 2019.
https://winterparktimes.com/opinion/columnists/impeachment-a-clown-show/

What’s next in Donald Trump’s impeachment?  The House Intelligence Committee and two other committees involved are reporting their inquiry results, their investigative findings, to the House Judiciary Committee. That committee will draw up the articles of impeachment, similar to prosecution or plaintiff charges or complaints in a court process, though non-statutory criminal behaviors can also be considered. So far, the White House has refused to participate, claiming this is a coup, hoax, an unfair, partisan witch hunt, and illegal act, devoid of due process. They have left their defense and representation up to House GOP loyalists who call this a “clown show”.   Is it?  The process is outlined and Congressional action is empowered by the Constitution as part of the checks and balances protections against being governed by a king, a person, instead of abiding by the rule of law.  The Constitution writers wanted Congress to hold a president accountable for” treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors” through the impeachment process. If you have watched any part of the hearings on TV  you know that both Republicans and Democrats have had equal time to cross-examine witnesses and make their political cases, even in the not so secret deposition phase. Deposition transcripts are published on the web and testimonies of fact witnesses are readily found on YouTube. Republican House members in the inquiry hearings mostly ignored facts revealed by witnesses, called three of their own witnesses, attacked the process,  and impugned witnesses. They demanded to investigate conspiracy theories already debunked or not central to the issue at hand.

 Partisan? The beginning of past impeachment processes was very partisan but by the time the process reached the Senate to hold a trial and vote, facts, evidence, and public polling also impacted the extent of party loyalty and discipline. In fact, when Richard Nixon got a forecasted vote count, he resigned before any votes were taken in the House or the Senate. Assuming the Republican-controlled Senate honors rules already in place, this should ensure the ultimate fairness of a courtroom type procedure. The Constitution requires  a vote of two-thirds of senators to find the president guilty as charged in at least one of the articles of impeachment and to remove him from office, virtually ensuring that there is bi-partisan consensus needed to reach that total. No president to date has gotten the two-thirds vote needed to be found guilty and removed, the bar is so high.

The GOP and the White House pounding the table about the unfairness of it all is a strategy that will only go so far. The White House has stonewalled all Congressional subpoenas and has now refused to participate in Judiciary Committee hearings, even with their attorneys or the President himself invited to participate.  The White House is making their case on media outlets that are friendly to them and tweets, avoiding having to swear to tell the truth while denying facts uncovered by the inquiry hearings. Eventually, they will have to deal with the facts, swear to the truth if they testify, claiming executive privilege, or take the fifth.  A judge just ruled against the Executive Branch claiming blanket immunity as grounds for ignoring Congressional subpoenas and declared, “the president is not a king.”

Some say leave it up to 2020 elections, they are so soon   If it is a given that the Senate on a party-line vote will acquit the accused president, why go through the process of impeachment?  It serves the purpose of informing voters of wrongdoing or exoneration they otherwise may not have known, and it may or may not affect the next election.  Such actions, in any case, set standards either lower or better defined for acceptable future presidential behavior.  It is at minimum a black mark on the president’s name in the history books which may be punishment enough that future presidents may want to avoid it.
_________________________________________________________________________________
My takeaway from the Dec. 4 House Judiciary Committee hearings: : I thought the Democrats and their witnesses made a strong case for impeachment for preserving the integrity of our 2020 elections, keeping elections free from foreign influence. Therefore, speed is important before the president would do more damage. Impeachment was designed to reign in out of control presidents and not leave it up to voters in the next elections, because a president could use his techniques to determine the outcome of the next election. , Foreigners do not have our interests at heart but work to support theirs. Trump invited Russians to interfere in 2016 and he indeed pressured a vulnerable ally to help him just say they announced they were opening, not performing, investigations on his own domestic political opponent and a debunked theory in order to help him in 2020. The pressure used to get the Ukraine president to comply was comprised of restoring critical foreign aid and a White House visit as the reward for doing him some favors. It also looks that the Mueller obstruction findings will be rolled in.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-full-text-trump-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry-report-n1095036?fbclid=IwAR0Ai0u_wVnUX_YDwkpZFF8qd92E7a5S3c_cIlMOkbt35YDedvF9lMx2C7M

https://www.yahoo.com/newsj/trump-faces-two-impeachment-deadlines-110905864.html

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-hard-to-be-an-optimist-about-america-right-now/2019/11/27/8020e526-115b-11ea-b0fc-62cc38411ebb_story.html

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/donald-trump-constitution-supreme-court-executive-power/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/democrats-impeachment-report-cites-trump-obstruction-withholding-aid-warns-grave-n1094341
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/02/politics/house-republican-response-impeachment-inquiry/index.html
https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=ZmVsaWNpYW11ZnRpY0BnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&s=5de6e2ccfe1ff62e5b0a1ab3&linknum=4&linktot=49

We have a republic: will we keep it?

A version of this was published in the Winter Park Times, Nov. 8, 2019

https://winterparktimes.com/opinion/columnists/setting-a-precedent/

Update Nov. 12, 2019

Admiral William Mcraven, (ret)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opinion/trump-mcraven-syria-military.html

"It is easy to destroy an organization if you have no appreciation for what makes that organization great. We are not the most powerful nation in the world because of our aircraft carriers, our economy, or our seat at the United Nations Security Council. We are the most powerful nation in the world because we try to be the good guys. We are the most powerful nation in the world because our ideals of universal freedom and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the protectors of the less fortunate.

But, if we don’t care about our values, if we don’t care about duty and honor, if we don’t help the weak and stand up against oppression and injustice — what will happen to the Kurds, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Syrians, the Rohingyas, the South Sudanese and the millions of people under the boot of tyranny or left abandoned by their failing states?
If our promises are meaningless, how will our allies ever trust us? If we can’t have faith in our nation’s principles, why would the men and women of this nation join the military? And if they don’t join, who will protect us? If we are not the champions of the good and the right, then who will follow us? And if no one follows us — where will the world end up?
President Trump seems to believe that these qualities are unimportant or show weakness. He is wrong. These are the virtues that have sustained this nation for the past 243 years. If we hope to continue to lead the world and inspire a new generation of young men and women to our cause, then we must embrace these values now more than ever."

If we let President Donald Trump off the hook for misusing the power of his office for his own political benefit we could cause the eventual end of our democracy. There are those who will say what he did was wrong, but it was not wrong enough to justify impeachment or removal by the Senate. Consider this. How Congress acts will create a precedent for some future wannabe dictators from the left or from the right who think they too can get away with it. Many democracies in our modern era have died a creeping death because citizens allowed their constitutions and laws to be abused. Our founders feared the rule of a tyrant (king, dictator or autocrat) would reoccur. They had fought a revolutionary war to rid themselves of one. They wrote safeguards into the Constitution. If those safeguards are ignored, wrongdoings go unpunished, or unexposed, there is a likelihood that sometime in our future we could see our democracy replaced by an autocrat getting away with ignoring laws and the Constitution as Trump did. It is not only about members of Congress who fear being primaried or concerned with their reputation in history. It is also about the future of the kind of governance our children and grandchildren will have. Frequently quoted Ben Franklin on the passage of the Constitution: “We have a republic if we can keep it”. American democracy is being tested.

Important guardrails protecting us from the demise of democracy are written into our Constitution: the separation of the three co-equal branches of government and their ability to have specified kinds of checks over one another. A major difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that the rule of law trumps the rule of a person in a democracy. In a dictatorship, the autocratic leader tells you what the laws are or mean and persecute you for not adhering or daring to protest. Impeachment by Congress is one of the Constitution's checks against this happening. Important witnesses have braved repercussions to their own futures to provide confirmation of evidence already public in the record of a telephone call between President Trump and the President of Ukraine, and slips of the tongue of officials. Corroborating evidence is emerging from the behind doors inquiry that Trump used the powers of his office to get help from a foreign government for his 2020 re-election bid. The impeachment inquiry is now moving into the light of public hearings and voters will have a chance to see and hear for themselves if this is a sham, an unfair process, and a partisan takedown, as Republicans claim.

Charges being investigated by the House are whether the President asked, pressured, or demanded the Ukraine President to help Trump’s re-election. Soliciting, accepting and using aid from foreigners for election purposes is by itself a crime per election laws. Our democracy, our elections, are of, by, and for Americans, not of, by, or for Russia, China, or any other country. In the July 25 telephone call, Trump asked the new Ukrainian president to find dirt on the family of Joe Biden, his most feared opponent in the upcoming 2020 US elections. He further conditioned a visit to the White House and the release of bi-partisan supported military aid Ukraine desperately needed if they agreed to the favors he asked. That phone call described a “quid pro quo”, a Latin phrase, meaning “I will give you something you want (quid), the release of US military aid and a White House visit, though if you do what I want (the quo)’“, and investigate Hunter Biden’s Ukraine business. That kind of bargaining is used to support national security policy’s established objectives, but that is not what this quid pro quo involved. It was to benefit Trump’s re-election. Trump’s defense that the deal was to fight corruption in Ukraine is a farce since any reference to corruption the President made only mentioned Biden’s son’s Ukraine business dealings.

https://www.newsweek.com/federal-judge-slams-trump-attacks-judiciary-1470674

Trump's destruction of the balance of power. We have a republic,but can we keep it

Revised: 10/19/19
Updated 10/31/19

We have a republic, but can we keep it?




Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, speaking on behalf of the rules for the impeachment inquiry as it enters the public testimony phase, said  "What is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy," as she quoted Benjamin Franklin who was asked by citizens what sort of government the delegates had created, his answer was: "A republic if you can keep it."   Our founders threw the ball to us; it is now in our court , we the people. The opposite of democracy and our Republican form that ensures its survival is a word our founders used: tyranny. The resurrection of tyranny in 2019 is not at the top of our list of concerns per polls.  This is hardly the stuff that stirs the soul, but it should be. That is why there was a revolution and the United States of America was founded.

The purpose of the founders of our Constitutional government to establish a republic was to prevent what they most fear:, the rule of tyranny in the future. Their prime weapons: balance of powers as constructed in the Constitution and the rule of law.  Wrote founder James Madison in the Federalist Papers,  “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” President Trump has set about to destroy the balance of powers that stands of his way to become "a really strong leader"., which now we know means to him the admired autocracies of Putin of Russia and Erdogan of Turkey, both of whom have taken over and control those three power centers of modern democracy.  

The fundamental balance of powers is under attack by the very same political party that once dedicated itself to limited government. Instead, they are the legislators who now bow down to their feared leader, Donald Trump,  who promises to primary anyone who steps out of his line. The same President Trump claims a sitting president cannot be indicted per a Department of Justice rule,  prosecuted, or investigated for criminal behavior. Recently, a judge ruling on Trump's refusal to turn over tax returns because he argued a sitting President could not even be investigated or prosecuted said those claims were " repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values ". Trump is also preventing close members of his administration and allies from testifying to Congress during impeachment inquiries, defying Congressional subpoenas and making it difficult for Congress to carry out its Constitutionally granted power and duty of impeachment. Congress is left with taking the matter to court,  waiting years for decisions,  or including the defiance as contempt of Congress in the articles of impeachment. They are doing both. Fortunately for the House impeachment inquiry in 2019,  most of the evidence and confessions they need to proceed with impeachment are already on public record in press, media, tweets, and documents. Many witnesses have already honored subpoenas and are testifying.

A realistic fear is that the ascendence of dictators can creep up on populations until it is too late to use democratic means to stop them.  Both Erdogan and Putin are current cases in point.  In modern history, the fascists from Hitler to Mussolini also used the ballot box to rise to power. Our founders also learned from the history of the failure of the Roman Republic 1800 years earlier. The Constitution provided ways to head off dictatorships and to have peaceful regime changes.  Their improvements included the Bill of Rights, protecting citizens also from the tyranny of the majority who could suppress those in the minority,  and an impeachment process in the hands of Congress to rid those committing high crimes, treason, and bribery. The Constitution identified three power centers, legislative, executive, and judicial,  and gave them checks and balances over each other while giving citizens the ability to express their desires in free and fair elections of their representatives and president without foreigners interfering.    We are seeing the impeachment process in action now that involve many of those issues, from bribery to contempt of Congress, to soliciting foreign interference in our elections. To permit such actions to be unchecked and unpunished is giving the green light for future leaders to go and do likewise.  Per  Rep. Elijah Cummings who passed away last week: “When we’re dancing with the angels, the question will be asked: In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact?”
But does anyone care?  In Colorado, polls conducted by Colorado pollster KOM and Channel 7 in mid-October, the majority of Coloradans supported the impeachment inquiry.

______________________________________________________

  The problem with mature dictatorships  or governance by hereditary kings is that they have the unchecked power to  trample the rights, govern by force and fear, take away civil rights and the ability  of the disenfranchised to protest, destroy the independent press and whistleblowing, have a free reign to be corrupt, or make decisions which turn out to harm national security interests, make elections a sham, controlled and without real choices.   The only option left to the population is to take to the streets, a military coup, a civil war, and bloodshed. That is the eventual fate of every dictator and country ruled by such methods and is as true today as it was in the late 1700s or even 2000 years ago. The Constitution provided peaceful means for protest and regime change and protection from a tyrannical leader

Our founders were students of classical history, fluent in Greek and Latin and aided by translations, with access to ancient manuscripts reproduced by the printing press.   The architecture and government they constructed reflected an attempt to improve on the model they admired the most, the  Roman republic.    They had seen what happened 2000 years ago when Tiberius Gracchus, the Trump of his time, became Rome's first strong man, deriving his power from Populares,  the populist movement he led. The movement was the result of a great concentration of wealth and an underclass of those who had struggled as they returned from wars to find themselves without land and a way to make a living.  He left any check of his powers by the Senate in ruins by creating factions that pitted interests of citizens against elites, resulting in a hundred years of turmoil and the eventual death of the Roman republic. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river to bring order and grab power and engineered Senate rules changes to become the first dictator for life.  Augustus, Caeser's adopted nephew,  became the first Roman emperor. It was this history our founders feared would be repeated in their newly independent country. 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34097

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-long-opposed-impeaching-trump-thats-different-now/2019/10/10/0991817e-eb8e-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

https://www.people-press.org/topics/political-issue-priorities/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/impeachment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-isnt-julius-caesar-hes-republic-killer-tiberius-gracchus?source=articles&via=rss

https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-department-directs-gordon-sondland-not-to-appear-for-house-testimony-lawyer-says-11570538414

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/politics/5-rulings-against-trump-taxes-border-wall-immigration-public-charge/index.html

https://www.skyhinews.com/news/muftic-trump-and-the-gop-congress-madison-warned-us/

From a New Yorker article last week:"In dismissing a request from Trump’s lawyers for a preliminary injunction to prevent Cyrus Vance, the District Attorney for Manhattan, from getting hold of the tax returns, Marrero rejected their legal arguments in a long and, at times, impassioned ruling. “Bared to its core, the proposition the President advances reduces to the very notion that the Founders rejected at the inception of the Republic and that the Supreme Court has since unequivocally repudiated: that a constitutional domain exists in this country in which not only the President but, derivatively, relatives and persons and business entities associated with him in potentially unlawful private activities, are in fact above the law,” Marrero stated. “Because this Court finds aspects of such a doctrine repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values, and for the reasons further stated below, it ABSTAINS from adjudicating this dispute and DISMISSES the President’s suit.”

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-isn-t-julius-092155958.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=ma

The rule of law trumps the rule of a ruler: USA 101

A version of this appeared in the e and print editions of the Sky Hi News November 7, 2018 and on line November 8.

 https://www.skyhinews.com/news/opinion/opinion-usa-101-the-rule-of-law-trumps-the-rule-of-the-ruler/

The morning after November 6:  Still sitting in the Oval Office is a president who views laws as a barrier to his power, a challenge  to get around them or  claim he can bend the rule of law to his benefit. He brought with him to the White House this scofflaw attitude,  rooted  in his business experience. His midterm election promise to reverse the 14th Amendment is only one case in point. (added later November 7 A crisis is being engineered by Donald Trump to impede the Mueller investigation by appointing a yes man flunky on record to criticizing Mueller acting in place  of fired Jeff Sessions This is a direct result of Trump holding onto the Senate...By doing so, Trump has insulated himself against impeachment and can operate with all of the arrogance, retribution, and abuse of power he thinks he has...rule of law be damned. This is a third finger raised against Mueller and democracy. It is also one more element in building an obstruction of justice case  against Trump Mueller could use if Trump's appointee takes action to rein in Mueller.  A constitutional crisis is just beginning.  Expect Trump to take advantage of the lame duck session to get away with whatever he can before the newly blue majority  House is sworn in.  )

Throughout his life as an heir to a fortune which he nurtured into a greater fortune with a family run real estate  enterprise, Donald Trump  only needed  his  simple command to rule his business. Any challengers were to be hit back harder than they hurt him. For him, as expressed in interviews , fear is his power.  His reputation was not good  in the real estate field, already filled with con artists and puffing sales people and he shrugged off  a long list of suits and bankruptcies as  just another cost of doing business.  He survived claims of fraud and misdeeds   by  settling  disputes with money, as he did in the Trump University case or his problem with infidelities and abusive  behavior with women.
When he became  president, he tried  to run the White House with the same attitudes and ethics  as he had run his business. His TV reality show and real estate hawker mentality, his frequently uttered lies and exaggerations  continued. He arose to political power by leading causes like birtherism, claiming Obama was an illegitimate president because he was born in Kenya, contrary to overwhelming evidence.  This  appealed to many  who resented that  their preservation of ethnic and racial power was constrained by the rule of  law, political correctness (AKA civility),  and the Constitution. Later he was claiming he was above the law because of his position as president. He asserted  he could not be subpoenaed to testify  in a criminal case and he could pardon himself.
 He  has made promises that would challenge the very supremacy of the Constitution.  In a last minute midterm election promise, Donald Trump said he would sign an executive order to overturn the 14th Amendment. It guaranteed a  person’s  children born  or naturalized in the US  would be  US citizens.  With a stroke of a pen signing an executive order, he proposed to change the constitution. He would destroy this odious  birthright citizenship. It was obviously a promise made to appeal to his white nationalist base. If he had the power to change the Constitution by executive order,  then he could also  take action against his critics, the enemies of the people, the free press,  and  keep on going, until the rule of law, the Constitution, was not worth the parchment on which it was written. To keep some wannabe despot,   king , or dictator from altering that fundamental  document from which all laws flowed, the Constitution made itself very difficult to be amended, fortunately for democracy.    “Amendments must be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.”
Subject to interpretation, the application of some Constitutional provisions are  altered. However, the 14th is one of the most unambiguous amendments ever written.    “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” He was trying to pull off another  con, counting on  the ignorance of his devout followers.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-maybe-u-s-will-have-a-president-for-life-someday

The Freedom Caucus is becoming an oxymoron.

Revised November 12, 2017
 Version of this published as a column in the Sky Hi News, November 15, 2015 p 7  www.skyhidailynews.com

"Keeping up  with the Mueller investigation  will risk a coup d'etat"  could be taken as   an implied  threat  by  hard core members of  the  Congressional Freedom Caucus even though it is couched in terms of an outcome  if  Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller continues his investigation  into Donald Trump's administration. http://www.newsweek.com/us-risks-coup-if-mueller-investigation-continues-say-republicans-706421

Have they lost their minds? What they are saying is frightening. Within our democratic form a government, impeachment is the method of regime change.  By definition, a coup d'etat is" the sudden attempt by a small group of people to take over the government usually through violence." (Merriam-Webster) .A coup , a  non democratic power takeover, destroys any pretext of freedom and begins a chain of counter coups, economy killing instability, and civil war. Including the word "freedom"  in their caucus name itself is  an oxymoron, the opposite of what they say they stand for.

The Freedom Caucus' reasoning is  they believe Special Prosecutor  Robert Mueller is getting revenge  against Pres. Trump for the firing of Mueller's  friend,  fired FBI director  James Comey. Per chief advocate Rep. Matt Gaetz  of Florida that Mueller as former FBI director failed to prosecute Hillary Clinton on the Uranium One deal where the right wing alleged there was bribery that involved Russian investments.  Therefore, there is an appearance of a conflict of interest, they say. There is no evidence that Mueller is investigating Clinton as part of the Russian probe. It remains a conspiracy theory since even the accusers have presented no evidence Clinton intervened  on behalf of the State Department in the issue to pressure the other eight agencies who also reviewed and  approved the deal.  That these theories and suspicions are a  cause for dismissal will not fly, given the overwhelming accolades  of his competence and independence that followed Mueller's appointment. Firing for cause means that there is incompetence or abuse of power that is provable.  Suspecting political motivations do not count as a cause. The problem for the Freedom Caucus  is that Mueller's competence has been so  credibly demonstrated in his  meticulous and detailed  indictments, he  has now become  a serious  threat to their hero, Donald Trump.

 These Freedom Caucus members  are divorced from reality  for even suggesting a coup could happen.  A coup  by whom? Some  volunteer militia out there? Alt right activists waiving torches?  By the generals  in the administration like White House Chief of Staff, John F Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and National Security Adviser  H.R.McMaster,   men  well educated in political science whose oath  of office includes a duty to democracy and the Constitution? 

The founders of our country and the Constitution warned us about such kinds of threats to democracy.  .That is  why they provided the impeachment process in the Constitution, the alternative to coups, armed insurrections,  and revolution to determine the legitimate  ruler. Impeachment is the more  likely outcome of the Russian connection investigation if Trump were to fire Mueller, his ultimate act of obstruction of justice. The GOP dominated  House of Representatives would never begin the  impeachment process. Flipping it blue to impeach Trump  would at minimum become  the dominating 2018 campaign issue.

 These members of  the  Freedom Caucus  must have slept through  history classes,  much less civics. History of the past hundred years  is littered with failed states with countries who trashed their democratic institutions.  A lesson from history:  a warning that without citizen support, democracy is  damned. Most dictators and autocrats from banana republics to large industrialized  countries gained power by popular vote, flaunting laws established in their governing documents, including  Hitler, who was elected to office.  Once gaining power in the voting booth, they set about ignoring or  eating alive any constraints on their power. It is happening now in Russia, Turkey, elsewhere.    Those who care about our Constitution and rule of law need to start speaking out loudly.

_________________________________________________________________________________
From history and current events, we can see what we could repeat. As the French Revolution unfolded, even the inventor of the guillotine eventually  fell to its blade as the revolution got out of control. Coups blow   back even on their instigators.  What goes around has a way of coming around. The next half century of the 1800's resulted in Napoleon's reign  and restoration of monarchy.  Because of our newly minted Constitution, America did not fall into that trap. 
Fareed Zakaria outlines how that is happening within our memories and now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-saudi-crown-princes-power-grab-follows-a-strongmans-playbook/2017/11/09/167d35fe-c593-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html

_____________________________________________________________________________

So what is  wrong with a military coup and rule by the military that motivated our founders to set up safeguards against military coups? Military rule is hard on both sides of a conflict and destabilizing. Our founders  realized that and put civilians with power over  the military. 

Janet Schaw, a Scot visiting her brother , likely an English loyalist in Wilmington  North Carolina, in 1775, wrote of her time in the colonies:"At present the martial law stands thus: An officer or committeeman enters a plantation with his posse. The alternative is proposed. Agree to join us [Whigs] and your persons and properties are safe . . . if you refuse, we are directly to cut up your corn, shoot your pigs, burn your houses, … and perhaps tar and feather yourself. Not to choose the first requires more courage than they are possessed"  http://mentalfloss.com/article/60917/8-complaints-real-colonists-had-about-british-rule

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/09/a-republican-congressman-is-calling-for-robert-mueller-to-be-fired/


http://www.newsweek.com/us-risks-coup-if-mueller-investigation-continues-say-republicans-706421

Violating constitutional principles is like riding the tiger

VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES IS LIKE RIDING THE TIGER

Our founding fathers were wise men.  They established the Constitution that is as relevant today as it was in the late 18^th century. It is being attacked by those who advocate ignoring the basic principles of that document because they are fearful.  Fear and hate are also powerful tools for those seeking power. We need to support the principles of the Constitution. To do otherwise is like riding the back of a tiger. It will eventually devour us as it has others.

It was not that our nation’s founders foresaw a nation or a world that would have the internet, a widespread bully pulpit of cable TV, weapons of mass destruction or firearms that would require little skill to be used as killing machines, but they drew on experiences of governance failures and the tendencies of human nature.

 Those writers of the Constitution carefully constructed a representative democracy, not a direct one that immediately reflected an ever fickle, easily spooked, public opinion.  They believed that extreme views and their proponents needed to be tempered. They had seen it all: religious wars in England and Europe. They had experienced public opinion influenced by pamphlets and rabble rousers and saw some hanging fellow colonialists who did not subscribe to the official religion of that particular colony.

 They had also witnessed the repression by kings governing by divine right, exercising power over their subjects’ lives.  So they wrote a document that made it less likely that there would ever be a king, yet left a government with enough powers to be effective.  They divided the power of federal government among three branches.  Even within the legislative branch, a more contemplative Senate put the brakes on a House more sensitive to the tides of public sentiment. They also retained some rights for the states.  When branches conflicted, they let the courts decide which act the closest to the intent of the Constitution, as they are doing now.  They amended the Constitution to protect individual citizens from being trampled by an overbearing, unfair government.

There are destructive forces today that undermine the principles upon which the Constitution was founded. For example, Donald Trump proposes registering all Muslims, forcing them to wear monitoring devices (violating more than one of the rights protected by the first Ten Amendments), and the use of torture. Others, such as John Kasich, want to set up a government agency to promote Judeo Christian values and thus de facto establishing a state religion in a nation that is multi-  and non- religious. The glue that holds such a diverse nation together is the Constitution, not allegiance to a religion’s particular interpretation of values.

Our forefathers formulated the Constitution to temper human nature’s instincts to embrace safety within the fold of like- minded groups.   It is that very human tendency to seek the leadership that is willing to throw under the bus the basic rights of individuals and the constraints of government power in the name of national security. It is only human to seek a strong man for protection, regardless of where he/she leads us. We saw it in Germany and Spain in the 1930’s and in Argentina under populist Peron in the 1950’s

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi Daily News  12/4/2015
www.skyhidailynews.com