Category Archives: Congress

I Have a Dream….

My dream is that Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Republican Leader of the Senate, solemnly announces that he has received from the House of Representatives Articles of Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, and that as detailed by the Constitution and the rules of the Senate he is turning the gavel over to the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, who will preside (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6).

Roberts then administers to the Senators the required special “oath or affirmation” required by the Constitution and specified in the rules of the Senate:

”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

Senate Impeachment Rule XXV

At this point Chuck Schumer of New York, Democratic leader of the Senate, expressing a sense of moral outrage he has never before shown in public, makes a motion, rising to object to the seating of Senators McConnell and Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina, as jurors due to their false swearing of the oath.

A hush falls over the Senate. And all eyes turn to Justice Roberts.

There is no question that Schumer would be correct in alleging that McConnell and Graham, at a minimum among the Republican senators, will have lied when they swear to God that they will, sitting now as jurors, do “impartial justice.” McConnell has repeatedly stated that he is working to guarantee an acquittal for Trump. In an interview with Fox host Sean Hannity he said, “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel,” and, “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

Graham is even more blatant, saying in front of any camera available that his mind is made up, as he told CNN, “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here,” Graham said, adding, “This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly,”

If Schumer, or any other senator, has what it takes to offer my dream motion, it will put the Chief Justice on the hot seat. It is true that the ultimate power to set the rules of the impeachment trial rests not with the Chief but with the Senate itself and, as McConnell loves to repeatedly observe, he controls the 51 votes needed to win any vote.

But as I read the rules, before it comes to a vote, John Roberts will first issue a ruling. Make no mistake, Roberts is a conservative Republican right to his core. But unlike most of his right wing brethren Roberts also has a sense, if not for fairness, than a sense for history. History of the Supreme Court to be sure. But also for the history of justice in America. Robert might, just might, make the proper ruling. Anyone sitting on a jury who announces a verdict before the trial has begun, gets to go home early.

It will not be hard for the Republican senators to vote against my dream motion. But if Roberts has first ruled in its favor, it will be harder.

In my dreams.

 

#####

 

 

L’état n’est pas Donald Trump

L’affaire Trump has entered a new stage. In a scathing eight page letter to Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, White House counsel Pat Cipollone declared that Donald Trump “cannot participate” in the House’s impeachment inquiry, complaining the “inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections.”

The Trumpies of course love the letter even though it reads like Trump himself sketched it out, filling it with his long list of lies and manufactured grievances, and then handed it to Cipollone. I can imagine Cipollone struggling to take out Trump’s usual adjectives like, “lil’ Adam Schiff,” and adding some legalese. The resulting argument would get a failing grade in anyone’s first year Constitutional Law course.

Read more

The Whistle Blows for Trump

I won’t even try to fight it, as I did in my last blog. Now the whistleblower’s complaint has been released and so was a summary memo describing the telephone conversation Donald Trump had with the President of Ukraine.

Please, I beg you. READ the complaint and the telephone call memo. Make up your own mind. Beware the pundits and the spinners. Even me. It remains both inexplicable and frustrating to me that two people can look at the same material and come to different conclusions. But that’s life. What I can’t abide is people voicing an opinion without having read the material. Each document is only a handful of pages long. Make the effort.

Read more

Why is it so hard?

I think I’ve figured out why it is so hard to get these blogs written. I have a routine. I’ll have an idea, spend half a day thinking about it and doing any necessary research. Then I’ll spend the afternoon writing. Then I sleep on it and the next morning, edit it with fresh eyes and look for a visual or two to insert. Easy, right?

The problem is I keep writing about Donald Trump. He dominates the news and my thoughts. I simply can’t believe what he says. I can’t believe what he does or tries to do. I can’t believe how many people passively remain quiet or openly support his actions. So I write. But overnight, he does something worse. Day in and day out. Now, come the morning, I’m faced with the dilemma, finish the piece from the day before, or drop everything to tackle the latest horror? I’m frozen in the headlights of Trump.

Read more

Parliament: At Least Debate

One of the more esoteric debates in academia for those studying politics is the contrast between the American form of government, with a strong executive and an elected legislature wielding equal power, with the democratic parliamentary system in which the elected legislature is the ultimate power, the head of state subservient to it and the executive chosen by it. In other words, America v. England.

I frequently got into this debate with my father, a true Anglophile, and we never resolved the issue. The compare and contrast form of discussion was, in many way, ironic because of the historical circumstances. England had a strong executive at the time of the American revolution. King George III reigned at that time, had considerable real power compared with today’s Queen Elizabeth II, and was for Americans the perfect example of a leader to be avoided.

Read more

Again With the Guns

I have now learned that a great way to increase the amount of public participation on your blog is to talk about guns. The feedback on my last post set a record.

I have also learned that having a reasonable debate on this subject is pretty much impossible. There is so much disinformation out there that people involved in the discussion seem to be speaking different languages.

Part of the problem is that there really is, as I noted in the last post, not a lot of good data on the effects of gun ownership and gun regulation. I know that sounds crazy and I have to tell you, as one who believes in making informed data driven judgments it is very frustrating. But it is true mostly because the government, which funds much of the academic research in the United States, has for years forbidden the organizations responsible for public health and safety to fund studies into the causes of death by gunfire. That leaves us arguing, for example, on the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004. 

Read more

Guns

On September 13, 1994, a ten-year ban on assault weapons was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It had been supported by three former presidents, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reason. The law had a built-in “sunset” provision and was allowed to expire on September 13, 2004, when President George W. Bush was in office.

The so-called Federal Assault Weapons Ban, part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was limited. It included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as “large capacity”.

Limited or not, it was too much for the Republicans and the National Rifle Association. Democratic attempts to renew it have failed repeatedly over the years. California Senator Diane Feinstein has led the effort in the Senate. Her bill is pending before the Judiciary Committees in both houses. There have been no hearings.

To be fair, yes, some opinion writers try to be, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the law, at least during the first few years after it was enacted. And the legal environment for gun control legislation has become more complicated in recent years, in great part due to the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

This 2008 opinion, decided 5-4 with  Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito in the majority, held for the first time that the Second Amendment gives private citizens the right to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established purposes such as self-defense even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

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.

Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

I can go on for hours, and have bored many a person doing so, about how ridiculous and hypocritical the Heller opinion, written by Justice Scalia, is. But I’ll spare you. For now. Suffice it to note the opinion, dangerous though it is, still allows for the possibility that some type of weapons could be banned. One hopes, for example, the Court would allow the prohibition of nuclear bombs in a home arsenal. Still untested however, is a new ban on assault weapons.

But before a new ban can be tested, Congress has to act.

Congress is taking August off.

The Shooters Don’t Wait

On Saturday it appears a single shooter killed 20 people and wounded 26 others at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas. Police say he carried an assault rifle of the type banned by the expired law. He was captured alive by police within minutes.

Dayton Shooting MagazineThirteen hours later another apparently lone gunman opened fire on people in downtown Dayton, Ohio. The gunman wore body armor and also used an “AK” type assault rifle. Police say he carried the “high capacity magazine” pictured on the left. It holds 100 rounds, is designed for rapid fire and would have been banned under the expired law. The gunman was killed by police in less than a minute after he started shooting. In that minute he killed 9 people and wounded at least 27 others.

If only Scalia, who frequently argued that the Constitution has to be understood in terms of what its actual words meant at the time they were written, had limited his individual right to bear arms to those highly inaccurate and slow firing weapons in use at that time. You can’t do much damage with a musket or flintlock.

Even Background Checks Can’t Be Enacted

The House of Representatives passed H.R.8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 on February 27, 2019. The vote was 240 – 190. It is far from perfect. But it does establish new background check requirements for firearm transfers between private parties (i.e., unlicensed individuals). Specifically, it prohibits a firearm transfer between private parties unless a licensed gun dealer, manufacturer, or importer first takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check.

On March 4, it was “Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 29.” Its fate now rests solely in the hands of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. It hasn’t been heard from since.

Congress is taking August off.

Most polls show a significant majority of Americans favor limits on high capacity, high speed weapons designed for military use. Most polls show a significant majority of Americans favor background checks.

Congress is taking August off.

Perhaps the solution is for voters to give members of Congress who block these measures a permanent vacation.

####

« Older Entries