We seem to have lost our understanding of the inner workings of the U.S. government. Perhaps you remember your high school government class or it may have been called “civics” where you attended. If you do, you should be able to name the three branches of our government…and their functions.
Are you confused about why the Senate has two representatives per state…no matter how many people live in that state? Based on the calls to abolish the Senate or increase certain states membership because one side didn’t take it over, it seems that many people are.
Did you know that only eight U.S. states require their students to demonstrate a basic understanding of their own government to graduate? That seems odd. We are about to send these kids out into the world with a newly acquired right to vote, and yet we won’t supply them with the basic understanding necessary to properly apply that privilege?
In California, we require a student to successfully complete two years of science, at least algebra, and two years of a foreign language in order to graduate. We require a semester of US government and a semester of economics. 90 days of 50 minute classes for subjects that will not only affect their lives, but the lives of everyone in this country.
Slight tangent…California just ended the program that allowed children to graduate with a focus in technical education instead of college prep. So…we want more plumbers, aircraft mechanics, and air conditioner techs, but we don’t want to help any of our kids prepare for those careers. Apparently, informing a 16 year old that they could earn a great living as a contractor would be insulting.
Before you say anything, I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t turn out well rounded students. But let me ask you this: How much of your high school language class do you actually remember? Unless you went on to study it as a focus, probably not much.
Is it more important for our children to be able to ask, “Sprechen Sie Deutsch?” or should they maybe know at least a tiny bit more about the inner workings of the government and economics of this country? If they did, perhaps we wouldn’t be electing people who say things such as:
“For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that — they weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”
“If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate.”
“Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.”
“People often say, how are you gonna pay for it? And I find the question so puzzling because, how do you pay for something that’s more affordable? How do you pay for cheaper rent? How do you pay for—you just pay for it.”
And this gem…which, while it sounds like that commercial about “Sorta Marge, isn’t Marge (“And we both feel integrity, such as that of healthcare in the ‘Merica of the U.S., and therefore, yes. Thank you.”) came from a real candidate for government office…scarier yet, they won.
“Well, I think a lot of it has to do with changing our strategy around governance. You know there’s a lot of inside baseball and inside the beltway as you, you always hear that term thrown around. But there are very few organizers in Congress. And I do think that organizers operate differently. It’s a different kind of strategy. And what it is, is really about organizing and, and really thinking about that word: organizing. Segmenting people. Being strategic in their actions in really bringing together a cohesive strategy of putting pressure on the chamber instead of only focusing on the pressures inside the chamber.”
As George Takei might say, “Oh my!”
So, with that in mind…what if we only required 1 year of foreign language and increased to 1 year each, government and economics? Wouldn’t it be nice if our recent graduates knew the difference between debit and debt? If they understood how our government actually works?
A recent example: Citizens are complaining about this sweetheart deal Amazon received from New York…but they are placing the blame on Amazon because “the people didn’t have any say in the matter.” Hmmm…you could stop voting for the people who do these things you don’t like. There’s a crazy idea. You do have a say. You stop auto-voting for incumbents or down the party line and vote for the people who align most with your views.
Here’s a wild fact for you. In 2016, of the seats available in Congress, 98% of incumbents who ran, won. OK…but at the same time, the approval rating for Congress was 11%. I wish I understood how that happens. Why aren’t we making them work for us…work to get our votes? How did we get to “I can’t stand the job you’re doing, but I’m freely choosing to let you keep doing it”?
Another example of current challenges with our understanding of government: In this country, we are (supposedly) innocent until proven guilty or as defined in Latin, ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies). This should be the way all arguments are settled, but that is another matter altogether. It isn’t in the Constitution, really…go look for yourself. We’ll wait….
Welcome back. Wasn’t there, was it? However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, as put forth by the UN calls it out specifically…so we have that going for us, which is nice.
Due process is guaranteed us by the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments in some form or another. These amendments also are used to cobble together our basis for the presumption of innocence. What we use as precedent for this protection is the 1895 case of Coffin v. United States which was heard before the Supreme Court. In their decision, the Court specifically used the phrase as being undoubtedly part of the foundation of our basis for law.
Due process says that the Government will act within the law and provide fair procedures. It isn’t only about legal cases in court. Any action taken by the government must follow due process. A ruling by the Supreme Court declared government jobs are defined by state laws as relations the citizen was entitled to keep until there was some reason to take them away, and therefore process was due before they could be taken away.
Many people were screaming during the Kavanaugh hearings, that presumption of innocence and due process weren’t in play because it was a job interview. Really, let’s think about this:
One, citizens asking for someone to bear the burden of proof of innocence should scare the bajeebus out of you.
Two, this was an action being undertaken by our federal government which means that they must act within the protections afforded all citizens.
Three…did we really have people asking to set aside presumption of innocence simply because they hate this president?
What? Oh I remember now. People wanted to stop a Supreme Court Justice’s nomination at any cost because: Kavanaugh will reverse Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion! Kavanaugh will protect Trump from being charged with a crime! Kavanaugh will bring his partisan beliefs to the court!
Hmmm….let’s look at these, shall we?
Working backwards…the people complaining about partisan views being brought to the court. Would they be complaining if those partisan views aligned with their views? I suspect I know the answer (right Chuck Schumer?), but I just want to get that point out there.
They love RBG, even when she steps way out of bounds and talks politics, which a Supreme Court Justice should never ever do. It is much like the idea of religion in schools. We aren’t supposed to have any, but if we are getting some it had better be the religion I align with, am I right?
It will be impossible for us to ever find a person who has no opinions or leanings…ever. Until we have AI robot justices…but that is a whole different subject. What we are looking for, are Justices who take their personal opinion out of the deliberations and come to decisions based on precedent and the constitution of the U.S. That is all.
One of the main reasons why Justices are appointed for life is so they don’t have to run for office or be tempted to bend their decisions based on keeping their appointments. This is why we need history and government classes…so people understand why this government was designed as it was.
What about protecting Trump from criminal charges. If there were to be charges brought against the president, what happens today?
“The President, Vice President and civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
— Article II, section 4, U.S. Constitution
and
“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”
— Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution
So, if a sitting President is found by Congress to be guilty of one of the aforementioned items, Congress could impeach. However, Congress may not punish any further than that impeachment. Once impeached however, he then becomes subject to standard legal processes.
This is in the Constitution and therefore not able to be modified by the Supreme Court. No Justice, no matter their leaning, can protect a president from impeachment or from the legal procedures that may follow.
Who can? The next president. That is your concern. The next president can step in and pardon the former president for any crime. Ford pardoned Nixon under the auspices of doing what was best to allow the country to move forward. Or, more insidious yet, the president could invoke the 25th amendment, declare himself temporarily unable to serve, be pardoned by the acting president, then resume his office.
Can he be tried or indicted while still in office? We have nothing concrete on this and this is where the problem lies. One side argues that putting a president under trial would allow a jury from one locality to convict and thereby overturn the will of all the people. Which goes against the idea of elections in general. Congress, on the other hand, answers to all the people.
Kavanaugh’s own opinion from the Clinton days was that impeachment was the proper first course of action. Which seems logical because the powers of the president include control over federal prosecutions. Though, the principle of nemo judex in parte sua, which boils down to, you can’t be your own judge, would most likely prevent anyone from having a hand in their own case.
It would seem to make sense that you would want the president out of office and unable to oversee their trial and/or pardon themselves. But, the anti-Kavanaugh side saw the unlikelihood of a Republican president being impeached by a Republican controlled Senate, thus the concern that this matter would go to the SCOTUS and Kavanaugh would instantly side with Trump.
However, a look back at Clinton’s impeachment hearings shows some interesting information. The Senate was a Republican majority, but not all of them voted for impeachment. All Democrats voted not guilty on both charges (surprise!) and 10 Republicans voted no on one and 5 voted no on the other. So it isn’t impossible to vote across party lines, though these days it seems even more unlikely.
But, even if the theoretical impeachment failed and Trump were to be elected in 2020, he will leave office 4 years later, and will again be a citizen that is no longer afforded the protection of office. Also, the power to pardon does not extend to impeachment. The president can’t unimpeach himself.
As of yet, there are no charges pending, and Mueller himself has repeatedly said that Trump is not a target of the investigation. But should something come out of this investigation, it can’t be avoided forever.
So now that we have that out of the way, what next? Roe v. Wade. He will step in and overturn that ruling.
Back to that government class…that isn’t how any of this works.
There are only 3 ways to overturn a SCOTUS decision:
First, you can change the law that was declared unconstitutional. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, Congress (or a state) can go back and try again. SCOTUS does not make the laws. They can simply determine the validity of a law based on the Constitution and precedent.
Second, the Constitution can be amended. If you can get two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House to approve an amendment AND then three-fourths (38) of the states to ratify, you have yourself an amendment. Which we might think about doing to get that innocent until proven otherwise thing written in stone…just saying.
Or…
Two-thirds (34) of the states agree to ask Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. The states send delegates and lay out their proposals. Three-fourths of the states then must agree on the amendment.
Either way, passing an amendment isn’t likely on something as down the middle divisive as this subject, that’s for sure.
Why are we digging back in to this? The report on the FBI investigation into the claims against Kavanaugh came out and for some reason I don’t hear much about it in the news.
Oh, I know why. Because this thing is extremely detailed and they talked to anyone even remotely connected with any of the parties or locations involved. It doesn’t quite align with the stories as told on the television or on the news sites.
The rally cry, “Believe All Women” was blasted in our faces as we heard the stories from Ford, Swetnick, and Ramirez. We had to believe them at face value and stop the Kavanaugh confirmation. Damn the due process, full speed ahead!
I will spare you all 414 pages of the document, but I will summarize. Ramirez may have had someone wave their junk in her face, but it wasn’t Justice Kavanaugh. Based on all the evidence and the stories from those in the know, there was another gentleman in the same fraternity who was well known for his frequent displays of his nether bits. There is even a picture in the yearbook. Not one person ever heard the story that Justice Kavanaugh waggled his hoo-hoo at someone.
Even those who admittedly preferred that he not be nominated to the court for their political differences said that they had never seen, or heard anyone even mention, Kavanaugh behave as described. Friends of Ramirez all denied having any knowledge of this event or Kavanaugh ever being associated with such behavior.
I know, some of you are waiting to pounce with, “They didn’t contact all the people!”. Oh…but they did. They have recordings and transcriptions with witnesses who then went to the press saying they hadn’t been contacted. They weren’t willing to lie to the FBI, but they could lie to the press to try to help the cause.
OK. Ramirez is out…and we all know about Swetnick. If you don’t, she and her attorney (Avenatti) are being investigated for making material false statements. More on him in a minute. Swetnick is a non-starter.
There was the man from Rhode Island who claimed that his girlfriend had been raped on a boat by “Brett and Mark” and that this was the same Brett. He later recanted, but was also referred for investigation for false statements meant to obstruct a federal investigation.
Which brings us to Ford. The first claimant and the one that, even if all the other nonsense was fake, we had to believe solely on her word. We know most of this story and all of the back and forth. What we didn’t hear about so much was the man who contacted the committee and believed that he might be the boy in the incident, though it went very differently than she laid out.
Not one of the witnesses provided by Ford could attest to any of her claims. Many actually refuted them. She flies all the time for pleasure. She never worried about living in a place with multiple exits. The second door of her house was built only as a private entrance to an office in the house. She had a solid social life through high school and college.
Even her close friend said she had no recollection of the party or evening as described. This friend was then contacted by Monica McLean, former FBI agent and friend of Ford, and asked if she couldn’t clarify her story to make it sound a little better. Ms. McLean is now under investigation as well.
We were being asked, as a country, to deny a man his opportunity at the highest position in his profession, without due process. We were told that if even one of these stories were true, then we couldn’t let this man sit on the court. I agree. If one was true, we couldn’t. But, we couldn’t disqualify him until he was given due process to determine the truth.
He did not have to prove his innocence. That isn’t how this works…but this is what half of the country wanted. They wanted a man to be denied his dream position solely because they didn’t agree with his (or more likely, the President’s) politics. We have to find a way to be better than this.
Now, Michael Avenatti has been arrested for suspicion of domestic violence. According to him, all women need to be believed and thus, he should be arrested and jailed without a trial.
That is the beauty of this country. He is entitled to the same due process he wanted to remove from others. He will get the chance to confront his accuser and have his case heard in a court. His accuser will have to provide enough evidence to convict.
As easy as it would be to proclaim him guilty, which much of the media and public have done, we can’t.
He may be a creep. He absolutely dragged the cause of victims in this country back a decade or two when he propped up his false clients and their claims. No matter what we think of him as a person, he (like all Americans) is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt…no matter which side of the politics you call home.
Above the Nonsense 