Is it a Constitution if the President won't obey it?

Written on November 11, 2018!

It's not just taxes that the wealthy reserve for the little people. Why would they stop there?

It's the rule of law. Rich people don't have to obey. The rest of us do.

Sure, we white guys can catch a break, as ever. We can gun down a black security guard who's a good guy with a gun. Oops! Sorry.

Not sorry enough to do anything to end the systematic killing of innocents that's so proportional to darkness of skin. Just sorry enough to say that blue lives matter. Not sorry.

Don't even start on the extrajudicial killing of slightly non-innocents for misdemeanors, for the pettiest of petty crimes that never carried the death penalty in any legal regime less oppressive than the slavering slavers of the Confederacy.

Black lives don't matter, which is exactly why we need an aspirational hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter. This is obvious to everyone who doesn't have his white head up his cinnamon-colored asshole.

Wait! I came here to talk about the rule of law and big and little people, which I guess I have, but Trump is my target, not his base.

Trump personally is many things, all of them bad. He's completely amoral. He never met a rule - of law, of etiquette, of common decency, of any social norm - that he would obey without being forced to. Tax returns, I'm sure, have been a lifelong game for him, which is one of the reasons we haven't seen them. We've seen enough, though, to know that he's a punk with a pen, stealing anything that's not nailed down. See the New York Times report on his persistent, law-flouting tax frauds. (How did that get forgotten so fast?)

The founders of the United States built a framework of liberty through law. Every previous President has pushed the bounds of what's legal. Those bounds can be a bit fuzzy, true, but they've all tried stuff that no one had ever gotten away with.

Trump's different. He doesn't accept any limits. The only power he knows how to wield is personal and absolute. He doesn't grasp enough details to negotiate a mutually acceptable deal. He only forces.

That's why there's been a Constitutional crisis since the day he took the Oath of Office. Of course, for him, it was only a Suggestion of Office that he promptly forgot as soon as his hand lifted off the Bible - unburned, so he must be the chosen one of God. Of course, he can't remember a single passage from the Bible, not even the usual bits of the Pentateuch whose vengefulness so thrills self-labeled, so-called winger Christians.

So, it's not a question whether Trump will openly break with the Constitution and all the law it undergirds. It's only a question of when.

My money's on January 3, 2019, or whatever day the Democrat-led House of Representatives starts its oversight. Trump will gleefully refuse, and we'll be off to the federal courts, now thoroughly stacked with toadies who will cave.

It's bad. It's going to get worse. Because the House doesn't have the authority to call out the military against a coup from within the Executive.

Republican Supremes will do what Republican Senators failed to do, today's fantasy

When, on January 6, 2021, a stalwart band of Capitol Police punched way above its weight and delayed just long enough Donald Trump's mob of insurrectionists, Trump tried and failed to join their attempt to steal the election rightfully won by Joe Biden. After his failure, Trump sulked in the White House, knowing that he'd put roadblocks in the way of any police reinforcements other than the District Police. I know of no other way to interpret his determined inaction than as intentional delay to give his coup d'etat the chance to keep him in power illegally, undemocratically, and treasonously.

Even prominent Republicans saw the whole putsch this way in real time, before their venality and fear of Trump kicked in and they started rationalizing. Liz Cheney (R-reality) said to Jim Jordan (R-oh-oh-oh), one of Trump's fifth column on the Hill, "You f***ing did this."

Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) definitely saw all of this. She moved Democrats quickly to impeach Trump for the most impeachable acts ever indicted by the House.

Would the Senate have followed the conviction they failed to do with disqualification of Trump to ever hold office again? It's moot, of course, but presumably that would have been the sole practical reason to convict Trump.

There's no doubt whatsoever that the Senate would have had the power to disqualify Trump. The final paragraph of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution is:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

This would have rid the Republican Party, not of fascism per se, nor their base's impulse toward fascism, but of this troublesome high priest in the church of only himself.

Ah, but there were the 50 members of Republican caucus of the newly (and barely) Democratic Senate to get through, and the House Democrats' case needed two thirds of all Senators, which would have to include at least seventeen Republicans. Only seven brave Republican Senators voted to impeach Trump.

Perhaps other Republican Senators thought that Trump's loss in the 2020 election and his abject failure to steal it back from us voters would rid them of his kind of trouble. But, no, Trump has always doubled down, and he did again.

Now, the Colorado Supreme Court has disqualified Trump from the ballot, and the U.S. Supreme Court must rule whether the 14th Amendment indeed applies to Trump and disqualifies him from the 2024 ballot. The language of Section 3 is strong:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

No officer of the United States or of any state remains eligible to serve in an office that requires the same oath he's already violated once. We know your oath is worth nothing, so we don't want to hear it!

Why didn't the Reconstruction Era Radical Republicans specifically name the President and Vice President as officers of the United States. They didn't have to! Article II of the Constitution starts:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows[...]

But the Republican Supreme Court is going to abuse this language to reach the outcome it wants, just as it abused the language in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to rule for Bush under the ridiculous rationale that equal protection of law ("... nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") required that some ballots in Florida in 2000 should NOT be recounted.

So, that's my prediction: the Supreme Court will gut Section 3 without looking back, and Trump will be on the ballot, even in Colorado. Because the Supreme Court is the third political branch of our government when the chips are down, and it has to rule on political power.