So wrote Justice Stevens in the plurality opinion in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995)(citations omitted), the case that rejected a state's power to impose term limits on its members of Congress. The opinion draws heavily on Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969), a case that rejected congressional power to exclude the person the people had chosen. The elite considered the man corrupt, but the people of Harlem had reelected him.
I've been thinking about the principle expounded in these 2 cases — "the people should choose whom they please to govern them" — in the context of the present-day effort to exercise governmental power to disqualify Donald Trump as a candidate for President.
Please consider this post a continuation of yesterday's post — "The spectacle of a former president facing criminal investigation raises profound questions about American democracy" — where I said: "The urgency to stop Trump feels like a mistrust of the people. The deplorable subsection of America shouldn't have elected him the first time — so goes the elite opinion — and we can't let those people have another chance to give this man power. That's anti-democratic, and yet isn't it why the oligarchy presents itself as serving democracy?"
Posts
72 comments:
yes but who would have thought that voters would actually vote for someone Not in the inner party?
It's like Henry Ford said: Voters can pick Any one they choose, as long as it's an inner party
The current lawfare against Trump is a continuation of efforts to delegitimize every Republican president of my lifetime, except Eisenhower. The faux outrage by his supporters over Republicans trying the same against Bill Clinton was hilarious. The even-more faux outrage of the two ridiculous impeachments of Trump deserved the ridicule they received. Now we have an Executive Branch run by the Chief of Staff for the senile office holder, and we are expected to act like nothing is wrong. What next, a return of Hillary or Trump, or perhaps we could just leave the office vacant for a term and see how that works out?
"Power to the People" John Lennon once sang. "Power to the right People" are the modified lyrics of the neo-colonizers from certain places along the coasts.
People don't choose who they want to represent them from an unlimited list, from the general public. No, they choose from among a small number of candidates appearing on the ballot, and they have virtually no say in who those candidates are. I don't have any problem with term limits. Given the advantages of incumbency, terms limits increase rather than decrease choice.
The problem with keeping Trump off the ballot is unrelated to term limits. He only had 1 term in an office that has term limits. No, the effort to keep Trump off the ballot goes to the notion of the loyal opposition and the limits of acceptable dirty tricks.
The Democrats and the Republicans have succeeded in molding the machinery of government into a system where no new party can gain enough influence to matter. But the Democrats, unsatisfied with a two-party state, have set their sights on creating a one-party state.
That's what this is about. Democrats are trying to criminalize policy differences in an effort to destroy the Republican party and cement their own hold on power. They want to eliminate checks and balances, do away with the people's ability to reform government by changing the leaders.
In short, they want to end the American experiment with democracy. Ironic given the name they have chosen for themselves.
Bruce Hayden said...(in the previous related thread yesterday at 10:01PM)
Pretending that his failure to obey the declassification formalities is not going to fly in court. The problem for the prosecution is that, because he had plenary declassification authority, they would have to prove a negative...
Are the facts of the case even going to matter in a DC court? To a DC jury?
The people in the Capital will decide who can come to the Capital.
I've been thinking about the principle expounded in these 2 cases — "the people should choose whom they please to govern them" — in the context of the present-day effort to exercise governmental power to disqualify Donald Trump as a candidate for President.
The quicker the people realize they are NO LONGER FREE to choose their President, the better.
Let's get on with it.
"Get on with what?" you ask?
The war. That's what.
Tell that to the Alaskans who just got bamboozled by rank-choice voting.
Sovereignty of the people... person acknowledges the individual through minority rights in a constitutional system to choose representatives in a republican form of government.
The US Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling seemed like a mistrust of the people.
"The urgency to stop Trump feels like a mistrust of the people."
Prog MO since Woodrow.
"we can't let those people have another chance to give this man power."
Right. We are being patronized by our inferiors.
"That's anti-democratic, and yet isn't it why the oligarchy presents itself as serving democracy?"
Sorry, but foolish inconsistency never bothers progs. Logic is for losers.
Then why is a president limited to 2 terms?
You were 100% correct yesterday as it is distrust of voters, the same motive that drives democrats to cheat widely and persistently. Who implemented “ballot curing” or “ballot harvesting” or the miraculous “bag of uncounted votes” tricks? Why does every “reform” that democrats propose to voting make it easier to cheat?
They don’t trust the voters because given a fair shot we would vote the bastards out and dump em off that gravy train.
Giancarlo Esposito plays Adam Clayton Powell in The Godfather of Harlem. It's a good series, though maybe a little too sentimental about Forest Whitaker's lead character, "Bumpy" Johnson. If Powell was anything like he is on the show, it's no wonder Harlem kept reelecting him. It's the "Rascal King" archetype that Democrats love: he may be a crook, but he's our crook, cheating the people who have cheated us. Powell was undoubtedly a dubious figure, but probably no more corrupt than Maxine Waters and some other recent politicians. He was also extremely entertaining, and a nice contrast to the dour Malcolm X, who's also portrayed in the series.
We live in a representative Democratic Republic. You people don't like the Republic aspect when the opposition uses those levers of power. Hoist on ones own petard.
Nobody likes a system of checks and balances when they are the ones getting checked.
Trump never won the popular vote. He wouldn't have been elected without the electoral college which is a relic of our less than democratic past. When he couldn't win the electoral collage vote he tried to rig it and failed but we're supposed to overlook all that in the name of Democracy? The majority has never chosen Trump. He was inflicted on us by a minority of voters who feel entitled to do it again.
Excellent post.
The constant chant of "TRump the authoritarian" and "Trump is a threat to Democracy" is meant to cover what's really going on. Namely, a bunch of authoritarian elites using undemocractic methods to destroy someone they don't like. Its the old Commie trick of accusing the opposition of what you're doing.
Its quite obvious, to me at least, that our elites would love to junk "Democracy" althogether. The people can't be trusted to make decisions that are good for the elites. Wasn't that the point of Henry Adams' "Democracy"? One reason the NYT/Wapo elites are so hysterical is there usual instrument for frustrating the popular will - The SCOTUS - only has 4 liberals on it. They were within a mm of getting a solid 5 liberal majority in Jan 2017. Then it would've been katty bar the door. They came so close. Hence the anger.
If you want to see "Democracy" run crazy - look at Alaska. The Alaskans didn't get bamboozeled. the morons deliberately chose an idiotic complicated way of voting that made no sense. Maybe they'll correct the mistake in the future. Or being dumb, maybe the won't.
Power to the Director of the SHADOW GOVERNMENT called the CIA. Why not?. He already has all the blackmail materials needed to control the ones we do elect (when they allow a true vote count). Hunter was their owned assets And everyone in DC and the media knew that and laughed.
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
The 2020 election was sabotaged. One aspect of that sabotage was the deliberate release of the virus.
Even Newt Gingrich now recognizes that the election was sabotaged.
When you sabotage a presidential election, you are rightfully worried about insurrection, because insurrection is justified.
Bob Boyd said...
Bruce Hayden said...(in the previous related thread yesterday at 10:01PM)
Pretending that his failure to obey the declassification formalities is not going to fly in court. The problem for the prosecution is that, because he had plenary declassification authority, they would have to prove a negative...
Are the facts of the case even going to matter in a DC court? To a DC jury?
It won't be in a DC Court. If they try Trump will get it moved to Florida, which is where the supposed crime occurred. IF the lower Courts try to keep it in DC, SCOTUS will move it to Florida.
Esp if they try a case so obviously weak
Heywood Rice said...
Trump never won the popular vote. He wouldn't have been elected without the electoral college
Hey, look! Heywood Jablome has joined the morons club!
These are the people, like Howard, who claim to believe that if the election laws were entirely different, everything else would be entirely the same.
Trump won in 2016 by following the existing rules, rules he hand NO hand in making.
If you seriously think that Trump would have run the exact same campaign if it had been a "national vote" election instead of an Electoral College one, you are a babbling moron.
If you seriously think that voters would vote, or not vote, exactly the same in a "national vote" election as the do in the current ones, you are a babbling moron.
If it never occurred to you that people would have behaved differently under a different system, with different rules, then you are mentally handicapped to a degree I simply can not comprehend.
Part of Trump's election strategy was conning the Hillary Campaign into putting a bunch of their turnout effort into "running up the national vote", rather than focusing on actually winning the election.
The fact that your side were morons who fell for that move is your problem, not Trump's
Under the US constitution nobody has any voting rights.
The president is elected by electors who are chosen in any way the individual states decide. They can be selected by governor, legislature both or neither.
Senators are chosen by state legislatures. Amended in 1916
The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures
Like congressmen
Congressmen are chosen by state electors
Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Suppose the electors were chosen by county supervisors? That would be fine under the US constitution.
There is no federal right to vote for anyone under the constitution. All voting rights are granted by states.
There are constitutional prohibitions on restricting voti g rights. But all this requires is equal treatment. It does not grant any voting rights.
John "stop fascism, vote republican" Henry
Howard said...
We live in a representative Democratic Republic. You people don't like the Republic aspect when the opposition uses those levers of power. Hoist on ones own petard.
Nobody likes a system of checks and balances when they are the ones getting checked.
No, Howard, you and your side are emotional children who can't stand being "checked" by the rules.
What we're objecting to is people violating the rules in their attempt to "check" us.
Your fundamental problem is that for you "the rules" are that "my side must win", and so the idea of legitimate rules that get in your way is utterly foreign to you.
News flash: Here are the legitimate rules in this case:
The only things that can legitimately keep Trump from running for President in 2024 are
1: His death
2: His decision not to run
He's over 35, he's a natural born US Citizen, and he hasn't been President for two terms. Those are the only other legal qualifications of our Republic
Everything else is quite properly up to the voters
"The deplorable subsection of America shouldn't have elected him the first time — so goes the elite opinion — and we can't let those people have another chance to give this man power."
Interesting that the 'subsection' is at least 74 million Americans. It's a sizable chunk of the electorate. Larger than any number Obama, Clinton, or either Bush ever received.
But there is no doubt that a mix of the Left, the Right, and the firmly established power brokers and seekers have worked together to harass, remove, and keep out of office that person named Trump. Those affiliated with him have been likewise harassed, jailed, made poor, arrested. Followers have been arrested, jailed, killed.
This is not how a Republic or a Democracy functions when healthy. This is how dying nations, changing nations act. This is how totalitarian governments act.
Tonight we have the spectacle of the mentally struggling Joe Biden going in front of the nation to tell us about 'the soul of the nation', to misuse language, to call things what they are not, to mislabel what America is, and what his fellow citizens are. To separate, and label those he wants attacked. And not just 'he'. All of the Left in particular, and some of the Right as well.
Your post reminded us of how those cases were used to prevent term limits. I think we're well past the time where a redo is needed. I see term limits as a major tool to righting the Republic. But I'm not sure if we're already too late to even get the chance at that.
Did the FBI's staged photo of documents violate the very Espionage Act that they said they were enforcing when they ransacked Mar-a-Lago? Mark Levin thinks so.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/mark-levin-fbi-espionage-act-photo
Joe Smith said...
Then why is a president limited to 2 terms?
Because the voters decided to elect representatives who amended the US Constitution to make that rule
Why did they make that rule?
Because George Washington established the standard that no US President would run for more than 2 terms (thus preventing him from using the powers of the office to keep himself in power forever), and that power hungry scum FDR violated it.
So We The People made it official
You might as well whine "why can't you run if your'e not 35, or not a natural born US citizen?"
Because the whole point of having a Constitution and a constitutional form of government is that occasionally We The People decide that something should not be subject to the ordinary run of election results, and we add that rule to the Constitution. Which doesn't mean later voters can't reverse us (see Prohibition), it just means that you have to win more than a few elections to make that change.
Have you not yet passed the 5th grade?
"It won't be in a DC Court. If they try Trump will get it moved to Florida, which is where the supposed crime occurred."
They're not going to all this trouble to nail Trump just to let him move it to Florida. The Rule of Law WILL CONTINUE to be perverted try him in DC under a Kangaroo Court.
If the Right accepts this then they deserve everything that comes after.
Matthew Kolken
@mkolken
We are at a point in history where the President of the United States is openly speaking about waging war on his political opponents who he has labeled fascists.
7:39 AM · Aug 31, 2022
"Mark Levin thinks so"
Republicans crack me up.
Kristallnacht comes and they propose tougher laws against vandalism.
You guys are so far behind the play that your still out in the parking lot getting off the team bus
The Progressive installed President is labeling us FASCISTS.
They call us NAZIS, White Supremacists, RACISTS, HOMOPHOBES, ect..ect..ect... JUST what do they have in store for us? When you have people believing that half the country is evil, and let criminals run free in a lawless country.....
Does it feel like this isn't going to end well?
Something has to give.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/08/31/why-is-washington-dc-so-intensely-focused-on-targeting-donald-trump-and-labeling-his-supporters-as-threats-to-democracy/
The people chose Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Hillary was kept out by the electoral college. If Donald Trump is kept out by a clause in the Constitution, how is that different? In any case, there should be no immunity from prosecution just because someone is running for office or even likely to be elected to office, especially if that office is the Presidency.
That said, is there a present-day effort to exercise governmental power to disqualify Donald Trump as a candidate for President? Or does it just feel to you like there is one? Certainly there was such an effort in the first and second impeachment trials and there may be another effort in the future. But all I see right now is one exercise of government powers by the House of Representatives to fully expose his January 6 machinations and another by the DOJ to get back documents he shouldn’t have kept and falsely certified he had given back.
"Mark Levin thinks so"
Republicans crack me up.
Kristallnacht comes and they propose tougher laws against vandalism.
You guys are so far behind the play that you're still out in the parking lot getting off the team bus
Have you not yet passed the 5th grade?
To be fair, in most public schools nowadays none of that is taught i̶n̶ ̶5̶t̶h̶ ̶g̶r̶a̶d̶e̶.
I think your intuition is directionally correct, but if you’re going to talk about “the principle expounded in these 2 cases,” shouldn’t you at least mention the opposing principle present in the Constitution itself, the mechanism which permanently prevents a President from being re-elected?
Howard said...
We live in a representative Democratic Republic. You people don't like the Republic aspect when the opposition uses those levers of power. Hoist on ones own petard.
It is either ironic or evidence of Howard's delusions that he tries to argue that we don't like the Republic aspect of our government. The blue cities are packed with criminals and Democrats want all their votes to count more then normal red states. The current political battles are all about the Republic that the left wants to destroy. As evidence I note the comment above
Blogger Heywood Rice said...
Trump never won the popular vote. He wouldn't have been elected without the electoral college which is a relic of our less than democratic past.
I rest my case.
Certain of the western states now have mail in only, or permit ballot harvesting. I wouldn't trust Democratic administrations with the counts in those states. Maybe California (the source of the Democratic vote lead) isn't as blue as the vote counters would have you believe. Anyway, with Wisconsin nursing homes apparently having had 100% turnouts, maybe the voting totals should be subject to scepticism. I don't know that Trump won in 2020, but the defensive attitude of the Democrats rather leads you to that view.
Certain of the western states now have mail in only, or permit ballot harvesting. I wouldn't trust Democratic administrations with the counts in those states. Maybe California (the source of the Democratic vote lead) isn't as blue as the vote counters would have you believe. Anyway, with Wisconsin nursing homes apparently having had 100% turnouts, maybe the voting totals should be subject to scepticism. I don't know that Trump won in 2020, but the defensive attitude of the Democrats rather leads you to that view.
The problem with all these so-called 'Intellectual Elites' their Ivory Tower 'Pronouncements from the Mount' doesn't hold water. A few years spent working in a corporate or government setting would benefit professors by giving them first-hand knowledge of organizational behavior and politics in practice. I think that both our society and our universities would be improved if professors were required to spend a few years taking Real World 101.
I love Bent Stein's take on the real World:
"... Once someone has to get up in the morning, clean up, get dressed, spend the day at work, and live off the pittance he makes, the whole world becomes different. You look at loafers and bums totally differently. You look at taxes differently. You look at a country that gives you opportunity differently. In the workplace, a very rapid maturation takes place for most. Back at the university, where professors have tenure and only have to teach a few hours a week, the situation worsens. The faculty becomes like a black hole in space, a death star that gets ever darker and denser. The faculty is a leisure/intellectual class that never has to grow up and can cling to its fear and its childish loathing of the grownups out in the big wide world forever. But like all black holes, it threatens to crash in upon itself constantly...."
I remind you all, our voting system is not what was promised. It like all governmental functions have been corrupted to serve those in power. Rank choice voting is a perfect example of protecting those in power.
"The elite considered the man corrupt, but the people of Harlem had reelected him."
"The elite?" As I recall, Powell's corruption was pretty much accepted, even among the commoners. The Harlem community, however, was not troubled by it.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
He's over 35, he's a natural born US Citizen, and he hasn't been President for two terms.
An important point. Even an indictment and conviction is not a bar to Trump serving as President. The only way to 'keep him off the ballot' in 2024 in a legal sense (not in the sense of not being nominated) would be for one or more states to establish a ballot access rule that had the effect of barring him, as was tried with the California rule to force him to release his tax returns. IIRC that went nowhere, likely because smarter Democrats realized that providing a case to test when 'ballot access' becomes an unConstitutional 'qualification' might result in that whole UniParty protection scheme being ruled out of bounds.
I suppose if Trump is convicted and then nominated for President anyway there might be a few states that try to tell their Electors they can't voted for a convicted felon regardless of who wins their popular vote, and it would be fun to see the EC detractors like Woodie and Howie tie themselves in knots defending that.
"Trump never won the popular vote. He wouldn't have been elected without the electoral college..."
And the Yankees lost the 1960 World Series even though they outscored the Pirates 55 to 27.
Shocking, huh? Probably only to a progressive, who thinks the rules should only matter when they win.
Trump never won the popular vote.
Hillary never won a majority of the popular vote. Neither did Bill Clinton either time. In fact, Bill became president the first time with a minuscule 43 percent.
This is an Althouse oped. Do they still publish those at ole gray lady?
Christopher B said...
An important point. Even an indictment and conviction is not a bar to Trump serving as President. The only way to 'keep him off the ballot' in 2024 in a legal sense (not in the sense of not being nominated) would be for one or more states to establish a ballot access rule that had the effect of barring him
Which is a meaningless action, unless the State is one that Trump might need to win to win the Presidency.
And there's no "Triple D Control" State that's anywhere near the bubble.
OTOH, there are a bunch of Triple R Control States near the bubble, that a D needs to win to win the Presidency. And I'm sure several of them would be quite happy to pass laws kicking D candidates off the Presidential ballot if any D controlled State kicks the R candidate off the ballot.
So that will get nipped in the bud
Voter fraud is pernicious because it prevents the people from chosing their government. It doesn't matter whether the fraud is from stuffing ballot boxes or if it is done through literacy tests.
Howard said...We live in a representative Democratic Republic. You people don't like the Republic aspect when the opposition uses those levers of power. Hoist on ones own petard.
Sometimes I think you're just an idiot, other times a meanspirited troll like Inga. And then there are the times I think you are one of the last of the great old Althouse performance artists subtly undermining the left by brilliantly playing a stupid lefty.
This comment makes me inclined towards that last conclusion.
MikeK: I know that you were never the sharpest doorknob , but Heywood isn't Howard. I defy you to find a post of mine where I decry the Electoral Collage. Trump won because Hillary and the DNC fucked the dog.
The "national popular vote" means nothing. The popular vote is in sufficient congressional districts to win the electoral college. Simply put, we vote for president by states.
"I think your intuition is directionally correct, but if you’re going to talk about “the principle expounded in these 2 cases,” shouldn’t you at least mention the opposing principle present in the Constitution itself, the mechanism which permanently prevents a President from being re-elected?"
I could expand on or quibble over innumerable things, but it wouldn't be a blog post. It would be an article or a book.
The question you raise is very easy to answer, and that is: a specific provision in the constitutional text beats the general principle. Thus, you have to be 35 to be President. You have to be a natural born citizen. And the President, unlike anybody else is term limited.
In Powell v. McCormack, the Court looks at the provision that makes Congress the judge of the qualifications of its own members, but because of the general principle, it read that provision narrowly, to include only the 3 specific qualifications — age, citizenship, and residency.
Blogger Howard said...
MikeK: I know that you were never the sharpest doorknob , but Heywood isn't Howard. I defy you to find a post of mine where I decry the Electoral Collage. Trump won because Hillary and the DNC fucked the dog.
Howard, I know your reading skills are limited but I included Heywood's name with HIS comment. I have not accused you of "decry"ing the EC. I know Hillary and most of her worshipers have been blaming the EC, however. As I have pointed out here before, Hillary had a popular vote majority in California. Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states. Who knows who won the popular vote in 2020?
'Trump never won the popular vote.'
And the smartest woman in the world that you voted for couldn't figure out that she needed to campaign in Wisconsin.
Her much smarter husband mansplained it to her, but she shot him down.
'Have you not yet passed the 5th grade?'
Now you go to insults? Nice...
My comment is in reaction to the context of Stevens' opinion.
It is in no way consistent.
He wouldn't have been elected without the electoral college which is a relic of our less than democratic past.
Fifty seven percent voted against Bill Clinton in 1992. I doubt you were bitching about the EC then.
And the thing that amazes me about this stupid argument against the EC? If the election was decided by the popular vote, don't you think Trump would've spent more time in California, New York, Illinois and other shithole, left-wing states trying to capture disgruntled Republicans who know their vote doesn't matter?
"If the election was decided by the popular vote, don't you think..."
Progressives don't think, they feel. As long as their intentions feel good, the results are immaterial.
gilbar,
Your first-past-the-post comment reminds me of something Chesterton said in the context of early 20th-c. UK politics. Roughly (from memory):
The ruler will present two choices so alike that he wouldn't mind picking one blindfolded, and then, for a great jest, he will allow the slaves to choose.
That is where we are. It fails only when the public decides to do something alarmingly out of character, like nominate a Trump, which is why the butthurt is so bad: Everyone flat-out assumed that Trump would campaign up to the nomination, and then either fail to get it or (even better) win it and get stampeded by HRC. I'm not ordinarily keen on Schadenfreude, but that Hillary! "victory party" was priceless, outdone by the spectacle of Time having to pulp God knows how many preprinted copies of its "Madam President" issue.
Joe Smith said...
My comment is in reaction to the context of Stevens' opinion.
It is in no way consistent.
A limitation on Presidents only getting two terms is entirely consistent with this:
Quoting from the statement made in 1807 by the Chairman of the House Committee on Elections, we noted that 'restrictions upon the people to choose their own representatives must be limited to those "absolutely necessary for the safety of the society."'
Letting a President become a "President for Life" is "absolutely necessary for the safety of the society."
@tim maguire said...
"And then there are the times I think you are one of the last of the great old Althouse performance artists subtly undermining the left by brilliantly playing a stupid lefty.
This comment makes me inclined towards that last conclusion."
I have long thought that Howard was a conservative moby troll. Under this theory, some time after Trump was elected he began to relax and let the mask slip a bit. Some of his more recent comments are so left field as to not be plausibly held, and then others actually contain some reasonable thought; as if it were too much effort to maintain the moonbat persona.
Hillary never won a majority of the popular vote. Neither did Bill Clinton either time.
I remember a friend telling me that the 2000 election was illegitimate because a majority voted against Bush. I pointed out that a majority voted against Gore, too: neither candidate got 50% of the vote. She glared at me and stomped off.
'Letting a President become a "President for Life" is "absolutely necessary for the safety of the society."'
And also arbitrary.
But what if voters are like, "For the love of God, stop me from electing these idiots again!"
Howard said...
MikeK: I know that you were never the sharpest doorknob , but Heywood isn't Howard. I defy you to find a post of mine where I decry the Electoral Collage. Trump won because Hillary and the DNC fucked the dog.
you were just whining the other day that Trump never would have won without the Electoral College. I know, because I responded to it
The question you raise is very easy to answer
And yet you failed to answer it: I was referring to a President being impeached, removed, and banned from holding officer ever again. Surely that represents the strongest case against the principle you're (helpfully) highlighting.
Joe Smith said...
'Not letting a President become a "President for Life" is "absolutely necessary for the safety of the society."'
And also arbitrary.
So is requiring the candidate to be over 35. So?
Earnest Prole, that's why impeachment requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict
Because it's an extraordinary measure, and therefore requires an extraordinary vote.
That's different because . .. Trump!
I'm either playing it straight or jerking your chain. Sometimes both at the same time. I don't know how many times I need to say it I am an Internet troll. I find that hypocrisy and irony generated from both sides of the Great divide is a target Rich environment.
that's why impeachment requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict
Sure. My point remains that the principle of denying the electorate the right to choose whom it wishes to lead them is at least as strong, and as ancient, as the opposing principle Althouse highlights.
"I have long thought that Howard was a conservative moby troll. Under this theory, some time after Trump was elected he began to relax and let the mask slip a bit. Some of his more recent comments are so left field as to not be plausibly held, and then others actually contain some reasonable thought; as if it were too much effort to maintain the moonbat persona."
Just think of him as a mean drunk. Occasionally lucid, but mostly insults and non sequiturs.
"The urgency to stop Trump feels like a mistrust of the people. The deplorable subsection of America shouldn't have elected him the first time — so goes the elite opinion — and we can't let those people have another chance to give this man power."
I think this is exactly right.
I also think these people felt that way in 2020, and I am now suspicious about that election.
I don't have any knowledge of specific cheating, or any allegations in specific counties or whatever.
I simply do not trust the "authorities" who demand my trust.
The simple fact that their anti-Trump hysteria continues to this day makes me suspicious about his supposed loss in 2020.
In my entire life I have never seen a political party so worried about somebody who is not in office. He's out of office and yet the attacks continue? Bizarre.
You know how much Republicans will worry about Joe Biden when he's out of office? Zero.
It's just mind-boggling to me that Donald Trump has zero power and they're still terrified of him. It's deeply irrational.
The only way this fear makes sense is the idea that Trump actually won in 2020. Nobody is paranoid about losers who are out of office. But a lot of people are paranoid about winners who were cheated out of office.
Biden's impression of Emperor Palpatine is 'a tell'. Its a given he's going to do all he can to disqualify Trump, from non-stop legal harass to imprisonment.
But this speech was a warning to protesters, be they mainstream Republican officials or grass root supporters. "Go ahead,identify yourselves. You're enemies of the state and all Federal forces possible will be used to intimidate and suppress your voice. Money is no object.
Trump is 'Big Guy's" Emmanual Goldstein. The remarkable fear of a man who has no national platform and has been out of office for 20 months. It reveals the weakness of a corrupt and craven regime.
Alcyee Hastings was a federal judge, who was impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate for soliciting a bribe from two criminals seeking to get their sentences reduced. The Senate did not bar him from holding future public office. He was then elected to the US House 10 times and was a Representative at the time of his death. A good example of letting people elect who they want.
Interestingly, Representative Hastings voted to impeach President Trump twice and also voted not to accept the 2000 or 2004 election results.
Earnest Prole said...
Me: that's why impeachment requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict
Sure. My point remains that the principle of denying the electorate the right to choose whom it wishes to lead them is at least as strong, and as ancient, as the opposing principle Althouse highlights.
The idea of their being neutral qualifications for office, and if you dont' meet them, you can't have the office, is quite ancient
The idea that a significant supermajority, taken to indicate a broad national consensus, might find someone guilty of so heinous of crimes that he should never be allowed in office is as old as the nation.
The idea that a single Party should have the power to decide what candidates the other Party might run is utterly ludicrous, and beyond the bounds of reason and propriety
But that's what the Democrats are trying to pull here
Post a Comment