Jon Stewart mocks anti-Trumpers for overdoing their accusations of fascism.

"The constant drumbeat of encroaching fascism will erode the credibility we will need if — hopefully if and not when — it hits. But the truth is that for now, his most objectionable actions have taken place almost entirely within our designed Democratic system.... Look, I really hope that Democrats figure out a way to contain this guy.... How would you use this power?... Tell people what you would do with the power that Trump is wielding and then convince us to give that power to you...  Enough with the 'He's Hitler'...  What would you fucking do?"

Exactly. I love Stewart's reset for the new Trump era. 

"So why is it clear that the president lacks the power to pardon himself? There are three reasons."

"The language of the pardon power itself is ambiguous in the face of a constitutional expectation of clarity if the Framers intended to invest the president with such extraordinary power.... Second, the Framers clearly contemplated in the impeachment provisions of the Constitution that the president would not be able to violate the criminal laws with impunity.... And last, but not least, a power in the president to pardon himself for any and all crimes against the United States he committed would grievously offend the animating constitutional principle that no man, not even the president, is above and beyond the law. In contemporary constitutional parlance, the Framers more likely would have regarded a self-pardon not as an act of justice, grace, mercy and forgiveness, as they did presidential pardons of others. They would have viewed a self-pardon as a presidential act more akin to an obstruction of justice for criminal offenses against the United States by a president, the prosecution for which can be brought, at least according to the Justice Department, only after a president leaves office."

From "No, President Trump can’t pardon himself" by the former federal judge J. Michael Luttig (WaPo). 

Luttig has a strong conservative reputation. He was a law clerk to Justice Scalia, appointed to the the 4th Circuit by George H.W. Bush, and often mentioned as a potential Supreme Court nominee when George W. Bush was President. Per Wikipedia: "Luttig was the leading feeder judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, with virtually all of his law clerks having gone on to clerk with conservative justices on the Supreme Court, a total of 40, 33 of whom clerked for either Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia."

Of course, the issue whether the President can pardon himself is an open question. We will only get the answer if and when a President pardons himself and there's a case that a court has to decide. Is prosecution more likely or less likely if there is a pardon to be presented as a defense? Luttig's argument should have influence with Trump, and there were already good political and legal reasons why Trump should resist pardoning himself. 

Will Trump pardon himself? Should he? Would the pardon hold up in court?

Yes, yes, yes.

No, no, no.

No, yes, yes.

No, no, yes.

Yes, no, no.

Yes, no, yes.

Yes, yes, no.

No, yes, no.

 

pollcode.com free polls

POLL RESULTS (preserved 1/26/21):

I see Matt Yglesias is doing a sunrise picture... but it's for politics, not, apparently, for any love of nature.

“I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.” pic.twitter.com/tKtzHmJ2gO

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 2, 2020

I've got 2 poetry posts this morning, and I thought Yglesias's quote might be another poem... Maya Angelou, perhaps? But, no, it's Benjamin Franklin:

On the last day of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin observed that he had often wondered whether the design on the president's chair depicted a rising or a setting sun. "Now at length," he remarked, "I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun."

It's okay to use nature metaphors in politics. Reagan has his "Morning in America." It's nice to see the optimism, even though, I assume, Yglesias's optimism is an expression of the belief that Biden will win. If Trump wins, it will be... I had the transitory glimmer of happiness believing I was looking upon a rising sun, but no, no, it was a setting sun and darkness has fallen upon us once again.

Ah, whatever. Here's the sunrise I saw this morning — witnessed and loved purely as a sunrise and not any sort of metaphor:

"You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme — yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America's founding..."

"... and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying 'I pray for the President,' when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!"

Writes President Trump in a 6-page letter to Nancy Pelosi.

ADDED: He uses the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" in his letter:

Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016... and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it.... So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You view democracy as your enemy!

AND:

Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged and radical representatives of the far left. Each one of you members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger — this is what is driving impeachment. Look at Congressman Nadler's challenger. Look at yourself and others. Do not take our country down with your party.

Justice Gorsuch on "Fox and Friends."

I'm putting that up before watching, and I presume the entire thing will be on a high level of general principle. I think he has a book to promote. I will watch and update this post if there's anything to point out. I noticed this because I saw "Neil Gorsuch" trending on Twitter, where I see comments like:

Justice Neil Gorsuch is on "Fox & Friends" right now. The Q: How is it appropriate for a Supreme Court justice to try to goose sales of his three-month-old book by chatting on one of the most partisan shows on TV?

That's from Brian Stelter.

And:

Everytime Neil Gorsuch trends remember Merrick Garland. Everyime Brett Kavanaugh trends remember Dr. Christine Ford. The Supreme Court is tainted and compromised. Let's hope Justice Roberts puts the integrity of the judiciary over party and ideology but...don't hold your breath.

From Wajahat "Abu Khadija" Ali.

ADDED: Oh! My embedded clip did not play the whole interview. I'll see if I can find it somewhere.

AND: Here's the article at Fox News with some transcript:

I'm trying to figure out what the 1,000 words would be. The Founders are toasting Nancy Pelosi... but...why?

A picture is worth 1,000 words. pic.twitter.com/yJog6lsNyq

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) November 2, 2019

It's unlikely Amy will be the Democratic nominee, but if she is, this post will be linked in my "How Amy lost me" retrospective. She's talking to me in a mindless cliché ("A picture is worth 1,000 words"), and she's sharing a cartoon that is not devoid of words and that has to label the caricatures "Founding Fathers" because the artist apparently thinks the picture is NOT even adequate to convey who the people being caricatured are, and she thinks a completely partisan vote straining to legitimatize the behind-closed-doors hearings is a cause for giddy, alcohol-soaked celebration.

I remember when Amy Klobuchar was sternly disapproving of beery revelry...

"I think that you’ve probably had beer," said Judge Kavanaugh...

Sen. Klobuchar: There’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before?

Judge Kavanaugh: “I don't know. Have you?”
…
Klobuchar: “I have no drinking problem, Judge.”

Kavanaugh: “Nor do I.” https://t.co/yUhhJQiHtI pic.twitter.com/5TEAJET9Sb

— NBC News (@NBCNews) September 28, 2018

"Power and oppression, as defined by ethnic studies, are the ways in which individuals and groups define mathematical knowledge so as to see 'Western' mathematics as the only legitimate expression of mathematical identity and intelligence."

"This definition of ​legitimacy is then used to disenfranchise​ people and communities of color. This ​erases the historical contributions​ of people and communities of color."

Is this for real? I'm reading a document (PDF) that purports to be the Seattle Public School's K-12 Math Ethnic Studies Framework. I'm seeing — at The American Conservative — "Woke Math In Seattle" by Rod Dreher, so I presume it is real.

I'm mostly worried about wasting kids' time with repetitious ethnic studies ideology, time that could be spent learning useful substance, like math. But maybe there are lots of kids who just won't learn math or have a horrible attitude about math because they see it as hostile territory, the domain of other people. But what's the way to get over a negative orientation toward math? It's hard to believe that intensifying feelings of oppression and victimhood will stimulate positivity!

Where does Power and Oppression show up in our math experiences?

● Who holds power in a mathematical classroom?
● Is there a place for power and authority in the math classroom?
● Who gets to say if an answer is right?
● What is the process for verifying the truth?
● Who is Smart? Who is not Smart?
● Can you recognize and name oppressive mathematical practices in your experience?
● Why/how does data-driven processes prevent liberation?

Are we capitalizing "smart" in Seattle now?  Who gets to say what words are capitalized?

What is the process for assigning conceptions of bigness and smallness to letters and would you recognize it if it were oppressive?

Do you know the President of the United States "Uses Random Uppercase Letters" (NYT)?

"But now my students watch as senators hold their tongues, terrified of being ridiculed on the president’s Twitter feed or angering Trump’s base."

Writes polisci prof David Lay Williams "Trump has made my political science students skeptical — of the Constitution/They used to love the Federalist Papers. Now they see holes in the essays’ arguments" (WaPo).

The sentence quoted above follows this: "The authors of 'The Federalist' also thought that Congress — particularly the Senate — would tamp down the passionate excesses of the people, should they be stimulated by 'artful misrepresentations' from any source (Federalist 63)."

Are Senators really self-censoring more than they used to and is it from a terror of being ridiculed* by the President or angering his fans? If the Senators are so sensitive to popular passions and terrified of voters, it's because they worry about reelection, and that's not a problem with the Federalist Papers, which discuss a constitutional plan in which the Senators were chosen by state legislatures.

Williams asserts that "Trump is eroding" the "'veneration' that successful constitutions require" and that if "people lose faith in the constitutional order, politics can... spiral out of control." What to do? Impeachment!

_______________________

*

"Before the cares of the White House were his own, President Harding is reported to have said that government, after all, is a very simple thing."

"He must have said that, if he said it, as a fleeting inhabitant of fairyland. The opposite is the truth. A constitutional democracy like ours is perhaps the most difficult of man's social arrangements to manage successfully. Our scheme of society is more dependent than any other form of government on knowledge and wisdom and self-discipline for the achievement of its aims. For our democracy implies the reign of reason on the most extensive scale. The Founders of this Nation were not imbued with the modern cynicism that the only thing that history teaches is that it teaches nothing. They acted on the conviction that the experience of man sheds a good deal of light on his nature. It sheds a good deal of light not merely on the need for effective power if a society is to be at once cohesive and civilized, but also on the need for limitations on the power of governors over the governed. To that end, they rested the structure of our central government on the system of checks and balances. For them, the doctrine of separation of powers was not mere theory; it was a felt necessity. Not so long ago, it was fashionable to find our system of checks and balances obstructive to effective government. It was easy to ridicule that system as outmoded — too easy.... A scheme of government like ours no doubt at times feels the lack of power to act with complete, all-embracing, swiftly moving authority.... I know no more impressive words on this subject than those of Mr. Justice Brandeis: 'The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency, but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but,  by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.'"

Wrote Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1952, concurring in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions is being lambasted as the uncool parent in Washington, and maybe the universe..."

"... for rescinding an Obama Administration directive that decriminalized marijuana in states that have legalized the drug. But even if you're a legalizer, you should give the AG some credit for forcing a debate on the rule of law that Congress should settle.... [I]nstead of taking the cop-out of blaming Mr. Sessions, legalizers in Congress ought to have the courage of their convictions and try to decriminalize pot nationwide. Let Senators Cory Gardner and Kamala Harris persuade their colleagues that what's good for Colorado and California is good for the country."

Say the editors of The Wall Street Journal.

It's annoying that you can't read that without a subscription, but I've quoted enough to allow you to enjoy the subtle political snark that goes along with what is a good policy proposal.

It's too easy for liberals to take shots at Sessions. Let's see some leadership in Congress, where the real work needs to be done, and let's see it from Democrats who — we keep hearing — are presidential material.

Gardner and Harris currently represent people in states who've said — through their democratic process — that they want legalized marijuana, so let's see these Senators show what their leadership is made of. They don't have to be populists ,of course, and that's not the traditional view of what Senators are supposed to do.*

But I'd like to see journalists do what they are supposed to do and question Gardner and Harris about whether they will lead the way on this issue, and — if they won't — make them explain why they decline to give their people what they want.

___________________

* From Robert A. Caro's "Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III" (pp. 7-8):

“The use of the Senate,” [James] Madison said, “is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.” It should, he said, be “an anchor against popular fluctuations.” He drew for parallels on classical history, which, he said, “informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a Senate.” In two of the three “long-lived” republics of antiquity, Sparta and Rome, and probably in the third— Carthage (about whose governmental institutions less was known)— senators served for life. “These examples … when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, [are] very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty.” Thomas Jefferson had been in Paris during the Convention, serving as minister to France. When he returned, he asked George Washington over breakfast why the President had agreed to a two-house Congress. According to a story that may be apocryphal, Washington replied with his own question: “Why did you pour your tea into that saucer?” And when Jefferson answered, “To cool it,” Washington said, “Just so. We pour House legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.” The resolution providing for a two-house Congress was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention with almost no debate or dissent. 

ADDED: Who the hell pours their tea into a saucer to cool it anymore? Speaking of uncool... We're drinking coffee. We like it hot. It comes in a mug. You don't get a saucer. And if you did, and you poured your hot beverage into the saucer and drank from the saucer, people would regard you as a lout.

"Certainly, if Mueller wanders outside the bounds of professionalism and basic integrity, he can and should be fired."

"Concerns are already being raised — including about Mueller’s friendship with Comey and his staff-packing with anti-Trump partisans. He will be closely watched. In the meantime, Congress is busily carrying on its constitutionally ordained function of oversight. What we’ve seen over the past week has not been pretty, but it is effective and important.... Notwithstanding reports that the special counsel has launched an inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice, the early returns also suggest the absence of any Oval Office criminality, even with the unsettling use of Trump Tower business methods where they don’t belong.... [T]he official processes now under way should continue unimpeded. Let the legislative and executive branches fulfill their respective roles, ordained at the founding and matured by the wisdom of sobering experience gained over the course of seven generations."

Writes Kenneth Starr in a WaPo op-ed with the silly title "Firing Mueller would be an insult to the Founding Fathers."

Silly, because Starr doesn't mention the "founding fathers" or fret about "insulting" eminent figures of the past. In the context of highlighting the practical value of an independent prosecutorial function, Starr refers to the "structural arrangements put in place at the founding of the nation and augmented through the experience of succeeding generations." If he were about venerating the choices of the founding fathers, he wouldn't have said "augmented through the experience of succeeding generations." The founding fathers adopted a text that said: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States." If you wanted to respect that — rather than "the experience of succeeding generations" — you'd align with Justice Scalia, who dissented in the case that approved of the independent counsel law:

In his analysis of the statute, Scalia relied on constitutional text, pointing out that Article II vests not some but all of the executive power in a president. And because it does, the independent counsel law must be unconstitutional "if the following two questions" are answered affirmatively: "Is the conduct of a criminal prosecution .  .  . the exercise of purely executive power?" and "Does the statute deprive the President of the United States of exclusive control over the exercise of that power?" Scalia said they must be answered affirmatively: the first because "governmental investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function," the second because "the whole object of the statute" is to deny a president exclusive control over the exercise of purely executive power.

That's the losing side, of course, but the independent counsel law — the law under which Starr dogged Bill Clinton — died a natural death in 1999. 

"If anyone thinks the center of the electorate is clamoring for Obama to name another left-wing jurist they’re nuts."

"The liberal left will be as loud as they ever have been, but the reality is that the consternation will be confined to the activist left."

Said Josh Holmes, Mitch McConnell’s former chief of staff, quoted in a NYT article floating the theory that the GOP plan not to act on an Obama nominee to replace Scalia "could alienate moderate voters and imperil incumbent Republicans in swing states."

I think Holmes's assessment is correct, especially coming after years of Obama's pushing the limits of executive power (one of the issues in a pending Supreme Court case right now). Why wouldn't the Senate make its vigorous claim to power and exert it? That, to my mind, fits the most fundamental idea about separation of powers, expressed in Federalist 51:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to controul the abuses of government.

ADDED: It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can.

"Rand Paul’s First Two Books Are Full Of Fake Founding Fathers Quotes."

A Buzzfeed article by Andrew Kaczynski.

Here's a Wall Street Journal article from 2012: "To Quote Thomas Jefferson, 'I Never Actually Said That'/Librarian Tracks Sayings Misattributed to Founding Father; 'A Fine Spiced Pickle.'"

Ms. Berkes acknowledges she has her work cut out for her. "Jefferson is a figure that just is ever present in the American mind," she says.

Jefferson might agree. "If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed," he supposedly said.

Actually, he didn't.

"Law has nothing to do with science."

"It involves making and applying rules of conduct; the rules are based on legislative and other political decisions, common sense, societal values, judges’ personal preferences, intuition, rhetoric—not logical or scientific rigor."

Said Judge Richard Posner, answering the question "In what ways, if any, does it make sense to speak of the study of law as the study of legal science?"

Also:

Question: Do you think constitutional law should be taught in the first year? If so, why? If not, why not?

Posner:  Absolutely not. It’s a terrible field, dreadfully politicized.

Later: "Most published legal scholarship is ephemeral, especially in constitutional law, an analytically weak and excessively politicized field." And: "Law is an interesting and important field, but it is also a weak field, and this limits the potential of academic law." And:

Question: There seems to be no end to scholarship on originalism, be it of the liberal or conservative variety. Why do you suppose that is and what is your opinion on the matter?

Posner: It’s an aspect of the preoccupation of the legal academic community with the Supreme Court, for it is mainly in relation to constitutional provisions that the debate over originalism rages. The preoccupation has very little value, and originalism is largely a fake, concealing the political preferences that drive most constitutional adjudication, owing to the political stakes and the extreme vagueness of key constitutional provisions.

And Posner expresses regret that his own scholarship has been "[e]xcessively conservative, and insufficiently attentive to psychology and to the politicization of much of law."

"Americans’ willingness to accept the Supreme Court’s mystical role is partly a symptom of disappointment in our own democratic capacities."

"Congress is the most directly representative body of the federal government, and almost no one sees it as having principled authority or moral charisma. Hoping that the Supreme Court will make us better than we can otherwise be, better than our own representative institutions, is neither self-respecting nor very likely to succeed."

Writes lawprof Jedediah Purdy in a very layperson-accessible presentation of the progressive case against judicial review. I think he's quite wrong, by the way.

Expect to see much more of this sort of thing in the press as Erwin Chemerinsky's book "The Case Against the Supreme Court," hits the market this September. From the book's description at Amazon:

"George Will's Rape Column Was Edited By A Bunch Of Men."

Headline at Talking Points Memo for an article that is written by a man. I don't know who edited it, but this man, is named Dylan Scott. I know... "Dylan" could be a woman's name, but here's his picture...



I don't want to be too gender-normative, but — and I stress that I am speaking as a woman with long experience, 60+ years, as a female in the highly gendered social stratifications of America — I say he's a man. And who are the editors at TPM? It's not easy to get to a page of faces of TPM editors, maybe because it would be a bunch of men.

But Scott is only linking to a piece in The Washington Post itself: "George Will sexual-assault column: Editors were all male," written (ironically) by another man — jeez, these guys are everywhere — Erik Wemple.



But, anyway, that terrible George Will...



... whose picture, uploaded here, displayed super-large in compose mode and, in html, had the word "bigwill" in the code — can I get a trigger warning? — that terrible George "Bigwill" Will, according to Erik "Bigchin" Wemple, apparently, "knew what he wanted to say," which I translate to mean: It's not that the editors were all male; nobody can stop Bigwill.

Bigwill wanted to speak up for due process:

Education Department lawyers disregard pesky arithmetic and elementary due process. Threatening to withdraw federal funding, the department mandates adoption of a minimal “preponderance of the evidence” standard when adjudicating sexual assault charges between males and the female “survivors” — note the language of prejudgment. Combine this with capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching. Then add the doctrine that the consent of a female who has been drinking might not protect a male from being found guilty of rape. Then comes costly litigation against institutions that have denied due process to males they accuse of what society considers serious felonies.

Due process was the fixation of that bunch of men who adopted the Bill of Rights. Who was speaking for the women?



Out with that phallocratic due process bullshit! "Sentence first — verdict afterwards"!



And if our commitment to the vindication of rape victims inflames us and the niceties of procedure get less than their due, and if young male lives are crushed for years...



... what's that supposed to be a picture of? Looks like a bunch of men. Let's not dwell on that. $40 million dollars will be paid. Justice now... settlement afterwards. These are the ways of the bunch of men that have been running this country all too long.

Solution: Female Power. Hillary Clinton stands ready to restructure the old stratifications. This woman has amazing experience, including that time she sent a rape victim "through hell."

I read Phil Robertson's autobiography.

1. Here, you can buy it on Amazon, as I did.

2. I have no idea how accurate it is, but I know that the GQ article calls it "a ghostwritten book he says he has never read." I assume he talked to the ghostwriter and didn't check the ghost's work by sitting down and reading through the book. I'd be interested to know what books Phil does read. He reads the Bible. I got that. Phil purports to be such a godly man that I feel entitled to believe the book is accurate, but it has the feeling of PR, and I took it in that spirit.

3. My favorite part of the book was the first chapter, his boyhood, especially all the stuff about living off the land:

When does someone who's selling services as a "psychic" deserve to be prosecuted for committing a crime?

In NYC, the government prosecuted a fortune teller — Sylvia Mitchell, 39 — who worked in some storefront in Greenwich Village. The jury convicted her and she could be sentenced to as much as 15 years in prison. The charges were larceny and a scheme to defraud.

During a weeklong trial, prosecutors portrayed Ms. Mitchell as a clever swindler who preyed on distraught people, promising them that she could alleviate their troubles through prayer and meditation to remove what she called “negative energy” and rectify problems that arose from their “past lives.”

In my book, this is entertainment and unconventional psychological therapy. Let the buyer beware. Who's dumb enough to actually believe this? Should the government endeavor to protect everyone who succumbs to the temptation to blow a few bucks on a fortune teller? But this was a case where there were a couple victims who somehow had enough money to make their losses nontrivial. One woman gave Mitchell $27,000 in what was portrayed as an "exercise in letting go of money." Another put $18,000 in a jar as a way to relieve herself of "negative energy."

Both women admitted on the stand under cross-examination that they were deeply skeptical of Ms. Mitchell’s techniques, but paid her anyway, suggesting that they were never tricked into thinking the psychic had the power to better their lives, [Mitchell's lawyer] said.

But an assistant district attorney, James Bergamo, described Ms. Mitchell as an expert at discovering people’s vulnerabilities and scaring them into handing over their cash. It mattered little, he argued in his summation, if Ms. Mitchell’s clients believed what she said about their past lives or negative spirits: the important fact was that they believed she would return their money. “The facts scream scam,” he said.

In Stupid World, no one can hear facts screaming. 

Rush Limbaugh calls Margaret Thatcher "one of the greatest Americans, quote, unquote, that I've ever met."

He describes a dinner party at which the hostess, Gay Gaines had seated him next to her longtime friend Margaret Thatcher and was urging him to talk about the latest political issue, which he said he was too tired to do. Thatcher said  "Gay, he doesn't wish to speak about politics. So let's talk of the rule of law" and, as Rush puts it:

... bam, there we are off on a discussion, the rule of law. She loved the founders. She absolutely thought they were the most brilliant people, 'cause they were Brits, don't forget. Our founders were British. She loved them.

She loved Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was it. But she loved them all. She knew the history of this country better than most people in this country do, and she revered it. She was one of the greatest Americans, quote, unquote, that I've ever met.

What topic would you suggest if your tablemate said he was tired of talking about politics? The rule of law?! I'd hear a cue to go somewhere lighthearted. Perhaps something about pop culture.

Here's a "Firing Line" appearance from 1977 that's up at the Rush Limbaugh website:



That's a 15-minute clip, not all of which was played on yesterday's radio show, but here's one of the parts that was:

THATCHER: I think what we've learned in Britain is that we've gradually, over the last certainly 12 or 13 years, with perhaps a little interruption, gone slowly further and further away from the free society towards something else.... At the same time we've found -- I don't find it strange, but some other people do -- that we have stopped creating wealth. We've had a large number of increasing restrictions. And you've been finding two things: First, that we are more and more concentrating on redistributing the wealth we've got, rather than creating any more. To create more, you need a slightly freer society, and you need an incentive society. Naturally when I see that happening, I look with very great alarm to societies which have gone even further left. That is, they've tried to redistribute even more and haven't had the incentives for people working hard on their own account, doing well for their families and often then being able to create jobs for others, they've produced a much more prosperous society than we have. But by and large you've got the two broad, different economic and political approaches.

RUSH: Here we are, 1977, and again, the value here, not just an illustration of who Lady Thatcher was, for those who don't know, but rather in 1977 it was known what is known today. And it was being executed then, as it's being executed now. And in 1977 it failed, i.e., the redistribution of wealth, the stoppage and the creation of wealth, which happens at the same time. The moment a society becomes redistributive, it stops creating wealth. She was cataloging current circumstances in Britain in 1977. And this was, of course, to set up her eventual triumph as prime minister.

Obama: "I am constrained... by a system that our Founders put in place."

Context:

“You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said. “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”

As a lawprof, I read that to mean that he is not constrained. He's juggling a few ideas, but what he's getting at is: The Founders put into place a system that would be populated by elected officials, who are to act for the sake of the people and as the people want. If what the people want our government to do is control guns, then it is within the power of government to do it.

That's the constitutional argument he has in mind. It's an idea of constitutional government as a political system, within which rights are only another manifestation of what the people want. And, in the ultimate scary twist on the idea of rights: Government is not to be regarded as in need of limits, because the government is us. Anything we — the government — want to do is never tyranny, but freedom.