The Tariffs

Tariffs can be helpful - if they're carefully considered, and selectively applied.

This doesn't look like it satisfies either of the essential criteria:

We won't know what he's actually doing - what he actually thinks he's doing - until some of the shit starts to hit the fan.

• Is he just flexing - reminding us that he's the big dog and we need to stay in line?
• Is this intended as leverage on someone or something?
• What does he stand to gain personally?
• Is it intended to put us in danger - or make us think we're in danger - so he can play hero and rescue us? (He declared an "economic emergency" to justify it, y'know)
• Is it some kind of variation on the Milton Friedman thing - Economic Shock Therapy? (A strategy that involves exploiting political and social chaos to implement unpopular policies. These policies favor corporations and disadvantage citizens)

Knowing what we know about the workings of Trump's "brain", there's no way this shit does anything but fuck things up. And given the Project 2025 subtext, that could be the whole point.

The tariffs don't take effect until Tuesday, so maybe it's just something he needed to do to claim that he kept a campaign promise, and he'll pull back, saying he's so amazingly awesome that all he had to do was say "Jump!" and the whole world said "How high, sir?".

Trump imposes tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, raising prospect of higher costs for U.S. consumers

The Trump administration put the tariffs in place to force the three countries to stop the spread and manufacturing of fentanyl, in addition to pressuring Canada and Mexico to limit any illegal immigration into the United States.

The word 'ostensibly' belongs in that sentence: "The Trump Administration put the tariffs in place ostensibly to force the three countries..."

The Denver Post is proving itself to be pretty docile and stenographer-ey.

PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Donald Trump on Saturday signed an order to impose stiff tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada and China — fulfilling one of his post-campaign commitments to voters that also carries the risk of sparking higher inflation and disrupting businesses across North America.

Trump declared an economic emergency in order to place duties of 10% on all imports from China and 25% on imports from Mexico and Canada — America’s largest trading partners — except for a 10% rate on Canadian energy, including oil, natural gas and electricity. The tariffs would go into effect on Tuesday, setting a showdown in North America that could potentially sabotage economic growth.

A senior administration official, insisting on anonymity to brief reporters, said the lower rate on energy reflected a desire to minimize any disruptive increases on the price of gasoline or utilities. That’s a sign the White House understood as outside economists have warned that the import taxes if sustained could dramatically increase inflation, a possible problem for Trump as he promised to tame inflation after public unhappiness with price spikes under former President Joe Biden.

The order signed by Trump contained no mechanism for granting exceptions, the official said, a possible blow to homebuilders who rely on Canadian lumber as well as farmers, automakers and other industries.

The White House said Trump’s order also includes a mechanism to escalate the rates if the countries retaliate against the U.S., as they have threatened. Both Canada and Mexico have plans, if needed, to impose their own tariffs in response.

The Trump administration put the tariffs in place to force the three countries to stop the spread and manufacturing of fentanyl, in addition to pressuring Canada and Mexico to limit any illegal immigration into the United States.

The official did not provide specific benchmarks that could be met to lift the new tariffs, saying only that the best measure would be fewer Americans dying from fentanyl addition.

The order would also allow for tariffs on Canadian imports of less than $800. Imports below that sum are currently able to cross into the United States without customs and duties.

The Republican president is making a major political bet that his actions will not worsen inflation, cause financial aftershocks that could destabilize the worldwide economy or provoke a voter backlash. AP VoteCast, an extensive survey of the electorate in last year’s election, found that the U.S. was split on support for tariffs.

With the tariffs, Trump is honoring promises that are at the core of his economic and national security philosophy. But the announcement showed his seriousness around the issue as some Trump allies had played down the threat of higher import taxes as mere negotiating tactics.

The president is preparing more import taxes in a sign that tariffs will be an ongoing part of his second term. On Friday, he mentioned imported computer chips, steel, oil and natural gas, as well as against copper, pharmaceutical drugs and imports from the European Union — moves that could essentially pit the U.S. against much of the global economy.

It is unclear how the tariffs could affect the business investments that Trump said would happen because of his plans to cut corporate tax rates and remove regulations. Tariffs tend to raise prices for consumers and businesses by making it more expensive to bring in foreign goods.

Many voters turned to Trump in the November election on the belief that he could better handle the inflation that spiked under Democratic President Joe Biden. But inflation expectations are creeping upward in the University of Michigan’s index of consumer sentiment as respondents expect prices to rise by 3.3%. That would be higher than the actual 2.9% annual inflation rate in December’s consumer price index.

Trump has said that the government should raise more of its revenues from tariffs, as it did before the income tax became part of the Constitution in 1913. He claims, despite economic evidence to the contrary, that the U.S. was at its wealthiest in the 1890s under President William McKinley.

“We were the richest country in the world,” Trump said Friday. “We were a tariff country.”

Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted on the social media site X that the tariffs “if sustained, would be a massive shock — a much bigger move in one weekend than all the trade action that Trump took in his first term.”

Setser noted that the tariffs on China without exemptions could raise the price of iPhones, which would test just how much power corporate America has with Trump. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook attended Trump’s inauguration last month.

Recent research on Trump’s various tariff options by a team of economists suggested the trade penalties would be drags on growth in Canada, Mexico, China and the U.S. But Wending Zhang, a Cornell University economist who worked on the research, said the fallout would be felt more in Canada and Mexico because of their reliance on the U.S. market.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Canadians that they could be facing difficult times ahead, but that Ottawa was prepared to respond with retaliatory tariffs if needed and that the U.S. penalties would be self-sabotaging.

Trudeau said Canada is addressing Trump’s calls on border security by implementing a CDN$1.3 billion (US$900 million) border plan that includes helicopters, new canine teams and imaging tools.

Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum has stressed that her country has acted to reduce illegal border crossings and the illicit trade in fentanyl. While she has emphasized the ongoing dialogue since Trump first floated the tariffs in November, she has said that Mexico is ready to respond, too.

Mexico has a “Plan A, Plan B, Plan C for what the United States government decides,” she said.

Trump still has to get a budget, tax cuts and an increase to the government’s legal borrowing authority through Congress. The outcome of his tariff plans could strengthen his hand or weaken it.

Democrats are sponsoring legislation that would strip the president of his ability to impose tariffs without congressional approval. But that is unlikely to make headway in a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Because of course - why would Republicans in Congress want to maintain the separation of powers as required by the US Constitution? Silly people.

“If this weekend’s tariffs go into effect, they’ll do catastrophic damage to our relationships with our allies and raise costs for working families by hundreds of dollars a year,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. “Congress needs to stop this from happening again.”

Civics

Jaimie Raskin is the bomb.

Mic Drop, Bitch

... like 3 or 4 times.

Random Quote(s)

I'm almost done with "The Second" - which is the kind of real history that assholes like Ron DeSantis won't allow to be taught.

And guess what - not teaching kids the real history of USAmerica Inc is not a new thing.

I think I may have cause to raise a class action suit against the Jefferson County School System of the 60s and 70s. Which I thought did pretty fucking great by me - and they didn't. Not by a long shot.

None of this was taught in any of the many American History classes I took - and I had every right to expect that my teachers would let me know about it.

I will never not be pissed off about this.

"It is impossible to be unarmed when your blackness is the weapon that they fear."

Another Mitch Glitch

Some of the wiring in Mitch McConnell's brain has gone a little kerflooey.

I imagine you've already seen the video and heard the reports, but this is the era of piling on, so here it is again. He goes off the air for a good 20 seconds, and then kinda reboots enough to continue.

That death grip on the podium seems a bit metaphorical - McConnell desperately holding on to something he thinks will shield him from the humiliation he continually brings on himself.

About a month ago:

I think the interesting angle here is not just that Mitch is having some really alarming episodes, but that the Democratic governor of Kentucky would appoint a replacement Senator if McConnell can't serve out his term, and the Republican legislature has put through a bill requiring the governor to appoint a replacement of the same party as the departing Senator - from a list of candidates proffered by the Kentucky GOP.

So what if Gov Beshear ignores that requirement, appoints a Democrat, and tests it out in the courts, arguing Separation Of Powers?

That's of particular interest for me because the Republicans have been chipping away at the Checks-n-Balances thing for decades, starting at least as far back as Reagan, with the cockamamie "theory of the unitary executive".

The general principle that the President controls the entire executive branch was originally rather innocuous, but extreme forms of the theory have developed. Former White House Counsel John Dean explains: "In its most extreme form, unitary executive theory can mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the President what to do or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matters."

According to law professors Lawrence Lessig and Cass Sunstein, "No one denies that in some sense the framers created a unitary executive; the question is in what sense. Let us distinguish between a strong and a weak version." In either its strong or weak form, the theory would limit the power of Congress to divest the President of control of the executive branch. The "strongly unitary" theory posits stricter limits on Congress than the "weakly unitary" theory. During his confirmation hearing to become an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court, Samuel Alito seemed to endorse a weaker version of the unitary executive theory.

Alito's seemingly obvious self-interest in preserving his own power not withstanding (the guy did lie his ass off during his confirmation, dontcha know), the GOP position is largely that the Legislative Branch can't really interfere with the Executive's power to run the government. Which is pretty interesting because the Kentucky legislature is trying to do exactly that.

And that contradiction is just too perfectly on-brand for these asshole Daddy State Republicans.

Today In Both Sides Don't

Most people (ie: normal decent people), when they see a hole in the law or the constitution, they try to fix it.

Amy Klobuchar is one of those normal decent people.

Others - manipulative, self-dealing assholes like John Eastman and Marjorie Trailer Park Greene - see those glitches in the law as opportunities to dive into SmarmSpace and exploit the loopholes in furtherance of their own narrow interests.

IMHO, the glitches are there, and haven't been addressed, because the whole thing has worked pretty well on the honor system. ie: People of honor see and recognize that doing some shitty thing may be technically "legal", but it's not an honorable thing to do.

And yes, the SmarmSpace rangers know they're doing shitty things.

Honorable people don't do shitty things.

It's not honorable to make a move to monopolize power under a constitution so obviously constructed to prevent someone monopolizing power.

The GOP seems to have flopped all the way over to "If it's not specifically prohibited, then it's both peachy and dandy - let's knock this shit out."

Opinion

The plan to stop a future Trumpist coup moves closer to reality

It turns out our political system might prove capable of defending itself against future subversion after all.

In a big step forward for protecting democracy, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced Tuesday that he expects action in the lame-duck session on reform of the arcane law that Donald Trump exploited during his attempted 2021 coup.

“I expect an omnibus will contain priorities both sides want to see passed into law, including more funding for Ukraine and the Electoral Count Act,” Schumer said, in a reference to an end-of-year spending bill the two parties are negotiating.

Speaking about reform of the ECA, the 1887 law that governs how presidential electors are counted in Congress, Schumer added: “It will be great to get that done.”

This is welcome news. The Senate version of ECA reform would clarify the vice president’s role in counting electors as purely ceremonial, make it harder for Congress to invalidate legitimate electors and make corruption of the appointment of electors at the state level much harder.

All these points would make a rerun of Trump’s 2020 effort less likely, in part because they would patch up ECA vulnerabilities that invited him to attempt it. He pressured his vice president to halt the electoral count, got Republican members of Congress to vote to cast out Joe Biden’s electors and pressed state legislatures to appoint sham electors for him instead.

Because of this, ECA reform has long risked being seen as “anti-Trump.” That might have rendered it unlikely that 10 GOP senators would support it and make it possible to circumvent a filibuster.

But Schumer’s announcement is cause for real optimism. That’s because it’s unlikely Schumer would have made it if Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hadn’t quietly indicated support for attaching reform to the omnibus.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a longtime proponent of ECA reform, says she’s optimistic that Republicans will remain behind this endgame. Klobuchar notes that McConnell voted for ECA reform in the Rules Committee, and it’s supported by well over a dozen other GOP senators.

“It’s clearly a top priority,” Klobuchar told me, speaking of how ECA reform is seen by McConnell and its Republican supporters. Klobuchar noted that negotiations over it have been a “strong bipartisan effort” and reform boasts some “very conservative members supporting it.”

“This law is just crying out for updating,” Klobuchar said. While some House lawmakers want new tweaks to the Senate bill, a person familiar with the situation says the Senate version is the one that will move forward.

In a twist, the prospects for passage might be improved by attaching it to the omnibus. As this column recently noted, holding a stand-alone Senate vote on ECA reform might subject it to more attacks from MAGA-loyal forces in Congress and in right wing media, making it harder for GOP senators to support it. Schumer’s plan allows McConnell to move it forward a bit more quietly.

New developments this week forcefully underscored the need for reform. In a widely noted speech, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) openly declared that had she been in charge of Trump’s insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, it would have been “armed.”

And text messages from House Republicans to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, unearthed by Talking Points Memo, show members of Congress scheming in the run-up to Jan. 6 to overturn Trump’s loss in all kinds of ways, with one even calling for Trump to declare martial law.

What all this means is that the insurrectionist spirit will run strong in next year’s GOP-controlled House, which would be likely to try to help with any effort by Trump — or an imitator — to subvert the 2024 presidential election. Under current law, if a GOP-controlled state legislature appointed electors for the Republican nominee in defiance of the state’s popular vote, the GOP House could count those electors, leading to a stolen election or constitutional crisis.

Reform of the ECA would make that much harder to pull off. It would require governors to certify lawful electors, create new pathways for legal challenges to corruptly appointed electors and require Congress to count the electors validated by the courts.

“The clock is ticking towards midnight,” Matthew Seligman, a legal scholar and ECA expert, told me. “Congress seems poised to pull us back from the brink, at a moment when the extreme wing of the GOP House seems more eager than ever to trigger a crisis.”

Passage of these fixes, especially along with this cycle’s defeat of numerous gubernatorial candidates who were essentially running on a vow to subvert future elections, would amount to major action in defense of democracy and self-rule. As the unabashed and continuing insurrectionism of Greene and other House Republicans demonstrates, it’s poised to come not a moment too soon.

About Your "Rights"

In a system of 3 co-equal branches of government, where checks and balances are supposed to keep each of the branches from overstepping its authority, how exactly do we hold the SUPREME COURT accountable?

How does Congress pass a bill intended to rein in a SCOTUS that seems to be running afoul of the document its supposed to be helping us enforce and keep intact, when that court has the power to nullify any law it sees fit to nullify? When that court can actually (in effect) rule to nullify parts of the US Constitution itself?

This is just the latest in a long-running series of constitutional crises being manufactured by those dark and mysterious entities known collectively as "they".

Hey - I may be paranoid, but that don't mean nobody's out to get me.

Anyway, taking a look at a few wrinkles in this big fuckin' mess we're up to our eyeballs in:

WaPo: (pay wall)

Opinion: Louisiana reveals the war on rights that is coming if Roe is overturned

With the Supreme Court considering whether to overturn Roe v. Wade, Louisiana House Republicans advanced this past week an antiabortion bill of astonishing sweep. The proposal would rewrite the state’s homicide statute to “ensure the right to life and equal protection of the laws to all unborn children from the moment of fertilization by protecting them by the same laws protecting other human beings.” In other words, not only would the bill empower Louisiana prosecutors to charge women who get abortions with murder, it appears to declare the use of in-vitro fertilization, intrauterine devices and emergency contraception to be homicide, too.

For half a century, Americans could more or less take for granted their right to terminate their pregnancies, seek help starting families or get IUDs. Many might not realize how dramatically overturning Roe would reshape American life. Some deny this reality, arguing that, should the Supreme Court repudiate Roe, as a draft majority opinion that leaked earlier this month suggests it might, the United States would resemble Europe, where first-trimester abortion is legal nearly everywhere. In fact, overturning Roe would result in the immediate banning of abortion in the 13 states that have antiabortion laws designed to kick in as soon as Roe is gone. Republican leaders in Nebraska, South Dakota and Indiana are calling for legislative special sessions to pass sweeping new abortion restrictions.

And Louisiana shows that, given the option, right-wing lawmakers are poised to wage a broad war against reproductive rights that would horrify most Americans. It might be that wealthy people in states run by anti-abortion zealots would be able to cross state lines to terminate their pregnancies or to seek other family planning options. (Though some Republicans want to try to ban that, too.) But poor people would be unable to get safe, legal abortions. On top of the health risks they would face seeking illicit abortions, in Louisiana these individuals might also risk being prosecuted for murder. Given that many women seek abortions because they would struggle to carry their pregnancies to term while caring for the families they already have, the bill would be a particularly cruel twist that would threaten the families who are least capable of facing such hardship.

If Roe were egregiously wrong, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. claims in the leaked draft opinion, the justices would have to weigh whether enabling such drastic and immediate consequences would be good for the orderly application of the law. But the court need not make that tough call, because Roe was a reasonable ruling to which seven justices signed their names, and which the court upheld in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Other than the makeup of the court, the only thing that has changed in the past half-century is that Roe has become a keystone decision for Americans’ personal rights. Overturning it now would wound the nation, worsen the country’s politics and make some of the most vulnerable Americans more so. It would be the height of gratuitous judicial activism.

Glenn Kirschner - There ought to be public hearings and an impeachment inquiry. 

Lawrence O'Donnell, with former USAG Eric Holder:

A Thought

Over and over and over again, we've heard "conservatives" tell us it's a cherished privilege - and an honor beyond imagining - to fight, and to bleed, and to die if necessary, in order to protect and defend the sacred Constitution of these United States.

I'm just wondering why so many Republicans seem so willing to fight and to bleed and to die trying to shit-can it.

Today's History Thing

This is often characterized as a Black History Thing, when it's actually an Everybody History Thing, because every time we make a move to establish &/or protect the rights of POC - or any other subset of our general citizenry - we strengthen the rights for everybody.

24th Amendment - Jan 23, 1964

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A more perfect union

I'll ignore the part about how Virginia wouldn't ratify the thing for another 13 years - that's a foul-mouthed vituperative rant for a different day.

Today's Beau

Justin King - Beau Of The Fifth Column

On having a constitutional duty to embrace BLM; to wear your mask; to look out for your neighbors; to expand civil rights, and to extend them to everybody.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It Bugs Me, Man

Nothing bugs me more than when I start thinking I have to make common cause with The John Birch Society.

First, Nancy MacLean makes mention of The Liberty Amendments:

The Liberty Amendments:

1. Term Limits - US Congress
2. Repeal 17th amendment
3. Term Limits - SCOTUS
4. Federal balanced budget
5. Move tax day to the day before election day
6. Periodic review/re-authorization of federal departments
7. Redefine the Commerce Clause
8. Limit eminent domain
9. Change the process for amending the Constitution
10. States' nullification of federal statute or SCOTUS decision
11. Federal Voter ID

Then I have to put my gag reflex in cold storage long enough to sit thru Mark Levin:

Just kidding - I tried to listen to Levin and there's just no fuckin' way for me to get thru it. 

I tried - honest - I did.

So instead, here's a history teacher guy - Keith Hughes (YouTuber Hip Hughes):

And then, I had to listen to Art Thompson as he rebuts:

It's the Long Game, but we're seeing it in acceleration mode now. 45* screwed up the timing, and is making it harder for the Daddy Staters to hide their hands, so a lot of them are trying to stay with it, even though they're really scared that enough of us are hip to their tricks now - that even the rubes are beginning to see the contradictions.

Impeachment

As is usually the case, some guys are out in front of the band catching all the panties, while others - the heart and soul of the enterprise - are relegated to backup and fill-in rolls.

That's not to say the singers and the lead guitar players aren't doing any of the work - I'm just saying we don't have our favorite band without the people we sometimes don't even see.

George Mason is the greatest Founding Father nobody ever heard of.

But anyway, the point here is that we got a very workable document out of a convention of truly extraordinary gentlemen.

Of course, there's no point in planning your work if you're not gonna work your plan.

Smithsonian Magazine, Erick Trickey:

The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was winding down, the draft of the United States’ supreme law almost finished, and George Mason, the author of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, was becoming alarmed. Over the course of the convention, the 61-year-old had come to fear the powerful new government his colleagues were creating. Mason thought the president could become a tyrant as oppressive as George III.

So on September 8, 1787, he rose to ask his fellow delegates a question of historic importance. Why, Mason asked, were treason and bribery the only grounds in the draft Constitution for impeaching the president? Treason, he warned, wouldn’t include “attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

After a sharp back-and-forth with fellow Virginian James Madison, Mason came up with another category of impeachable offenses: “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Americans have debated the meaning of this decidedly open-ended phrase ever since. But its inclusion, as well as the guidance the Founders left regarding its interpretation, offers more protection against a dangerous executive power than many realize.

- and -

...Mason, one of Virginia’s richest planters and a major framer of his home state’s new constitution, was the first delegate to argue that the government needed a check on the executive’s power. “Some mode of displacing an unfit magistrate” was necessary, he argued on June 2, without “making the Executive the mere creature of the Legislature.” After a short debate, the convention agreed to the language proposed in the Virginia Plan: the executive would “be removable on impeachment and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty” – a broad standard that the delegates would later rewrite.

Mason, Madison, and Randolph all spoke up to defend impeachment on July 20, after Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania moved to strike it. “[If the president] should be re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence,” Morris argued. “[Impeachment] will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach.”

“Shall any man be above justice?” Mason asked. “Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?” A presidential candidate might bribe the electors to gain the presidency, Mason suggested. “Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?”

Madison argued that the Constitution needed a provision “for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” Waiting to vote him out of office in a general election wasn’t good enough. “He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation”— embezzlement—“or oppression,” Madison warned. “He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

Randolph agreed on both these fronts. “The Executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power,” he warned, “particularly in time of war, when the military force, and in some respects the public money, will be in his hands.” The delegates voted, 8 states to 2, to make the executive removable by impeachment.

"A republic, Madam - if you can keep it."

Worthless

"Conservatives" love to carp about how da gubmint don't do nuthin' worth doin'.

Is there anything worth less than a "president" gassing about how he's considering an attempt to repeal an amendment to the constitution that solidifies every American's right to be an American?

And how do the rubes think he'll accomplish this amazing feat? Does he simply wave his tiny hand, and 💥 poof ☁️ - it's done?

Raw Story:

President Donald Trump said that he’s looking at getting rid of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

In a discussion with reporters en route to Air Force One, Trump explained his plans.
“We’re looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship,” Trump said, according to Foxs’ Chad Pergram.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the 14th Amendment reads.

To change an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, both houses of Congress must pass the law with two-thirds of a vote. Then, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve it.
How stupid do you have to be to keep going along with this shit?

In the 2016 campaign, Trump made more than a few ridiculous claims about how Hillary would get rid of the 2nd amendment.

He has people around him who tell him about how our government works. He can't possibly believe what he says - so I think he must believe that the rubes will believe him, or he wouldn't keep saying this kinda shit.

How desperate must his devotees be that they insist on being so willfully ignorant that they go on thinking POTUS has the power to change the US Constitution on a whim?

And why the fuck do they never stop to contemplate the negatives that could accrue to themselves because of any given president's whims?

Civics

Today's lesson is the 1st amendment:

Your Weekly Amy

Amy Siskind, The Weekly List - Week 74:

This week, Trump became angry and stormy after the office and hotel room of his longtime lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen were raided by the FBI. The country stood on edge as Trump threatened to fire Mueller, Sessions, and Rosenstein. Other than a few hollow warnings, Republicans in leadership did nothing by way of passing legislation or any other measures to block Trump from taking steps to dull or end the Mueller probe. And as Speaker Paul Ryan became the latest Republican leader to announce he will not seek re-election in November, increasingly it appears the party will abdicate its responsibility to counter Trump.

In a week without any real focus, policy, or direction, Trump careened on trade and on Syria. After spending much of week attacking and discrediting institutions and familiar targets like Obama, Hillary, McCabe, and Comey, Trump ended the week late Friday by addressing the nation on a US missile attack on Syria, which, unlike a year ago, will be an open-ended military engagement. With a non-functioning and unstaffed State Department, many senior national security roles vacated, and disagreement voiced by Secretary Mattis, the decision to strike — as with most decisions in recent weeks — was made by one man.
5. WAPO reported on repeated clashes between Trump and chief of staff John Kelly, and Kelly’s downward arc of influence in the White House. Kelly’s credibility has also suffered amid misstatements, including his handling of the Rob Porter scandal.

6. Kelly has instituted “Policy Time” sessions once or twice a day where advisers would address Trump on specific issues and bi-monthly cabinet meetings. Kelly’s efforts to create an atmosphere of discipline clashed with Trump’s freewheeling impulses.

7. Reportedly, Kelly has threatened to resign multiple times — one senior White House official jokingly called it “a weekly event.” Trump has told friends recently he likes rallies where he can escape Kelly’s shackles.

15. On Thursday, Gov. Jerry Brown of California heeded Trump’s call to send the National Guard to the Mexico border, but said his 400 troops will have nothing to do with immigration enforcement.

17. Brennan Walker, a 14 year-old black teen in Rochester Hills, Michigan who missed his school bus and stopped at a neighbor’s house while walking to school to ask for directions, was shot by homeowner Jeffrey Ziegler, whose wife initially answered the door and yelled at Walker.

28. On Monday, La Prensa reported Trump Panama Hotel Management has pressured the Panamanian government to step in to its dispute with Orestes Fintiklis over control of the hotel formerly named after Trump.

Number 28 is exactly the problem when a President refuses to divest. How do we know federal resources are being spent on National Interests, and not in support of the President's own pocketbook?

The Emoluments Clause (aka: Title Of Nobility Clause) is kind of a big deal around here.

The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,[1] that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences."

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

That Thing About Guns

The Conversation, Jeff Daniels:

While President Donald Trump has not shied away from offering suggestions on how to prevent school shootings – including one controversial idea to arm teachers – what often gets overlooked in the conversation is research on the subject that has already been done.

This research includes one major study of school shootings conducted in part by the very agency charged with protecting the president of the United States himself - the U.S. Secret Service.

Has this research been ignored or just forgotten? I raise the question as one who has studied averted school shootings and the news coverage that followed.

Two months after the Columbine tragedy in 1999, experts from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Secret Service collaborated to study the “school shooter” phenomenon. They published the study on their findings in 2002. The study focused on examining the thinking, planning and other behaviors of students who carried out school attacks. Particular attention was given to identifying pre-attack behaviors and communications that might be detectable – or “knowable” – and could help prevent future attacks.
The Key Findings of that report are nothing new (click on "one major study" in the 2nd graf above). We hear about the efforts aimed at prevention every time. But every time, the debate gets hijacked, and we start arguing about the 2nd amendment, and a Big Brother Database, and good guys with guns, and blah blah blah.

Another thing: the 2nd amendment does not allow for anyone to own any gun.

We hear a lot about "The Heller Decision" - when SCOTUS affirmed "the right to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals and not just a collective (ie: Militia).

But remember one thing - Antonin Scalia (the guy who wrote that majority opinion) said the rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment are not limitless - there's nothing in the amendment prohibiting congress from imposing some restrictions.

So let's focus on the first effect of this widespread misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment: The public's easy (ish) access to the kinds of guns intended for use only in war.

And also too - call me nutty, but I'm set-in-stone sure that gun violence somehow has something to do with guns.

It Only Works When You Work It

Quick reminder: Checks and Balances is a metaphor, not a mechanism.

AP News:

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware plan to introduce the legislation Thursday. The bill would allow any special counsel for the Department of Justice to challenge his or her removal in court, with a review by a three-judge panel within 14 days of the challenge.

The bill would be retroactive to May 17, 2017 — the day Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible ties to Donald Trump’s campaign.

“It is critical that special counsels have the independence and resources they need to lead investigations,” Tillis said in a statement. “A back-end judicial review process to prevent unmerited removals of special counsels not only helps to ensure their investigatory independence, but also reaffirms our nation’s system of check and balances.”
Legislators have been ceding power to the Executive for decades - this is one of a very few times Congress Critters have reared up and made a noise like they understand the idea of "First Among Equals".

Defend your institutions or lose them forever.

So way to go, guys. 

But seriously - it's about fuckin' time.

Seems Pretty Clear

WaPo:

President Trump’s budget calls for sharply reducing funding for programs that shelter the poor and combat homelessness — with a notable exception: It leaves intact a type of federal housing subsidy that is paid directly to private landlords.

One of those landlords is Trump himself, who earns millions of dollars each year as a part-owner of Starrett City, the nation’s largest subsidized housing complex. Trump’s 4 percent stake in the Brooklyn complex earned him at least $5 million between January of last year and April 15, according to his recent financial disclosure.

Trump’s business empire intersects with government in countless ways, from taxation to permitting to the issuing of patents, but the housing subsidy is one of the clearest examples of the conflicts experts have predicted. While there is no indication that Trump himself was involved in the decision, it is nonetheless a stark illustration of how his financial interests can directly rise or fall on the policies of his administration.
Intentional or otherwise, this is exactly the Selective Political Fuckery we try to prevent with little things like the Emoluments Clause and the Office of Government Ethics.

If 45* was a Dungeons and Dragons character, he'd be strictly Chaotic Neutral. He has no discernible moral code other than "whatever gets me what I think I want right now".

We thought is was bad when Bush43 brought the Manichean crap - where it's all and only one way, or it's all and only the other way, and there's no such thing as middle ground?  Yeah - wow, those were the days, huh?

Weirdly, this 45* guy turns that knee-jerk outlook to his advantage by vacating the narrowly-defined black-n-white moral positions that "conservatives" always claim; substituting himself; and putting the finishing touches on the GOP's attempts to make the equation read backwards: "What's good for Trump is good for the GOP, and what's good for the GOP is good for the country."

And this is nothing new.

And this is exactly what "The Left" has been warning us about for decades.

And 45* is exactly the guy the system was built to keep out.

And he's exactly the guy that same system almost guaranteed would eventually rise by taking full advantage of the system's loop holes.

Because

Unfortunately, the structure of restraint is built around the presumption of honorability, and allows for someone devoid of honor to go more than a little crazy with the power it conveys.

That Pesky Constitution

  Nikolas Bowie at Take Care

In its first fifty days, the Trump administration has done a magnificent job—the best job—teaching Americans about the Constitution. Who among us could distinguish an emolument from a peppermint before 2016? In that spirit, as we learn more about the employees President Trump has hired to run the executive branch, it’s worth asking whether his administration is violating another under-the-radar provision: The Appointments Clause.

The Appointments Clause is the one that requires the president to get the “Advice and Consent of the Senate” before he can hire certain “Officers of the United States.” It’s the reason we know what Betsy DeVos thinks about bears or that the Russian ambassador is easily forgettable. The eighteenth-century authors of the clause anticipated that no president could run the executive branch by himself, but they wanted a “check” to ensure that he didn’t appoint “unfit characters,” “family connection[s],” or “obsequious instruments of his pleasure.” They decided that Senate debates on the merits of nominees would provide much-needed accountability for the most important members of a president’s team.

- and -

Over the years, these “assistants to the president” have grown in number and in status to take on some of the most important advisory responsibilities in the White House. But even though these assistants now wield tremendous informal clout, they have always remained “employees” for constitutional purposes. And every president since Roosevelt has generally adhered to the Appointments Clause by restraining their employees from exceeding the constitutional limits on their statutory authority.

Until now.

When President Trump issued his first travel ban, for instance, employees Bannon and Miller interposed themselves between the president and the Department of Homeland Security by overruling its interpretation of whether the ban applied to green-card holders. That weekend, employee Miller reportedly called a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney to dictate how he should defend the ban in court. In addition, employee Miller also “effectively ran” a meeting of the National Security Council despite Congress’s requirement that the council “shall be composed” only of people “appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

More recently, employee McGhan has given “authoritative guidance” to Senate-confirmed officers in the Department of Homeland Security about how to interpret President Trump’s inscrutable executive orders. He’s also the employee responsible for directing Senate-confirmed officers in the Department of Justice to turn over any warrants regarding the president’s wild accusations that he was wiretapped.

Employee Preibus reportedly directed the Senate-confirmed FBI director to “knock down” stories that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia.

And the president has appointed at least one of his 400 “beachhead” employees, Stephen Vaughn, to serve in a Senate-confirmable position as acting U.S. Trade Representative, even though federal law expressly prohibits that sort of appointment.

Notice a pattern?
hat tip = Lawrence Tribe @tribelaw

Run It Like A Business

A smart guy told us back in the 90s that the 21st century would be about privacy.

I hate the notion of "prophesy fulfilled" and so I'll just ignore it because it's inconvenient, but damn, son - kinda looks like that's what's happening.

Sharon Begley at STAT

A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.

Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.

The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

- and -

Rigorous studies by researchers not tied to the $8 billion wellness industry have shown that the programs improve employee health little if at all. An industry group recently concluded that they save so little on medical costs that, on average, the programs lose money. But employers continue to embrace them, partly as a way to shift more health care costs to workers, including by penalizing them financially.

So what's it actually about? It has great potential to be about shenanigans and fuckery.

But in the context of the 4th amendment, it's about none of your goddamned business.

Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.