Brilliant analysis as always, Liz! Every single day, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills (to quote the great Mugato from “Zoolander”) when I read the Shadow President/Legislator proclaim his ignorance of government as he destroys everything we’ve established without pushback from our feckless Congress. It’s also worth noting that the agencies in his crosshairs are the ones holding him accountable, too.
Maybe it is time to think about the potential relevance of 5 U.S.C. 3331:
Any "individual" who is "appointed" to any "office of honor or profit in the civil service" must "swear (or affirm) that" he "will bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, including by "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
I have to wonder whether Musk and the Musk rats rummaging through the personal information of federal employees (and applicants for federal employment) have violated that law.
Napoleon Bonaparte can't be seen as a supporter of democracy, equal rights or free speech, but the fact that Trump fancies himself as Napoleon is insulting to the latter.
Napoleon Bonaparte was, first and foremost, a military leader. He was trained in the army, led many battles (as a general and as an head of state) and risked his life a few times on the battlefield. He even suffered two injuries and sometimes came close to be killed on the battlefield. Compare that to a draft dodger who repeatedly insulted US citizens who served in the army.
Napoleon also despised insurrection and disorder. On August 10, 1792 he was a witness of the insurrection that led to the fall of Louis XVI and of the monarchy, he was even taken to task by insurrectionist who accused him of looking like an aristocrat. Being a witness of many events of the French Revolution created his greatest fear : being the target of a mob (think about it what happened to Pence and the other members of Congress on January 6th was literally the greatest fear of Napoleon Bonaparte). And, in 1795, Bonaparte, as a general, crushed a royalist insurrection in Paris, by ordering to fire upon the insurrectionist with grapeshot. Compare that to the man who incited an insurrection against the government he swore to protect, leading to a mob storming the Capitol and chasing elected officials.
Then, when Napoleon came to power in 1799, he understood that was France was a bitterly divided nation. The divide was between the royalist and the revolutionnaries, but even the revolutionnaries were bitterly divided among themselves. Napoleon tried to mend the rifts, by entrenching many revolutionnary ideas while lending a hand to the royalist, he understood that you can't govern a nation while treating significant part of the population as an ennemy. Compare that to the man who claimed that the Americans who oppose him are the worst ennemies of the United States (and not Russia or China).
Next, Napoleon created many institutions and led many reforms that are still in place today in France (even if they went through many changes over the years). To name the more important :
-The Conseil d'Etat, tasked with advising the government and being the supreme court of administrative justice,
-The Cour des Comptes, tasked with the monitoring of National accounts
-The Bank of France
-The baccalaureate (high school diploma) and the high school
-The prefect
-A massive effort of codification in civil law (Code civil, Code de procédure civile), criminal law (Code Pénal, Code de Procédure Pénale and Code de l'Instruction Criminelle) and commercial law (Code de Commerce).
Compare that to the men whose legacy will be destroying everything that the US built in order to have a functional state.
Trump isn't Napoleon. If he is to be compared to a french head of state, it would be Charles X, the brother of Louis XVI who came to power in 1824. He was the leader of the Ultra-royalist, who were reactionaries who never accepted the French Revolution and the fact that they lost their ranks and powers, and tried to enact a counter-revolution every time they were in power between 1815 and 1830. When Charles X became king in 1824, they really tried to restore the absolute monarchy.
In July 1830, they went too far and the July Revolution ousted Charles X. We can hope that the "July Revolution" against Donald Trump will come soon.
"you can't govern a nation while treating significant part of the population as an enemy."
Thing is, if we ever manage to pull ourselves out of this disaster, we're going to have to do that. Republicans have made it completely clear that they are the enemy. The US political situation is a trolley problem now, and trying to extend olive branches or compromises with them will only ever be suicidally naive. That's how trump got in the first AND second time.
Refusing to treat white supremacist Christian conservatives as the enemy is ALL this country's ever done since the civil war, and look how that's worked out for us.
It does feel like we will need a constitutional amendment. It will need to include ways to ENFORCE the laws that limit the President and Executive branch in a timely manner. It will need to modify the court and make CLEAR how the judges and justices are to be removed when they are no longer on "Good behaviour". It will need to make clear HOW justices need to make their decisions, in order to make sure they do not ignore the clear reading of the Constitution (14th amendment for instance) again. Personally I think it has been proven the threat of impeachment is no longer valid and it needs to be rewritten
That's all necessary, yes, but it still doesn't get to the root of the problem. Fascism came to this country wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible. Christianity has always been fash adjacent at best. The establishment clause isn't strong enough, that's abundantly clear. We need to actually put restrictions on what churches can and can't do. Starting with revoking their tax exemptions.
True. After all "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" simply meant, DO NOT ESTABLISH A STATE RELIGION! or even a 'preferred' one. There was nothing there about making churches immune to all laws. We certainly tax newspapers, why not churches? Also, religion and church are two separate things. I have my personal religion without belonging to a church. A church is just an organization, and as such should be held to the same laws as any other organization, like "Loyal Order of Moose" for instance. If they qualify as a non-profit organization, fine. My right to practice my religion should be no different whether I belong to a 'Church' or not. The nature of my religion should not impact my freedoms relating to my practice of it.
The idea that a company can 'have a religion' I find disturbing, especially when it allows the company to ignore laws. Religion is a private issue that does not impact others negatively, otherwise people could adopt a religion that demands human sacrifice for instance. Just like all other rights, you have them as long as they do not interfere with other people's rights and the laws instituted to protect those people from harm.
For instance, a 'business' that decides giving people healthcare is against their religion declares they do not need to provide healthcare even though the law demands it. SCOTUS got that one wrong. People were harmed by that business refusing them health care.
This may signal their confidence in having a sophisticated propaganda organ at their will and a captured political party (one of the oldest in the world) to kick around. That is the difference between now and the late 20th century.
For many, many years now, whenever in discussion with Republicans, any time the concept of democracy was mentioned they would invariably shift the topic by declaring we are a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy and engage as though that was the disputed subject.
Now, the ONE time Trump finally got a (very small) majority vote, suddenly the entire concept of the constitution, of Republic, of LAWS is ignored in their haste to implement their dreams.
They are so incensed over the idea of "illegal immigrants" they not only completely ignore the law of the land regarding Asylum seekers, they view it as the most holy of laws, standing above all others, and act on the idea that this means they can violate all other laws in order to remove all immigrants and thereby "Save America".
Have to ask, how many people suffered as a result of immigrants? They commit fewer crimes, so to oppose them on that basis means we should ship out citizens at an even higher rate. They do jobs nobody else wants to do, so those jobs will not get done (waiting to see if they are competent enough to manage getting rid of enough to trigger those consequences). Most of the budegetary things relating to immigrants (Temp housing etc...) claimed By the Convicted Felon are LIES. It is all manufactured fear to get Trump elected and now to keep people distracted from his providing AID to Billionaires.
I’m old enough to remember Barry Goldwater’s observation (written by his speechwriter, of course) that, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” The problem is that voters in the 60’s were wise enough to soundly reject these ideas. Today, not so much.
Brilliant analysis as always, Liz! Every single day, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills (to quote the great Mugato from “Zoolander”) when I read the Shadow President/Legislator proclaim his ignorance of government as he destroys everything we’ve established without pushback from our feckless Congress. It’s also worth noting that the agencies in his crosshairs are the ones holding him accountable, too.
Now my question is this: what can we do?
Hope he has a huge falling out with trump that results in him being thrown in gitmo.
Maybe it is time to think about the potential relevance of 5 U.S.C. 3331:
Any "individual" who is "appointed" to any "office of honor or profit in the civil service" must "swear (or affirm) that" he "will bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, including by "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
I have to wonder whether Musk and the Musk rats rummaging through the personal information of federal employees (and applicants for federal employment) have violated that law.
They never had to swear or affirm anything.
That’s precisely my point.
Musk to U.S. — Upon water walketh I.
Napoleon Bonaparte can't be seen as a supporter of democracy, equal rights or free speech, but the fact that Trump fancies himself as Napoleon is insulting to the latter.
Napoleon Bonaparte was, first and foremost, a military leader. He was trained in the army, led many battles (as a general and as an head of state) and risked his life a few times on the battlefield. He even suffered two injuries and sometimes came close to be killed on the battlefield. Compare that to a draft dodger who repeatedly insulted US citizens who served in the army.
Napoleon also despised insurrection and disorder. On August 10, 1792 he was a witness of the insurrection that led to the fall of Louis XVI and of the monarchy, he was even taken to task by insurrectionist who accused him of looking like an aristocrat. Being a witness of many events of the French Revolution created his greatest fear : being the target of a mob (think about it what happened to Pence and the other members of Congress on January 6th was literally the greatest fear of Napoleon Bonaparte). And, in 1795, Bonaparte, as a general, crushed a royalist insurrection in Paris, by ordering to fire upon the insurrectionist with grapeshot. Compare that to the man who incited an insurrection against the government he swore to protect, leading to a mob storming the Capitol and chasing elected officials.
Then, when Napoleon came to power in 1799, he understood that was France was a bitterly divided nation. The divide was between the royalist and the revolutionnaries, but even the revolutionnaries were bitterly divided among themselves. Napoleon tried to mend the rifts, by entrenching many revolutionnary ideas while lending a hand to the royalist, he understood that you can't govern a nation while treating significant part of the population as an ennemy. Compare that to the man who claimed that the Americans who oppose him are the worst ennemies of the United States (and not Russia or China).
Next, Napoleon created many institutions and led many reforms that are still in place today in France (even if they went through many changes over the years). To name the more important :
-The Conseil d'Etat, tasked with advising the government and being the supreme court of administrative justice,
-The Cour des Comptes, tasked with the monitoring of National accounts
-The Bank of France
-The baccalaureate (high school diploma) and the high school
-The prefect
-A massive effort of codification in civil law (Code civil, Code de procédure civile), criminal law (Code Pénal, Code de Procédure Pénale and Code de l'Instruction Criminelle) and commercial law (Code de Commerce).
Compare that to the men whose legacy will be destroying everything that the US built in order to have a functional state.
Trump isn't Napoleon. If he is to be compared to a french head of state, it would be Charles X, the brother of Louis XVI who came to power in 1824. He was the leader of the Ultra-royalist, who were reactionaries who never accepted the French Revolution and the fact that they lost their ranks and powers, and tried to enact a counter-revolution every time they were in power between 1815 and 1830. When Charles X became king in 1824, they really tried to restore the absolute monarchy.
In July 1830, they went too far and the July Revolution ousted Charles X. We can hope that the "July Revolution" against Donald Trump will come soon.
"you can't govern a nation while treating significant part of the population as an enemy."
Thing is, if we ever manage to pull ourselves out of this disaster, we're going to have to do that. Republicans have made it completely clear that they are the enemy. The US political situation is a trolley problem now, and trying to extend olive branches or compromises with them will only ever be suicidally naive. That's how trump got in the first AND second time.
Refusing to treat white supremacist Christian conservatives as the enemy is ALL this country's ever done since the civil war, and look how that's worked out for us.
It does feel like we will need a constitutional amendment. It will need to include ways to ENFORCE the laws that limit the President and Executive branch in a timely manner. It will need to modify the court and make CLEAR how the judges and justices are to be removed when they are no longer on "Good behaviour". It will need to make clear HOW justices need to make their decisions, in order to make sure they do not ignore the clear reading of the Constitution (14th amendment for instance) again. Personally I think it has been proven the threat of impeachment is no longer valid and it needs to be rewritten
Other things may get added, but this is a start.
That's all necessary, yes, but it still doesn't get to the root of the problem. Fascism came to this country wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible. Christianity has always been fash adjacent at best. The establishment clause isn't strong enough, that's abundantly clear. We need to actually put restrictions on what churches can and can't do. Starting with revoking their tax exemptions.
True. After all "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" simply meant, DO NOT ESTABLISH A STATE RELIGION! or even a 'preferred' one. There was nothing there about making churches immune to all laws. We certainly tax newspapers, why not churches? Also, religion and church are two separate things. I have my personal religion without belonging to a church. A church is just an organization, and as such should be held to the same laws as any other organization, like "Loyal Order of Moose" for instance. If they qualify as a non-profit organization, fine. My right to practice my religion should be no different whether I belong to a 'Church' or not. The nature of my religion should not impact my freedoms relating to my practice of it.
The idea that a company can 'have a religion' I find disturbing, especially when it allows the company to ignore laws. Religion is a private issue that does not impact others negatively, otherwise people could adopt a religion that demands human sacrifice for instance. Just like all other rights, you have them as long as they do not interfere with other people's rights and the laws instituted to protect those people from harm.
For instance, a 'business' that decides giving people healthcare is against their religion declares they do not need to provide healthcare even though the law demands it. SCOTUS got that one wrong. People were harmed by that business refusing them health care.
Eventually, Trump shall make a scapegoat out of Musk; there is no honor among thieves.
Only that the thieves are both robbing the country of our infrastructure in people, jobs, functions, and not least funds.
This may signal their confidence in having a sophisticated propaganda organ at their will and a captured political party (one of the oldest in the world) to kick around. That is the difference between now and the late 20th century.
We need to call out the fraud at every turn where we see it.
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/doge-savings-another-con-game?r=3m1bs
For many, many years now, whenever in discussion with Republicans, any time the concept of democracy was mentioned they would invariably shift the topic by declaring we are a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy and engage as though that was the disputed subject.
Now, the ONE time Trump finally got a (very small) majority vote, suddenly the entire concept of the constitution, of Republic, of LAWS is ignored in their haste to implement their dreams.
They are so incensed over the idea of "illegal immigrants" they not only completely ignore the law of the land regarding Asylum seekers, they view it as the most holy of laws, standing above all others, and act on the idea that this means they can violate all other laws in order to remove all immigrants and thereby "Save America".
Have to ask, how many people suffered as a result of immigrants? They commit fewer crimes, so to oppose them on that basis means we should ship out citizens at an even higher rate. They do jobs nobody else wants to do, so those jobs will not get done (waiting to see if they are competent enough to manage getting rid of enough to trigger those consequences). Most of the budegetary things relating to immigrants (Temp housing etc...) claimed By the Convicted Felon are LIES. It is all manufactured fear to get Trump elected and now to keep people distracted from his providing AID to Billionaires.
I’m old enough to remember Barry Goldwater’s observation (written by his speechwriter, of course) that, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” The problem is that voters in the 60’s were wise enough to soundly reject these ideas. Today, not so much.
I haven't even started reading yet. Just had to say, sheesh, now that's a nightmare image.