Declaration of Illegitimacy

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long a train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.  

                                                                                                   Declaration of Independence

 

America’s birth certificate begins with ideals—“all men are created equal”; “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”; “the consent of the governed.”  Then comes a list of grievances against King George III.  And it ends with a solemn oath. 

     Now, apparently, the Revolution has been rejected, the list of grievances against kingship withdrawn.  And so, the reactionaries set about ruin. 

     A republic, which derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed,” creates institutions.  A tyrant destroys them.  The one is about the rule of law; the other, power and the whims of an individual. 

     To accept what is, is not to acquiesce.  To make a concession to reality is not to surrender.  To acknowledge the situation is the first step toward victory.  For when failure is the result of timidity and cowardice, it is time to be bold and courageous. 

     In 2016, he was the beneficiary of Operation Crosscheck and the Russian Connection.  They dovetailed.  Thus began the feast on the fruit of the poisonous tree by the gentleman from New York. 

     Kris Kobach, the Secretary of State of Kansas, was the commander.  His faulty list of approximately 7 million voters was used by GOP counterparts in 27 States to remove Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters from the rolls by claiming they were voting in multiple States.  A first and last name was enough for a match.  Jr. and Sr. did not matter, nor middle names, nor different Social Security numbers.

     “The program's method of identifying and purging voters especially threatens the registrations of minority voters who are...67% more likely than white voters to share America's most common names:  Jackson, Washington, Lee, Rodriguez and so on,” according to Greg Palast.

     In the three crucial States that were supposed to be the Democratic firewall, the gentleman from New York “won” by 44,000 in Pennsylvania, 11,000 in Michigan, and 23,000 in Wisconsin.  Crosscheck removed up to 344,000 in the first and 449,000 in the second.  In the third, Photo ID, which is used to stop non-existent “voter fraud,” made the difference by depressing turnout in Milwaukee.  Thus, the 20 electoral votes in Pennsylvania, 16 in Michigan, and 10 in Wisconsin went to the Republican instead of Mrs. Clinton.  And so, the legitimacy of the gentleman from New York goes beyond the question of foreign influence. 

     The Russian Connection got all the attention, but what also had an impact on the election was Operation Crosscheck.  While that may sound like the authorization included plausible denial—“As always, should you or any member of the I.M. Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions”—it was an obvious effort to deny certain American citizens their right to vote.  And that supposedly domestic covert operation against them was successful because the self-styled “mainstream” press failed—and still fails—to cover this story.  But the falsehood about 3 million “illegal aliens” voting—circulated by the Kobach crowd—was covered.  Yet 7 million citizens on a list to deny them the right to vote were ignored. 

     In 2020, the gentleman from New York prepared the ground and sowed doubt—for the long con.  In 2024, he played craps with loaded dice and rolled a seven and “won” all the battleground States.  The psyop paid off. 

     “There is no such thing as a coincidence,” according to Gibbs’s Rule No. 39.  Two things tell the story, and they are the tell.  Professor Lichtman’s 13 keys were based upon the study of campaigns going back to 1860.  They have been accurate since he began using them in 1984, although in 2000 his prediction was thrown off by the intervention of the Supreme Court.   Ann Selzer, Carnac the Magnificent of the Midwest, has also been uncannily accurate.  She had Harris with a four point lead in Iowa three days before the election.  The gentleman from New York “won” by 13%.  What a…no such thing as… 

     The gentleman from New York and the GOP had contingency plans to pull off the heist.  The loyal opposition needs a Plan B to thwart the theft. 

     In preparation for the Federal Convention, James Madison gathered together the constitutions of the ancient republics.  They taught an important lesson.  Foreign influence was the consistent cause of their demise, and it is why we have an emoluments clause—a constitutional conflict of interest provision; a requirement that the President be “a natural born citizen”; and treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution because it is a threat to the life of the Republic and, therefore, first on the list of impeachable offenses.  (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 & Article III, Section 3, Clause 1)  Fear of foreign influence was such a deep concern for the Framers that it affected the method of choosing the President of the United States. 

     The misunderstood, misrepresented, and misused Electoral College has two functions.  They are popular choice and national security.  Much attention has been focused on the former and not enough on the latter.  Popular choice was to be protected—for reasons of national security. 

     “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.  These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the Union?”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 68) 

     “With all the infirmities incident to a popular election, corrected by the particular mode of conducting it, as directed under the present system, I think we may fairly calculate," said James Madison in the House, "that the instances will be very rare in which an unworthy man will receive that mark of the public confidence which is required to designate the President of the United States.” 

     The Electoral College only appears to have been neutered, because of apathy and ignorance.  But it can still perform its latter function and act as a final check on demagogues and fraud.  And in the present unusual situation, it can thwart the theft.

     “One advantage of Electors is,” according to James Madison, “although generally the mere mouths of their constituents, they may be intentionally left sometimes to their own judgment, guided by further information that may be acquired by them: and finally, what is of material importance, they will be able, when ascertaining, which may not be till a late hour, that the first choice of their constituents is utterly hopeless, to substitute in the electoral vote the name known to be their second choice.”  (The Electoral College by Lucius Wilmerding, Jr., 180-181) 

     In his Farewell Address, President Washington reinforced the importance of the lesson Madison learned in his study of the constitutions of the ancient republics. 

     “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful woes for republican government.” 

     The Founders’ concern is validated by remarks of Nikolai Patrushev, an aide to Vladimir Putin. 

     “To achieve success in the elections, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations.  And as a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them.” 

     The loyal opposition must inform the Electors of their duty. 

     The man who resides at Mar-a-Lago is ineligible, as is his heir apparent.  For the list of grievances against King George III apply to him and the Hillbilly Hypocrite dining at the same long table.  “A prince whose character is thus marked by every act that may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”  (Declaration of Independence) 

     On January 6, 2025, the first order of business of the joint session of Congress—before counting the electoral votes—is enforcement of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same” from holding Federal or State office.  The gentleman from New York has violated that provision in plain sight.  He can only be absolved if “Congress...by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”  Failure to act would bestow another veneer of legitimacy on the man who has betrayed the Revolution. 

     The gentleman from New York wants to change a government “long established”—for “light and transient causes”: his ego and the favor of a cult.  Prudence indeed will dictate nothing until he grabs her by “the p_ _ _y” and must pay for an NDA.  So, this is not as much a matter of “new guards” for our “future security” as it is being true to the two oaths.  The first is the final line of our country’s birth certificate.  “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”  The second is the oath to support and defend the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  Anyone who violates them is illegitimate.  And so, the answer to despotism is no.  Thus, instead of “the deep state,” the man who would be king must fear all of us who meant it when we said, “So help me God.” 

(c)2024 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.

 

 https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-transition.html

[THE TRANSITION] 

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-answer-is-no.html

[THE ANSWER IS NO] 

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2024/06/impunity.html

[IMPUNITY!]

The Transition

“…(E)very government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation.”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 59; italics his) 

The gentleman from New York and his cabal labor mightily to have their way.  They constantly talk about principles as they pervert them.  For they no longer favor democracy because of demography.

     Can someone “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” and then “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” when he has stated his intention to do otherwise—repeatedly?  (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 & Article II, Section 3)  The answer is no.  For he has said, “I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.”  That includes “the complete power to pardon” and claims of absolute immunity.  Finally, his threat to seek the “termination…of the Constitution” strip bare any shred of legitimacy.

     Assertion and repetition do not equal truth nor constitutional law.  Thus, the Chief Traitor is ineligible, despite a favorable Supreme Court ruling regarding Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same” from holding Federal or State office.  For the Constitution is “the supreme law of the land” and the acts of the three branches must be made “in pursuance thereof.”  (Article VI, Clause 2)  But, to some, that does not matter.

      On July 25, 1787, at the Federal Convention, James Madison said that Supreme Court involvement in the election of the President was “out of the question.”  Yet in 2000, the Court—in an act of judicial usurpation—stopped the counting of ballots in Florida.  Is a repeat of such a thing acceptable?  The answer is no.

     Should the Chief Traitor lose the election, he and the GOP have contingency plans.  If they control Congress, the results will simply be ignored.  The President will be chosen by the House of Representatives where the voting is by State delegation, which happens to favor them.  They will point out that that happened in 1800 and 1824, and they will be technically right and totally wrong.  For they will not tell you that in 1800 Alexander Hamilton did not succumb to political shenanigans but worked hard to make sure Thomas Jefferson won because he was clearly the popular choice, even though he disagreed with him on a number of issues.  (Jefferson and Hamilton: The Struggle for Democracy in America by Claude G. Bowers, The Historians’ History of the United States, Volume I edited by Andrew S. Berky and James P. Shenton, 363-381)  In 1824, there were four candidates and, because no one had a majority, the election went to the House of Representatives, which chooses between the top three.  The Speaker, Henry Clay, who was thus eliminated, threw his support to John Quincy Adams who subsequently made him Secretary of State.  In effect, a coalition government was formed.  Now their “secret” may have variations, involving a combination of the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives or a commission like the one in 1876, but, whatever the means, the ends will be the same—cheat.

     This is a time for action, not apologies.  Should the Chief Traitor “win,” can the President of the United States just standby?  The answer is no.  The situation demands a firm response.

     First, grand jury investigations of a possible conspiracy to defraud the United States of America, which may involve six radical Justices.  (Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 371)

     Second, because of the threat to national security, the Executive must wield “the sword of the community” and invoke the Insurrection Act to destroy armed gangs that dare to call themselves militias, contrary to the constitutional definition.  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 29; Article I, Section 8, Clause 15-16; & Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)

     Third, there is precedent.  After the attack on Fort Sumter, President Lincoln took decisive action to preserve the Union, as the government possessed “the means of its own preservation.”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 59; italics his) 

       For Lincoln delayed the convocation of Congress from April 12, 1861, 
       when Fort Sumter was fired upon, until July 4 lest rigid constitutionalists 
       on the Hill try to stop him from doing what he deemed necessary to save 
       the life of the nation.  In his twelve weeks of executive grace, Lincoln 
       ignored one law and constitutional provision after another.  He assembled 
       the militia, enlarged the Army and the Navy beyond their authorized strength,

       called out volunteers for three years' service, spent public money without 
       congressional appropriation, suspended habeas corpus, arrested people 
       "represented" as involved in "disloyal" practices and instituted a naval 
       blockade of the Confederacy--measures which, he later told Congress, 
       "whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared 
       to be a popular demand and a public necessity; trusting then as now that 

       Congress would readily ratify them."  (The Imperial Presidency, 

       Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., 58; emphasis his)

Lincoln met the standard and passed Locke's test.  “For prerogative is nothing but the power of doing public good without a rule.”  (Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 14, 166)  And Congress approved his actions.

     In 1630, America’s role was described by John Winthrop on the Arbella.  “We must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill.  The eyes of all people are upon us.”*  And now the world waits—adversaries pleased with darkness—while allies keep careful watch to behold a beacon.

(c)2024 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.

https://youtu.be/YHM_c831yv8?si=aA6cjALMhSx0DUp3

[VICTORY] 

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2021/01/an-effective-executive.html

[AN EFFECTIVE EXECUTIVE]

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2024/06/impunity.html

[IMPUNITY]

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-answer-is-no.html

[THE ANSWER IS NO]

*Ronald Reagan was not the first to use the phrase in a political context.

The Answer Is No

WE THE PEOPLE met in Philadelphia “in order to form a more perfect Union.”  (Preamble)  Yet even the document being replaced dismissed division, since its full title was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.  (Emphasis added)  For during the Revolutionary War, it was a matter of national security—“Join or Die.”

     TREASON—“levying war” against the United States “or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”—is the only crime defined in the Constitution because it is a threat to the life of the Republic.  (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1)  And if the Civil War was an act of treason, then the Battle of Capitol Hill was the equivalent of Fort Sumter.  But what is an appropriate response? 

     The gentleman from New York, who resides at Mar-a-Lago, did not accept the outcome of the last   election.  If the results are the same, he will not accept this one.  And he will see to “the termination of...the Constitution.” 

     THE OATH requires us to support and defend the supreme law of the land “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  (Emphasis added)  The Chief Traitor is a domestic enemy.  Thus, there are consequences.  “So help me God” means the Constitution, yes; the Chief Traitor, no—no to his election, no to his certification, and no to his inauguration. 

     In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federal Convention, James Madison said, “America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 41)  Indeed.  But now, with the crossing of the Rubicon, it is time to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility…and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”  (Preamble) 

     THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES must act.  The rebellion must be crushed.  Failure to do so would be grotesque neglect of duty.  For the one who swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and the Constitution is “the supreme law of the land”—the first law.  (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8; Article II, Section 3 & Article VI, Clause 2)

(c)2024 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved. 

 

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2021/01/an-effective-executive.html

[An Effective Executive]

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2021/08/breaking-tablets.html 

[Breaking the Tablets]

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2021/10/calling-spade.html

[Calling A Spade]

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2023/01/oath-and-consequences.html

[Oath and Consequences]

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2024/02/wake-inland.html

[A Wake Inland]

Spit Shine

Before honour is humility.  (Proverbs 18:12, KJV) 

Women are the biggest trash talkers.  Forget about Babe Ruth and “the called shot”; Muhammad Ali against Ernie Terrell saying, “What’s my name?”; and Larry Bird on any night in the NBA.  Please. 

     Guys, do not tell a woman “I love you” and mean it because she knows.  That woman can say and do stuff to you another man would be afraid to think, much less do.  All the married and divorced men lowered or shook their heads after reading or hearing that last sentence—not line, sentence.  Why? 

     A woman will put you out of your house.  Her name is not on the mortgage because she was visiting her sick sister when it was time to go the bank.  And you thought you had the equivalent of a prenuptial agreement.  She was going to be a stay at home mom or a housewife.  She did not pay a penny on the note, shovel any snow, or clean nary a gutter.  But she is staying at home, and you are on the street while paying her to live in the style to which she had become accustomed.  And all of that brings me to the subject at hand. 

     Shhh.  Few people know about a famous incident at the old Boston Garden.  Danny Ainge swore everyone to secrecy.  If you are standing up, you should sit down.  If you are having a shot, put it down and pick up the bottle.  You may find this hard to believe.  For the legendary engagement between Zorro and Sgt. Garcia pales in comparison.  Larry Bird learned how to trash talk from a nun. 

     “What!”  Yeah, I know what you are thinking.  “He has got to be kidding me.” 

     Bird had stretched and run his laps.  He was on the court with a ball boy.  He was done with free throws and baseline and post-up drills.  Now he was on the perimeter. 

     “Hey, Hick, I hear you can play.” 

     Two heads swiveled, and there she stood. 

     “How about some one-on-one?” 

     “Mother Teresa?” 

     “Yes, that is my name.  But I asked you a question.” 

     “Ma’am, I love you.  But are you serious?” 

     “Cross my heart and hope to avoid purgatory.” 

     “Uh, uh…OK.” 

     “This may get embarrassing.  So, ball boy, why not fold some towels in the locker room?” 

     Bird nodded, and he left. 

     “Ma’am, I see your bag over there.  Do you want to change?” 

     “Not for you.” 

     “Well, do you want to warm up?” 

     “Not for you.” 

     “OK.  What are we playing to?” 

     “Twelve, the number of judgment.” 

     “Yes, ma’am.  Here you go.” 

     “Big mistake, young man.  You will not get the ball again.” 

     “Yes, ma’am.” 

     Mother Teresa took the ball in from the left side by the basket and backed Bird down in the post.  She faked inside and, with her left hand, bounced the ball off Bird’s butt.  She ran to the corner.  He ran to the ball.  But just as he got there, the spin took it to her behind the three point line. 

     Swish. 

     Mother Teresa did the same thing from the right side—twice.  Then she hit from ten feet beyond the top of the key. 

     Swish. 

     “Hey, Hick.  What is 3x4?”                                

     “Twelve.”  

     “Game!” 

     He shook her hand. 

     “You know what they call me at the convent when I am on the court?” 

     “No, ma’am.” 

     “MT.” 

     “M…T?” 

     “Yes, because I drain buckets.”

(c)2024 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved. 

https://youtu.be/9Kq53Shq1js

[Larry Bird Stories]

Five Easy Pieces—Of Supreme Court Reform

Demand the resignations of the six radical Justices who made the ahistorical and unconstitutional immunity decision. 

Create an effective judicial removal power because “good behavior” is conditional. 

Adopt a rigorous nomination and confirmation process. 

Put the National Popular Vote into effect. 

Add four Justices to the Court so that there is one per circuit. 

(c)2024 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.

 

Details at https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-supreme-court-jesters-or-reform.html

The Supreme Court: Jesters or Reform?

THE CONSTITUTION is the first law—“the supreme law of the land”—and the acts of the three branches “shall be made in pursuance thereof.”  Otherwise they are invalid – “any thing to the contrary notwithstanding.”  (Article VI, Clause 2) 

     The President of the United States is not a monarch.  The Supreme Court may play pretend.  But that does not make it so.  And after the immunity decision, neither an x-ray nor an MRI is necessary to show that a malignancy threatens the life of the Republic. 

I.  ICU 

     Chief Justice John Roberts does not deserve a point by point rebuttal of his ridiculous ruling.  For the Chief Justice is a poor scholar who quotes Alexander Hamilton—the strongest proponent of executive power at the Convention—out of context to support immunity.  (CJ Opinion, 21 & 47)  But Hamilton knew that a republic is one thing, a monarchy another. 

     “The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince.  The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 69)  “…(I)n a republic...every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in  office.”   (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 70; emphasis added)  In England, there is a different maxim—“the king himself can do no wrong”—which is “for the sake of the public peace.”  (Commentaries on the Laws of England by William Blackstone, Volume I, 237 & Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 70, respectively) 

     Despite the claims of the Chief Justice to the contrary, the ruling was made for one individual.  “...(T)he President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority.  Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”  (CJ Opinion, 21)  Instead of Petitioner, the Chief Justice uses the gentleman’s name. 

     By this decision, the Chief Justice and his associates have shown that they are unfit Judges and, if they had a sense of honor, they would resign.  For no serious jurist would say, “The President is not above the law” and then conclude that “the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.  The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”  (CJ Opinion, 50)  That cannot be so when Alexander Hamilton—the strongest proponent of executive power at the Convention—said NO.  Therefore former Attorneys General, retired Judges and prosecutors, law professors and historians must demand that they resign. 

II.  Appearances and Reality 

     A proper diagnosis comes before a cure.  Had Doc recommended the guillotine for a headache, my confidence in her would have been greatly diminished.  Instead, she said, “I have your complete medical records,” which produced a better result.  Imagine that, someone looking at history for guidance.  Nevertheless, one sharp idea to change the Court is a Rube Goldberg contraption—term limits, two appointments per President, and mandatory retirement. 

     The prospect of the deadly blade creates more drama than the usual snappy soundbite.  But neither cruel and usual punishment nor musical chairs will do.  Confusion must be replaced by clarity.  With the malignancy of bad decisions tainting the blood of the judiciary and poisoning the body politic, a transfusion is part of the preparation for a transplant, and a more likely lifesaving measure than Robespierre’s surgery. 

     “Of the three powers…, the JUDICIARY is next to nothing.”  (Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Volume I, 186, as quoted by Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 78)  Thus, the tenure of those on the bench was not extended to make them barons.  The intention was to strengthen inherent weakness.  Only a few would be equal to the task, and time was needed to take advantage of their talents. 

     Unlike the political branches, the judiciary lacks an effective removal power, which is based on a      misunderstanding.  According to the Constitution, “The Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior….”  (Article III, Section 1)  The position is not a lifetime appointment; it is conditional according to Sir Edward Coke, Matthew Bacon, and Sir William Blackstone.  (Institutes of the Laws of England by Sir Edward Coke, A New Abridgment of the Law by Matthew Bacon, and Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone)  Thus, “good behavior” can be enforced by a scire facias judicial proceeding under the “necessary and proper” clause and also under that which limits the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.  (Article III, Section 1; Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 & Article III, Section, Clause 2)  Of the three methods of removal—resignation, which depends upon the individual, and impeachment, which depends upon the House and the Senate—it is the third that is most likely to be a check on those who miss the mark; and Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the indictment against the gentleman from New York makes the case for an effective judicial removal power. 

III.  The Seven I’s 

     The President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court....”  (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)  History has provided enough experience to inform our contemporary conduct.  There has been a tendency to view an individual in isolation.  But a law degree, law review, a law license, a clerkship, and a favorable rating from the American Bar Association is only a start.  A favorable rating from the American Historical Association sets the stage for a comprehensive approach.  A rigorous nomination and confirmation process, which is focused on creating a Court that can “establish justice” with members who are “faithful guardians of the Constitution,” weighs the essential elements carefully—the institution, the individual, ideology, interaction, image, impact, and intersection.  (Preamble & Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 78) 

     The Court, when properly functioning, is a collegial body that respects Alexander Hamilton’s basic requirements.  First, the importance of reason.  Because the judiciary has “merely judgment,” opinions are persuasive if they make sense.  Second, awareness of its role.  The judiciary must have “complete independence…to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution.”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 78)  Third, the exercise of restraint.  “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them….”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 78)  Otherwise, the judiciary fails.  And to be respected, the institution must remember that Hamilton consistently referred to “courts of justice”—not a court of law that can be technically right and totally wrong. 

     The current composition of the institution needs to be carefully considered.  When an individual is nominated, two questions will have already been addressed:  Is the Court meeting the basic requirements?  And if not, what is necessary to do so? 

     Ideology, a leading cause of blindness, cannot be ignored and merits a thorough examination.  A nominee who seeks the truth—and is not a predictable vote—is invaluable.  For as an artist looks at a subject or object from various angles, so must the Court look at cases from different points of view. 

     The interaction of the institution, the individual, and ideology affects the Court’s image.  Yet more must be done to restore its legitimacy and to raise its stature.  Appearances may help, but a lasting impression depends upon the conduct of the Court. 

     The impact of their decisions on lives and jurisprudence must be anticipated across a wide range of scenarios by the President when making a nomination and the Senate during confirmation.  At committee hearings, historians and political scientists can discuss possibilities and contingency planning.  The nominee, although unlikely to answer, could be questioned about the same.  If nothing else, that individual will be made aware of a world beyond the ivory tower.  And if, by law, a decision required a judicial impact statement, that may focus the mind. 

     “…(L)iberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation….”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 78; emphasis added)  Thus, the intersection or union with the other branches undermines the constitutional design and endangers the freedom the separation of powers was meant to defend. 

     There is no mystery as to how a nominal and apparent separation came to pass.  A departure from “the original intention” of the Framers has been disguised by the misrepresentation and misuse of a misunderstood institution.  The Electoral College has two functions—popular choice and national security.  In 2000, the former was overridden by the Supreme Court in an act of judicial usurpation—stopping the counting of ballots in Florida—even though James Madison said, at the Federal Convention, that was “out of the question.”  (Speech, July 25, 1787)  In 2016, in addition to popular choice, national security concerns in regard to the Russian Connection were dismissed, even though Alexander Hamilton said, “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.  These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the Union?”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 68)  Unfortunately, at the time of the Convention, there was no way to reduce "the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule," which left a series of hurdles.  (James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 52)  But now, because of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments, there is a national standard with consequences for States that deny or abridge the right to vote, and, therefore, at long last, “the original intention” of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton will come to pass that “The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people…”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 69)  The National Popular Vote will make it so. 

     When the senior Senator from Kentucky was Majority Leader, he laid out his way of amending the Constitution—making stuff up.  On February 13, 2016, President Obama was not permitted to make an appointment, when the opportunity arose, based on a remarkable statement—“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice”—which was used to deny a hearing and a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland.  Yet on October 26, 2020, days before the election, Mitch McConnell made sure Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate. 

     The combination of the misrepresentation and misuse of the Electoral College, along with the magical McConnell Amendments, resulted in John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joining Clarence Thomas on the bench and the creation of a political discontinuity, a misalignment of means and ends—a condition where a minority rules a majority, which, as Hamilton noted, “contradicts that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 22)  The National Popular Vote allows the Electoral College to perform its two functions—popular choice and national security—and insures that appointments will not be made by someone with the fewest votes. 

     The Rube Goldberg contraption does nothing about the malignancy on the Court.  It is a placebo, not medicine.  A rigorous nomination and confirmation process stands in stark contrast to how six strict “constructionists” got their seats.  The unhealthy growth was a result of two dubious elections which made their ascension possible, and that is why Supreme Court reform must include the National Popular Vote so that the President is the popular choice.  The Rube Goldberg contraption—term limits and two appointments per President and mandatory retirement—does none of those things.  Furthermore, a rigorous nomination and confirmation process provides the perfect opportunity to make the case for Court expansion.  That was last done in 1869 when the number of Justices was increased to nine to match the number of Courts of Appeals.  At present, there are thirteen circuits.  Therefore four Justices need to be added to match the number of circuits; one Justice to oversee one circuit. 

IV.  The Point 

     “A circumstance which crowns the defects of the Confederation remains yet to be mentioned, the want of a judiciary power.  Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation....  To produce uniformity in these determinations, they ought to be submitted, in the last resort, to one SUPREME TRIBUNAL.”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 22; emphasis added) 

     Judicial review is vital to the health of the American Republic.  Judges engaged in a long train of abuses and usurpations are not.  They must be reminded that checks and balances apply to them as well. 

(c)2024 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.

 

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf

[CJ Opinion] 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-justice.html

[The New York Times fluff piece regarding Amy Coney Barrett’s “independent streak”] 

http://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-electoral-college-without-blinders.html

[The Electoral College Without Blinders] 

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com

[National Popular Vote]

 

Background:

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2024/06/impunity.html

[Impunity!] 

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-most-dangerouswith-lifetime-tenure.html

[The Most Dangerous...With Lifetime Tenure] 

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-least-dangerousduring-good-behavior.html

[The Least Dangerous...During Good Behavior]

Project 2024

This used to be Independence Day.  But the fireworks went off on the first. 

The United States of America is the illegitimate child born in dissent.  The birth certificate noted multiple fathers.  None of them wanted anything to do with the mother country.  A custody battle ensued.  The nobodies left with the infant.  They stumbled and finally found their footing. 

Now the question Mrs. Powel asked Benjamin Franklin, as he and James McHenry left the Federal Convention, hangs in the air. 

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?” 

The Supreme Court voted for a king, which was not a surprise.  For Franklin’s reply was a warning:  “A republic, if you can keep it.” 

The choice is clear.  WE THE PEOPLE of the United States can vote for one or the other in November.  And for all who have forgotten, this is what those anything but deadbeat dads wrote at the bottom of our birth certificate. 

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

(c)2024 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.

Impunity!

“Yet it is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice.”  

                                                                                                                    Thomas Paine                                                                                                                        The American Crisis

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE begins with ideals, followed by a list of grievances, and ends with a wave goodbye to King George III.  It was a Dear John letter for the ages. 

I

     Now the gentleman from New York would have us believe MAGA means monarchy’s actually great, America.  And if he is installed, the plan is to make monarchy America’s government again.  He has prepared the way with talk of “the complete power to pardon,” and a self-pardon* would, in effect, make the President of the United States a king.

     The country’s birth certificate should be enough.  But some want more.  Could there be another hint?

      When Benjamin Franklin and James McHenry left on the final day of the Federal Convention, they were approached by Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia.  

     “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?”  

     “A republic,” Franklin replied, “if you can keep it.” 

     The strongest proponent of executive power at the Convention knew that a republic is one thing, a monarchy another.  “The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince.  The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 69)  “…(I)n a republic...every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office.”   (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 70; emphasis added)  In England, there is a different maxim—“the king himself can do no wrong”—which is “for the sake of the public peace.”  (Blackstone, Volume I, 237 & Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 70, respectively) 

II

     The technicality is a tool, not of creation but hopscotch justice allowing the connected to skip over one principle after another.  And behold, more billable hours for members of the club.  By rule, the vote of four Justices is sufficient to take a case, and the radicals decided to consider what was not in dispute.  This is insulting and embarrassing.  The oral arguments were not so much a hearing as a red herring.  By taking an assertion seriously, it is given a veneer of legitimacy.  Thus, what was laughable stands a chance to become law.  And the Breach Boys sang, “We’re hanging ten on a tangent/Just us, USA.” 

     Whenever the Court finally acts, and whatever their arrangement of words, the Justices have already done the gentleman from New York a favor though.  No trial of the man who would be king will take place in Washington before the election.  The self-styled ”strict constructionists” will point out how all the proper procedures were followed—and they will be technically right and totally wrong.  The Court is lost. 

III

     Condemnation of a specific decision calls for precision.  A ruling on immunity presents an opportunity to make constructive criticism and avoid more confusion.  Some would have us believe in magic and mislead with a distraction—to expect a different result from a device.  But rather than reading the easy to follow instructions and building a Rube Goldberg contraption—with term limits and every President getting two appointments—and calling it reform, there is an alternative. 

     Actual reform as opposed to “Abracadabra!” and “Presto!” involves three things—elections, appointments, and removal.  All three must change. 

     The current imbalance on the Court is a result of two dubious elections, in 2000 and 2016.  The former made possible the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.  The latter led to those of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.  Clarence Thomas welcomed them aboard. 

     At the time of the Convention, there was no way to reduce “the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule.”  (James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 52)  But because of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments, there is a national standard with consequences for States that deny or abridge the right to vote.  The original intention of James Madison in regard to the Electoral College—that “The President is now to be elected by the people”—can be fulfilled by the National Popular Vote.  (The Electoral College by Lucius Wilmerding, Jr., 3 & 19)  That will get rid of any future political discontinuity, a misalignment of means and ends—a condition where a minority rules a majority, which, as Hamilton noted, “contradicts that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.”  (The Federalist Papers, No. 22) 

     A rigorous nomination and confirmation process is more likely to produce a favorable result than a witty invention.  The latter is a gizmo that grabs one’s attention and gets a “Gee Whiz!”  The former is comprehensive and focused on creating a Court that can “establish justice” with members who are “faithful guardians of the Constitution.”  (Preamble & The Federalist Papers, No. 78)  For it weighs the essential elements—the institution, the individual, ideology, interaction, image, intersection, and impact—carefully.  The latter does not start with basics but strikes a pose and continues to view an individual in isolation.  That does not solve the problem and requires legislation for no meaningful end.  The former is immediate and, with Senate hearings on the conduct of the Court, lays a foundation for what is to follow—Court expansion. 

     Each branch does its own housekeeping.  The House and the Senate may “expel a member” by a two-thirds vote.  (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2)  The President may dismiss a member of the Cabinet.  (James Madison, Speech in the House of Representatives, June 16, 1789)  But the current imbalance on the Court is exacerbated by the lack of an effective removal power.  Impeachment was intended primarily for the Executive, the one who holds “the sword of the community,” and thus the greatest threat to the Constitution.  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 78)  Term limits belong on the cover of Vogue.  They are fashionable and strike a pose.  But they are unnecessary.  

     The judiciary may dismiss a member by a scire facias proceeding which determines whether one is serving “during good behavior.”  (Article III, Section 1)  It is a routine check, and the standard for such a disciplinary measure is clear.  Alexander Hamilton addressed the three basic requirements of the least dangerous branch.  First, the importance of reason.  Because the judiciary has “merely judgment,” opinions are persuasive if they make sense.  Second, awareness of its role.  The judiciary must have “complete independence…to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution.”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 78)  Third, the exercise of restraint.  “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them….”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 78)  Instead, the Court defies reason, disrespects its role, and discards restraint.  Thus, what passes for judicial review demands a review of the judiciary; and a reminder that the position is conditional would be a “necessary and proper” rebuke.  (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) 

IV

     Isolation must end.  We can no longer pretend that these things—elections, appointments, and removal—are unrelated.  Instead, it is time to create the conditions where the Court acts as a collegial body and matches that of Chief Justice John Marshall, when, out of 1,129 cases, 1,042 were decided unanimously. 

     In his first inaugural address, President Lincoln spoke of how the relationship between the political branches and the judiciary determines whether our system is based on the consent of the governed. 

     “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” 

     The one who swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” must “take care that laws be faithfully executed,” and the Constitution is “the supreme law of the land”—the first law.  (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8; Article II, Section 3 & Article VI, Clause 2)  Therefore, if the Supreme Court makes a questionable decision, the President must inform the public whenever its implementation would be disastrous.  Failure to do so would be dereliction of duty.  For the response to the immunity ruling may be the last chance to remind one and all that neither the President nor the Court can act with impunity. 

(c)2024 Marvin D. Jones.  All rights reserved.

 

 https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-schlesinger-moment.html

[The Schlesinger Moment* - there is no such thing as a self-pardon]

https://youtu.be/8JEiJDGHsX0?si=9TA8VXEEMuQUqgdt

[Surfin’ USA]  

https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-electoral-college-without-blinders.html

[The Electoral College Without Blinders]

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com 

[National Popular Vote] 

https://youtu.be/GuJQSAiODqI?si=y0tCcYPjaFBNES0_

[Vogue]