To The Nation

Several weeks ago, I wrote a satirical piece for Facebook entitled, “Have I Got This Straight.”  In it I had Mr. Trump gather all the members of Congress, TV cameras, and the nation’s audience gather in front of the Capital and shoot his son to prove he was invulnerable to impeachment.  Sadly, my prophecy came true yesterday.  Despite incontrovertible evidence, Mr. Trump was exonerated.  Presidents in the future can now trample our Declaration of Independence and  Constitution at will without fear of reprisal.  These sacred documents are now quaint pieces of parchment filled with worthless writing.

The senators voting against conviction clearly did so for craven political reasons.  As Anderson Cooper said on February 12, 2021, “The Fix Is Likely In” for an acquittal.  Many senators claimed the case was unconstitutional despite historical common law judgements to the contrary.  But, even granting their case, the Senate voted to hold a trial under the auspices of the Constitution.  Its members were then obliged to weigh evidence and make an impartial judgement like any other jury.  Then, the issue of constitutionality could be appealed to the arbiter of such issues: The Supreme Court.  By evading this proper path to justice, you “dodged the bullet” of being honest jurors.  In short, who do you think you’re kidding?

So, Mr. Trump, you won.  You can do whatever you want.  Run for re-election and be inaugurated in a brown uniform featuring a swastika surmounted with your capital T.  You can be guaranteed your election will not be rigged because your black shirted thugs will invade our polling stations and dictate the proper choice for all voters.  Afterwards, they can lead offenders to concentration camps and the gas chambers.  Such will be your liberties offered to all Americans.  On second thought, why wait?  Now is the time for you to raid the Capital again and proclaim yourself president.  Mr. Biden will assuredly vacate the White House for your return.  Then, at the end of your days, you can rest assured that future presidents will not be bothered by smidgens of law for they will be laws onto themselves and called “Heil Trump.”

Now, for those senators who voted against conviction, shame.  But you’ve done your deed.  Just, please, do not call yourselves loyal Americans.  You mock the words.  Also, do not wear an American flag in the lapels of your suits for you desecrate it and the thousands of Americans who died defending it without a political agenda.

To Seven Honorable Republicans

Seven Republican senators voted to convict Mr. Trump.  They did so in the face of a foregone conclusion and knowing full well they would be punished politically.  And they are being punished.  Yet, they voted their conscience based on the facts as they saw them in a manner expected of all jurists.  This adherence to our law’s processes is called integrity, which is something not often seen in our halls of Congress.  For this, they must be commended.

News Flash: President Trump’s Greenland

Newsflash:  It’s now confirmed.  President Trump is serious about buying Greenland.  If the purchase comes to pass, then the Immigration, Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency will have a new home.  Mr. Trump’s first action there will be to build a new Trump Tower.  It will be constructed entirely of ice and become the headquarters of ICE. 

Once lodged in Greenland, the first mission of ICE will be to kick out all of the people living there for hundreds, if not thousands of years.  After all, once Greenland becomes the property of the United States, all of these people will instantly become illegal aliens.  This is obvious because they did not go to Mexico and apply for a visa of any sort.  So, they will simply have to go.  After all, we can’t have these naughty people residing in our fair territory.  They might eat fish that haven’t been certified by the Federal Drug Administration.  If that isn’t bad enough, they may even want to sell them to us.  Can’t you see it, gangs of illegal Greenlanders flooding us with foreign fish?  It could become an epidemic that will curl the hair of our children.  This just has to be stopped immediately.

When deported, where will they go you ask?  Well, probably Mexico since that’s where we’re sending aliens regardless of their origins.  We can’t consider Denmark because that’s been their citizenship since Leif Ericson landed there 1,000 years ago while en-route to North America.  Thank goodness, he came and left our shores quickly.  Otherwise, any descendents would have to be traced and deported.  You know, children of illegal aliens brought to these fair lands.

So, stand by for more news flashes as information becomes available to your Daily Squawk.

Follow the Law: What Does That Mean?

Several days have passed since my blog entry about the Senate proceedings to confirm Mr. Kavenaugh.  He is now Justice Kavenaugh.  The Republicans got their man.  OK.  Well and good.  But, along the way, the nominee vowed to adhere to the law as it was written.  That makes for a big question.  What did Mr. Kavenaugh mean when he said those words?  For that matter, an earlier nominee, Mr. Neil Gorsuch, made the same promise.  What did he mean?

               Did these gentlemen mean to adhere to the literal, explicit words of the Constitution and perhaps the Federalist Papers?  Such would indicate an understanding of the law as it appeared to the Founding Fathers.  If such were the case, is the US Air Force unconstitutional?  No where is the concept of air power mentioned.  The Army and Navy, yes, but the Air Force.  The reason, of course, is simple: airplanes hadn’t been invented.  At best, an experimental hot air balloon was flown in France, but that’s not something that concerned the Founding Fathers.  So, this being the case, should the Air Force be disbanded as something unconstitutional?

               At the opposite extreme, what was the logic of Roe vs. Wade, the famous decision overturning many laws criminalizing abortions?  In this case, the due process clause of 14th Amendment of the Constitution was invoked.  In case my readers don’t have this amendment memorized, the relevant phrase applying here is stated here:  “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[1]  Specifically, the court opined, ”the right to an abortion as a fundamental right included within the guarantee of personal privacy.”  In a dissent, two justices wrote, “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.” [2]

               In both cases, the justices cited the law.  Both sets of justices believed that they had stepped along the same path that Justices Gorsuch and Kavenaugh promised to follow.  This divergence of opinions can clearly leave voter confused as to what “the law” means.  The real answer has long been held by lawyers, “The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.”[3] That is, what is deemed proper during one era may not be deemed so in another.  A classic example of this is issue of segregation.  In it, the “separate but equal” standard that was upheld in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case of 1896 was overturned in 1954 through the Court’s review of the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka.

               The spectacle of the Senate’s confirmation hearings indicated strongly that Mr. Kavenaugh was selected less for what his judicial qualifications might be and more for how he will interpret the law…or as has been cited, how he will “follow the law as written.”  Specifically, he is expected to enforce the political views of the Republican Party.  This shouldn’t surprise anyone given the chasm that divides the two parties.  If Mr. Kavenaugh were a Democrat, he would be expected to uphold those ideas in the Court.  Either way, to uphold the law is merely a way of saying that party values will be maintained.

               Fortunately, a strange thing often occurs with justices after they ascend to the court.  When Earl Warren was nominated by President Eisenhower, his background was strongly Republican.  He was a two-term governor of California and Thomas E. Dewey’s vice-presidential partner during the 1948 presidential election.  But, what promised to be a Republican interpreter of the Constitution became a very liberal force in American jurisprudence.  Among the cases his court heard were the above-mentioned Brown case and ending prayer in public schools.[4]

               This article is not meant to laud the decisions of the Warren Court, but rather to laud its independence from the political currents that permeate the legislative and executive branches of our governments as they range from city level to national level.  If the Court were to be merely the mouthpiece of whatever political party that was in power, then what would its purpose be?  None, except that being so would put them in a position of political power that has no review by the public.  Such would invalidate the concept of democracy that means governance by the people.  Rather, it would become governance by a few, which is the basis of authoritarian rule. 

               So, let us hope that Justices Gorsach and Kavenaugh become truly independent adjudicators of the Constitution and not merely party hacks echoing the desires of politicians.  Saying this means that often elected representatives of our government will be frustrated by decisions that counter their fondest dreams, but such was truly the dream of our Founding Fathers.  If they do so, then they will be “upholding the law” as it is written.


[1] “Amendment XIV.”  Cornel Law School; Legal Information Institute..  https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv.  10/8/18.

[2] “Roe vs. Wade.”  Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade.  10/8/18.

[3] The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.”  Harvard Law Reviewhttps://harvardlawreview.org/2016/02/the-constitution-means-what-the-supreme-court-says-it-means/.  10/8/18.

[4] “Warren Court.”  Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court10/8/18.

A Death in the Family

A Death in the Family

               Yesterday, there was a death in the family.  Her name was Piper, and she was 19 years old.  Her coloring was pitch black, and she always moved like a dark zephyr.  She didn’t say much other than to mew a need for her treats of catnip and being caressed. She always joined us for breakfast and insisted on finishing our cereal milk. She loved this attention but was not much interested in anything else other than us. That was it.  Nothing more. 

            In return, she gave unbounded love.  Morning, noon, and night.  She was always there for us.  Whether she got her treats immediately was irrelevant.  They would come; she knew that.  But, now or later, that was not the issue.  She wanted above all to be with us.  Sitting on the sofa while we were watching TV.  Lying in bed between us as we read our books.  She was there.  Even though she was old, she would always follow.  Up the stairs and down the stairs.  She almost wore a track in the rug.  This was true even during her last day on earth when her kidneys were failing and she could neither eat nor drink.  She followed up and down the stairs to wherever we were.

            We knew her time was limited during her last year.  She got thinner and her gait became slower.  Her eyes were dull with cataracts.  But, her love grew stronger by the day.  So, it was with great sorrow that we took her to the animal hospital for the last time.  There she lay cuddled in our lap until her heart stopped beating.  Good-bye friend.  We missed you so much in bed.

            Today, however, a gift was laid on our porch.  A butterfly wing.  Just that.  Nothing else.  But, it was from you.  We know that as we knew the sun rose over a new day without Piper.  But, we know.  Thank you, dear friend.

Pandemic Lessons — or Not?

            Coronavirus curve is gradually being flattened across our nation.  We still have a long way to go before declaring the end of the pandemic, but we’re getting there.  As we approach this ending, now is the time to plan for the future.  People, another pandemic will be coming as assuredly as the sun rises in the East.  So, the question is: what are we going to do now?

            If history is any guide, sadly, the answer is nothing.  When people are dying, money is spent, and resolutions are firm.  But, then afterwards, other matters press to the foreground.  The costs in human lives are forgotten.  Like New Year’s resolutions, they fade. [1]

            But, can we truly become so complacent?  The human and economic costs of the Coronavirus are enormous.  More people will have died in three months than were killed during our latest mid-East war.  The economy went from a solid footing to stepping on a banana peel.  Families have been destroyed such that only extended time can alleviate the pain.  All this being true, here are some ideas to prevent future such prices being paid.

            First, politicians of all stripes need to recognize that errors were made and accept responsibility for them.  To err is natural.  It is not an excuse to play the blame game.  Rather, these mistakes should be cues for what can be learned for next time. 

            A big mistake that national leaders around the world made was not recognizing the potential effects of the Coronavirus.  They first denied its existence and then tried to wish it away.  Only when it became such an obvious threat that it could no longer be ignored did they take action.  Once the problem was faced, then politicians began to act like the leaders voters expected them to be.  Lesson to be learned: when a potential pandemic begins to appear, act now with careful urgency.

            The second mistake was not listening to past prophecies.  Scientists have long been telling us that eventually a pandemic would occur.  And, indeed, they have.  Fortunately, most of them were not as widespread as the Coronavirus.  But, here’s a list.  The Spanish Flu of 1918, SARS, MERS, Ebola, all have marched across the world’s stage of misery.  One leader, President George W. Bush, tried to initiate a preparation movement when he was in office.  Here was his White House statement:

President George W. Bush delivers his remarks regarding his National Strategy for The Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2005.

“Today, I am announcing key elements of that strategy. Our strategy is designed to meet three critical goals: First, we must detect outbreaks that occur anywhere in the world; second, we must protect the American people by stockpiling vaccines and antiviral drugs, and improve our ability to rapidly produce new vaccines against a pandemic strain; and, third, we must be ready to respond at the federal, state and local levels in the event that a pandemic reaches our shores,” said President Bush[2]

Unfortunately, his prophetic words were quickly forgotten upon his departure from office.

But we don’t need to repeat this national mistake.  Steps can be taken now.  Some can be simple while others will undoubtedly be difficult.  First the simple ones.

            Regardless of what sort of illness plagues us, some things are needed.  Face masks, protective gowns, elastic gloves and ventilators can be stored at all levels of government at relatively little cost.  Schools, restaurants, hotels can be identified as treatment sites.  Training of front-line personnel ranging from physicians to cashiers can be initiated.  Other actions can be taken, but the point here is made.

            More difficult decisions must definitely be undertaken.  For example, a review of potential viruses can be made and from them, determination of potential risks and mitigation steps can be reviewed for action later.  Keeping businesses afloat is crucial for supporting the economy.  How can goods and services be delivered in a virtual society?  Amazon.com offers ideas with its current deliveries of everything from books to meals.  Hardware stores, pharmacies, and distributed caregiving can follow Amazon’s model.  Schools must be able to teach through distance learning, which will entail new curricula, teaching methods, and contacts with students.

All of these policies will entail a national policy and program that ensures everyone has access to the internet.  Be it through smart phones or laptops, people must have a sustained and reliable means of communication if they are to be isolated successfully during future pandemics.  Industry can provide the capability, but only at a cost that not everyone can afford.  Consequently, our governments at all levels must bridge the gap.  Cost?  Yes, it will cost.  But, rather than regard it as a cost, the dollars spent should be seen as an investment in the sustainment of our society and economy.

Many details could supplement this call for action.  But they are irrelevant at this point.  What is important is a national will to cooperate, plan and act for the common weal.  Debate will arise, but it must be debate for betterment, for ideas of worth.  Political posturing must be laid aside.  The fate of our nation is too important for such silliness.


[1][1][1] Janson, Bart.  “Crisis, then complacency, define past outbreaks.”  USA Today and Public Opinion.  Chambersburg, PA: 4/2/20.

[2] Bush, George W. President.  The White House.  https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/pandemicflu/.  4/14/20.

Let Me See…

            Let me see if I have this straight.  On Tuesday, 12 May 2020, President Trump’s defense lawyer, Jay Sekulow asserted before the Supreme Court that:

“A president is not to be treated as an ordinary citizen. He has responsibilities. He is himself a branch of government. He is the only individual that is a branch of government in our federal system,” Sekulow said, “Our position is that the Constitution itself, both in structure and text, supports the position that the president would be temporarily immune from this activity from a state proceeding while he is the president of the United States.”[1]

In this same defense, President Trump’s defense team had the following dialogue with Chief Justice John Roberts:

Roberts pressed one of Trump’s lawyers, Patrick Strawbridge, on whether lawmakers can ever subpoena a president’s financial records.

“Do you concede any power in the House to subpoena personal papers of the president?” Roberts asked.

Strawbridge said it was “difficult to imagine” when that could be justified.[2]

            These words appear to be very absolute and sweeping in nature.  What do they mean?  So, taking them at face value and extending them to a far point for the purpose of exploring where this legal idea could go if the Supreme Court accepts Mr. Trump’s position, I propose the following scenario.  Mind you, it would apply to any president regardless of party.

            Newsflash:  President Trump has invited the following news networks to witness an important point in Constitutional law:  CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN and MSNBC.  They have already met him in the Rose Garden of the Whitehouse and his announcement will take place. 

            “Ladies and Gentlemen of the news corps and all the citizens of the United States, I am bringing my son, Barron, out now to kneel on this low pedestal.  Barron, will you do so, please.”

            “Yes sir.”

            “Thank you.  Now, what do I have in my hand?”

            “A pistol.”

            “Yes, that’s right, and what am I going to do with it?”

            “Shoot me.”

            “You’re absolutely right.  You will be my supreme vindication of how I, as president of the United States, can do absolutely anything under the principles of the Constitution and the recent ruling of the Supreme Court.  To wit: as president, any incumbent is above the law that governs the lives of every other citizen in this nation.  In essence, I have joined the ranks of Louis XIV, Herr Hitler, Comrade Joseph Stalin and Comrade Kim Jung Un.”

            “Please do so, father.”

            “I am doing so now.”

            BANG!

            “Ladies and gentlemen, the president’s son is now lying on his pedestal in a pool of his own blood that is still steaming with the life that was within him just seconds ago.  The president is now returning to the Oval Office.”

            So, as I understand it, this action would not be a valid action for impeachment or trial of any sort.  Nor would any other action that an incumbent president would ever take in the future. 

Yep, I have it right.

            Is everyone happy?


[1] Salon: News and Politicshttps://www.salon.com/2020/05/12/lawyers-claim-total-immunity-in-effort-to-keep-trumps-taxes-hidden-he-is-not-an-ordinary-citizen/.  5/15/20

[2] Hurley, Lawrence; Chung, Andrew.  “US Supreme Court Wary of Presidential ‘Harassment’ in Trump Finances Fight.”  Reuters.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-finances/trump-lawyers-grilled-at-u-s-supreme-court-over-keeping-his-finances-secret-idUSKBN22O1F0.  5/15/20