Considering the Consequence of the Snap Second Trump Impeachment

 

On January 13th, 2021, the US House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump for a second time in a mostly party line vote 232 to 197 (with ten Republican voting aye).  This second Snap Impeachment in H. Res. 24 (117th Congress)  was on a single charge of “Incitement of Insurrection”, predicated on remarks made at a political rally at the Ellipse on January 6th, 2021 as Congress was set to certify the Electoral College results for the Presidential Election.   

After certification of the November 3rd election results, President Trump’s term ends on January 20th, meaning that the snap Impeachment, which only acts as a judicial equivalent of an indictment, was in the last seven days of President Trump’s term of office.  The Senate was not scheduled be in session until January 19th and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was unwilling to convene in emergency session, so the earliest that the Senate could take up an Article of Impeachment (presuming that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promptly send it over this time) is 1 p.m. on January 20th, one hour after newly inaugurated President Joe Biden takes his oath of office. 

Any astute political observers understand that this Second Impeachment was not meant to evict Mr. Trump out of the Oval Office but to besmirch his place in history and seek him from exercising any political power after January 20th.  Unfortunately, this political stunt has some serious repercussions for the polity, the rule of law and even the Constitution.

Firstly, there was a rush to remove President Trump.  When the Capitol Siege occurred on January 6th, Trump was only going to be in office for less than two weeks.  When the Snap Impeachment was passed, the 45th President would leave office in seven days. But that perspective only looks towards part of the consequences and not the cause.  Facts about the violence on Capitol Hill have been fluid.  Vital questions such as who were the instigators of the insurrection and why a couple hundred agitators were allowed inside the Capitol.  Thus is seems unwise to rush to judgment, but that did not deter Nancy Pelosi’s drive to impeach Trump again.

A day before the Impeachment vote in the House, the House passed a Resolution (on a purely party line vote) which implored Vice President Pence and the Trump Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment, which would (temporarily) remove President Trump and make Pence Acting President pending Congressional assent.   The 25th Amendment was intended for instances when the Chief Executive was incapacitated, not for policy disagreements or “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. 

 The proper Congressional role in the 25th Amendment is to ratify the Acting President, not to instigate his or her installation.  This Resolution abrogates the Separation of Powers, namely having part of the Legislative Branch leveraging the Vice President with a threat of an Impeachment vote unless Mr. Pence invoked the 25th Amendment.  That kind of sounds like Speaker Pelosi was drunk on power for countenancing that Constitutional breach. 

The Snap Impeachment of 2021 was done at super speed in less than seven days from the Capitol Siege to passing the Article of Impeachment.  The charge “Inciting an Insurrection” is a serious charge, verging on treason, thus one might try to justify an accelerated procedure.  But it that were the case, then why didn’t the House stay in session to actuate the Impeachment.  Instead, the House took the weekend off. The Impeachment was delayed by a voice vote on Monday January 11th rejecting the 25th Amendment Resolution and then passage of the unconstitutional 25th Amendment Resolution on January 12th before proceeding to the Snap Impeachment on January 13th.

 In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee labored seven months drafting the first Article of Impeachment against President Richard Nixon (who resigned before any final Congressional vote). The Impeachment process of President Bill Clinton lasted four months.  Even President Trump’s first Impeachment took three months.  Yet, the slim Democrat majority in the House lead by Speaker Nancy Pelosi managed to pass an Article of Impeachment with three HOURS of floor “debate” and no committee work. 

Unlike in the Impeachment of 2020 when some of President Trump’s staff were allowed to offer some positive input, there was no fact finding or committee hearings before the Impeachment Debate. So the Snap Impeachment ignored precedent.

 It can be argued that an impeachment is like an indictment. Some cynically say that a Prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich with a Grand Jury, as the defendant is not entitled to counsel in that forum.  

But at least in a Grand Jury there is fact presentation rather than ramrodding a predetermined outcome. No fact finding and just a three our debate?  So much for Due Process.

Part of the animus against President Trump is for his brusque manner which agitates people.  The Article of Impeachment which passed cited “Inciting an Insurrection” and pointed to Mr. Trump’s rhetoric as part of the charge.  With that in mind, it was curious that the rules for debate on the 25th Amendment and Impeachment resolution lifted decorum prohibitions.  This allowed members like freshman Representative Cori Bush (D-MO 1st) slanderously referred to the gathering on the Ellipse to the White Supremicist-in-chief addressing White Supremicists (sic).  Not surprisingly, this comes from the same Member who proposed expelling any Congressmen who voted against certifying electors (N.B. bill was dropped on January 5th, the day before the ruckus). With actions and language like Rep. Bush, one wonders who is inciting unrest.

One of the things that were done on the first day of the 117th Congress was rules in the House which barred Members from using gender specific language in legislative business.  Yet when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 12th) gave a rare floor speech in favor of the snap Impeachment, she proclaimed  “I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a daughter...” 

Guess that rules are only intended to be applied for peasants or the opposition, even silly ones.

Even though the Snap Impeachment was done in an expedited fashion, it was not immediately walked over to the Senate.  While Impeachment Managers were named, including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA 15th) who was recently exposed as having involvement with Chinese spy Fang Fang, the Article was not conveyed to the Upper Chamber for trial. It is unclear when Speaker Pelosi will send over the Article of Impeachment.  For the 2020 Impeachment, Pelosi held the Articles of Impeachment for a month before sending them to the Senate.  So much for a supposed clear and present danger.

With these facts in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that essentially this was not a second impeachment of  impeachment of Donald Trump but more of a show trial, Soviet style which gave the illusion of some system of justice but had a predetermined outcome dictated by the ruling House legislative majority.  Aside from exercising its rightful impeachment power, there were attempts at Congressional dominance over the Executive branch and eschewed principles of due process which have influenced America’s common law heritage. 

But that is only considering the ramifications from one chamber of Congress.  The Senate is where the Impeachment Trial occurs.  This will be made complicated due to timing.  Again, it is unclear when the Article of Impeachment will be transmitted.  If the House Majority truly wanted to eject President Trump from office, it would be immediately sent. The snag with that is the Constitution requires that the Senate immediately take up the Impeachment and can conduct no other legislative business.

The Senate is not scheduled to reconvene until January 19th, and won’t be put into emergency session sooner.  Current Senate Majority Leader McConnell is circulating a draft rule which requires unanimous consent to doing business aside from Impeachment. It is improbable that in such a contentious environment that all 100 Senators grant such a deviation from customary procedure.  So when the Impeachment Article is conveyed, it will dominate Senate business. 

It is conceivable that if House Impeachment Managers present themselves with House Res. 24 to the Senate on January 19th, that McConnell could press the Senate to immediately consider a Motion to Dismiss which could pass by simple majority vote.  Looking at it politically, Democrats can crow that Trump was impeached twice and Republicans are forced to indicate if they still support a besmirched President Trump.  But it is unclear if the Republican caucus in the Senate could hold firm to dismiss. If it is a razor thin vote, it might require current Vice President Mike Pence to break the tie.  If the motion fails, then the Senate would immediately be broiled into an Impeachment trial.

When the inauguration occurs on January 20th, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) will become Vice President and surrender her seat in the Senate, but constitutionally she will become President of the Senate.  This role will allow her to break tie votes, which will be crucial in a 50–50 split Senate, thereby giving Democrats the majority.  This means that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) becomes Senate Majority Leader and will call the tunes for the Impeachment trial, but changing the operational rules again could be a sticking point.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC 6th) has suggested that the Impeachment trial be delayed to give President Biden his 100 day honeymoon.  That won’t be possible if the House rushes the Article of Impeachment, but that is unlikely.  Presuming the Impeachment is held until May, it will hang over the new President’s head and may well force involvement, either to allay the situation or verbally stumble into taking a stance.

There is a significant Constitutional question as to the propriety of the Impeachment of a President after he or she has left office.  Impeachment is a process in which the legislature brings charges against a civil officer of the government.  Well, after Noon on January 20th 2021, Donald Trump becomes a private citizen again.  It is moot as to whether it would be proper for the Senate to try a private citizen.  Prominent contemporary legal scholars like Cass Sunstein, Alan Dershewitz and Jonathan Turley argue against impeachment of an ex President.  But there is a little historical precedence for it. 

In 1876, there is the example of Secretary of War William Belknap who was investigated by the House for corruption.  But minutes before the Impeachment occurred, Belknap submitted his resignation to President Ulysses S. Grant.  However, the House impeached him anyways and the Senate tried him but failed to get the 2/3ds majority. This issue is not clear cut and would probably prompt judicial consideration which will likely be rejected as a political issue. Then again, it might force Chief Justice John Roberts to consider a difficult issue while proceeding over a Senate trial.

 Why would Democrats go through all of the trouble to impeach a President who was essentially a short timer anyways?  Aside from trying to blot out a Trump presidency either with black marks or essentially cancel him, it would seem that they are scared about his future viability.  Post Presidency Impeachment may not be able to remove Trump but would also barr him from ever holding federal office again.  Considering the 74 million plus supporters who seem undeterred by bad press or even a snap impeachment, Democrats do not want strong opposition in 2024 to a weak Biden Administration featuring Kamala Harris.  Some establishment Republicans would feel safer if the Populist America First movement goes away with Donald Trump. Thus they might encourage impeachment to dampen his pull on the party and they can continue unimpeded in their quintessential District of Calamity (sic) cocktail party.

There is a practical political consideration about a Senate Impeachment trial.  Namely, are there the votes?  Unlike procedural issues, the Senate is required by the Constitution to garner a 2/3rds majority to succeed.  While there may be a few Republicans who despise Trump enough to vote for Impeachment, it would be hard to win 17 GOP votes. Even if Senate Democrats abolish the filibuster and push through Puerto Rican and Douglass Commonwealth (a.k.a. DC)  statehood, they would still have to sway 15 Republicans.

Turncoat Republicans had better hope for success, because an enraged and engaged MAGA wing will primary those who vote for a snap impeachment of Donald Trump.

Then there are the procedural problems with Trump’s second impeachment.  There is only one Article, and that cites “Inciting an Insurrection”. Aside from the plain language of Trump’s Ellipse speech which never incited his audience, it can be shown that trouble was occurring 1 ½ miles away on Capitol Hill before the President finished his speech.  Furthermore, facts from the FBI and mainstream media sources reveal that some agitators who have radical BLM and Antifa connections had been planning for trouble prior to the Capitol Siege.  This information will have to be fleshed out in a fair trial.

Moreover, the Resolution’s language points to Trump’s citation of false information about winning the election. Of course, all Americans (even a President) have the Freedom of Speech, even if it is demonstrably wrong. But by citing Trump's prior speeches and claims, that opens the door for Trump’s defense team to further expose and substantiate all of the election irregularities that state courts, Article III courts and the Supreme Court declined to hear on their cases merits.   That may take a long time and could upset the apple cart about the 2020 elections, further throwing doubt into the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency.  

Then there is the matter of Big Tech.  Social Media giants like Twitter and Facebook censored President Trump when questioning the election.  To add injury to insult (sic), these Social Media Cyber Nannies banned President Trump from even making statements to tell his supporters to go home peacefully.  That may open the door to expose collusion amongst internet companies in Election 2020.  

As the Article of Impeachment proof texts Trump’s remarks to find the most inflammatory takes, context might examine social media’s role in the matter.  That avenue of defense open the door to expose collusion amongst internet companies in Election 2020. If incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer resists allowing the Trump team a vigorous defense, it will become clear that it is a show trial worthy of a Soviet state or a banana republic (not the kind selling safari clothing).

Since the first FDR term, Presidents have been historically measured by their accomplishments during their honeymoon period (i.e. the first 100 days).  If the second Trump impeachment goes to a real Senate trial, it will overshadow everything.  Thus the Biden honeymood will be like looking at a postcard of Niagra Falls and wondering: "If only..."

However, if some wild cards come up during the trial, such as obvious election fraud or collusion, some may prefer visit Niagra Falls over a barrel, with or without Dr. Jill.

Just as the Biden campaign was not about him but all about Donald Trump, the second impeachment trial of Trump may well overshadow the early Biden presidency.  While the will to get Trump might be widely held among Democrats (and some establishment Republicans), actuating this animus may well impede the ambitions of “The Great Reset”.

If Election 2020 Political Football Goes Into Overtime

 

As a political junkie, I have jested with friends and family that Presidential Elections are kind of a Superbowl for me.  Usually, the sturm und drang of a political campaign ends on election day.  In rare occasions, not so much.  Election 2000 stretched out through Thanksgiving that year due to the Florida recount. 

So when my beloved asked me how long would it be until we know who will be President next year, she was shocked when I suggested that it might be until January 4th.  What a fitting way to close out the annus horribilis of 2020.  I think that the field has been prepped for overtime in Political Fantasy Football resulting in a contested election scenario.

Granted, information may change by the hour, but on the evening after Election Day, the Democrat candidate Joseph Robinette Biden is thought to have 264 Electoral College votes, and Nevada is poised to surrender its six Electoral College votes, giving him a squeaker of a victory in the only metric which constitutionally matters.  Incumbent President Donald Trump is disputing an early call of Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes.  

If Trump carries North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania (battleground states where he is leading) and Arizona then Trump would win 274 votes and be re-elected.  Notwithstanding an outright victory, the Trump campaign has vowed to litigate against many instances of alleged voting irregularities, canvassing violations and potential fraudulent ballots for unvetted late mail in votes. Trump’s legal team has vowed to fight these violations, possibly even petitioning the US Supreme Court. 

This has the potential to impact results in key battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Arizona.   If there are substantial cases, this may take time to litigate, which may delay or sway the official reporting of results.   Regardless of judicial outcome, if these violations are compelling, they may sway the process.

To refresh our civics knowledge, we do NOT live in a democracy but a Republic.  So when one casts a vote on election day for President, you are actually not voting for a Presidential candidate per se, you are voting for a slate of electors who then votes for the winning candidate in each state in the Electoral College, the ultimate party school. That’s how it normally works.  But technically, according to Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the US Constitution, the power to name electors lies with state legislatures.  

Note well, this is a state legislature’s responsibility under federalism, which does not include input from a state Governor.  It is important to note that several battleground states with alleged voting irregularities, like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, have Republican majorities in their legislatures, despite having liberal Democrat Governors.   

It would be extraordinary, but not inconceivable, that Republican Legislatures may be convicted that voting irregularities which do not follow their legislation and would have be addressed when naming Electors for the Electoral College.  Obviously, Democrats would object to having their win overturned, so more than likely an alternative slate of Electors would attempt to be presented to the Electoral College.  And political mayhem ensues.

Presuming that the Constitution is followed, the legislature endorsed delegates would participate in the Electoral College vote on December 14th and that result would be sent to the US Senate. 

On January 3rd, the second duty of the Senate in the 117th Congress after their swearing in would be to ratify the Electoral College vote.  First vote decides the Vice President among the top two vote getters. Then the EC vote for President among the top three candidates. 

Normally, this is a pro forma vote and there is polite applause for whoever won the Election.  But in this scenario, Senators would challenge state slates of Electors.  This should be determined by a majority vote, with a tie being decided by the sitting Vice President (who is in office until January 20th).  If slates are thrown out and neither candidate gets a majority of Electors, then the contested election moves to the House of Representatives.

Even though Democrats have maintained their majority in the House, voting in a contested election is done by Representatives en banc via state.  Republicans have a 26 to 24 state majority in Congress, thus it would point to re-election of President Trump.  If there is not a majority of state delegations electing a President or Vice President by January 20th, then the Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 11th) or whoever is Speaker of the House at that time,  Acting President until the succession is determined. 

 Historically, there have been a few contested elections. In 2000, the Florida recount was settled by a Supreme Court decision in favor of George W. Bush.

 While the 1960 Presidential election was not formally disputed, the popular vote was only decided by 0.14% in favor of John Kennedy.  It is said that if 10,000 votes switched in four states, Richard Nixon would have become President in 1961. There were allegations of shenanigans in Texas and Illinois.  Moreover, there were 14 unpledged delegates in Mississippi and Alabama cast for Harry F. Byrd.  But Nixon did not want to divide the country so he did not fight. 

The 1876 Presidential Election was a quintessential case of a contested election.  Democrat Samuel Tilden won the Popular Vote but there were difficulties in the  Electoral College.  One of Oregon’s Electors was deemed ineligible as he was an elected official.  But Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana had competing Electors as each party sent slates, amounting to 19 more unresolved Electors.   To resolve this matter, Congress adopted an informal agreement known as the Compromise of 1877 which gave all 20 unresolved electoral votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, thereby making him President.  In exchange, the federal government under Hayes withdrew Reconstruction troops that had been propping up carpet bagging state governments in Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana.  

Prior to the 2020 Elections, Democrats ran an election war game of a close election.  In this simulation Democrat activist John Podesta refused to concede and extracted political promises by threatening that West Coast states, such as California, Oregon and Washington would leave the Union unless they got their way.   This obstinate political modus operandi seems to echo the extracted promises from the Compromise of 1877. 

A hypothetical overtime in political football seems pretty theoretical but strange things have happened in 2020. We may be suffering from the Chinese curse of “May you live in interesting times”, even without  Joe Biden assuming the Oval Office.

James Madison on the Constitution

 

Mazie Hirono on Due Process and Impeachment

James Madison on the Constitution

Margaret Thatcher on Constitutions

On Turgid Constitutional Ignorance

In the alluvia of analysis and opinions which followed President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, NBC New's Katy Tur attempted to ask an insightful question.

Aside from the liberal assumption embedded in the inquiry, Tur operated with an egregious error.  The Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in 1787 not 1776. It seems that Little Katy did not grow up watching Schoolhouse Rock.



Maybe she should review the lesson as she might learn something.  

That simple mistake really costs her credibility.  So often we are inclined to impart wisdom on the pundits who pontificate on television.  If they get a basic civics fact wrong, why should we listen to them?

Although Katy Tur was awarded the 2017 Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism, I think it's  Unbelievable (sic).  That may be the title of her book with her year covering Donald Trump, but now I know better how to analyze her reportage: Progressive, propagandistic, polemic and nescient. 

Rejecting Tomi Lahren's Pink Slime Pro-Choice Perspectives

In offering analysis after President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court, Fox News commentator Tomi Lahren opined that conservatives seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade are effectively spitting on the Constitution.

Lahren has been outspoken in her adherence to abortion rights.  She was separated from Glenn Beck's "The Blaze TV" last year because of her inconsistent opinions about abortion.  This was sparked by an appearance on ABC's The View in which she argued that it was hypocritical to be anti-choice and be a small government conservative.    Beck insisted that he wanted to terminate Lahren for lacking intellectual integrity.

“I can’t speak for the company and why they did it, but it had nothing to do with being pro-choice...
What I have a problem with is somebody who will change their point of view or that will say absolutely crazy, red meat things, and not have any intellectual firepower to back it up. Have the intellectual integrity to be able to back things up.”

Now Lahren laments that some conservatives want a Supreme Court to carry out religious judicial activism to get rid of Roe v. Wade (1973).  Tantalizing pro-choice red meat but it like the pink slime substitute which some fast food outlets use to sell dollar menu items to a hungry public even though it causes indigestion.

Lahren assumes that any rollback of Roe would be premised on religious issues.  Even the Roe decision recognizes that government has interests in unborn life in the last trimester that is viable.  Prenatal medicine has made great leaps of advancement so viability is pushed closer to the 20th week of pregnancy.  No signs of religion in this hermaneutic. And that does not even consider the scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception

Pro-Choice jurisprudence currently rests on the shaky foundation of abortion as being included in a right to privacy that is within  penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights, as applied to states by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Justice Blackmun's holding in Roe is a quintessential example of judicial activism, legislating from the bench for the entire nation.

Conceptually, a texualist originalist led Supreme Court could rule that "the right to privacy" is not enumerated within the Federal Constitution and that the Tenth Amendment is applicable.  This would throw the abortion issue back to the states, where it resided prior to the 1973 judicial fiat.  Some states, like California and New York, would have liberal abortion laws, while other states may be more restrictive.   That sort of subsidiary jurisprudence sounds like small government conservatism.

Maybe Lahren's political science studies at UNLV did not adequately cover jurisprudence.  She seems to think that it is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to overrule bad precedent or is judicial activism.   In his confirmation hearing to become Chief Justice in 2005, John Roberts noted that stare decisis does not hold as a legal precedent when a matter was wrongly decided.  But in Tomi Lahren's legal logic, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that overturned the Separate but Equal standard of  Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was just spitting on the Constitution too. 

It is lamentable that Fox News turns to Tomi Lahren for legal analysis.  In little more than a year, she has shifted her abortion rights advocacy from being premised on what she believes is small government conservatism to combating religious judicial activism.  No wonder she burned her bridge at The Blaze TV for lacking intellectual integrity. 

Some may want to consume pink slime perspectives because they are spicy tasty morsel temptations, but assuredly many leave the establishment when such dreck is  seen on the television menu.

President Donald Trump on Vetting SCOTUS Nominees

Antonin Scalia on the Constitution

Clarence Thomas on Universal Injunctions

On Applying the Nuclear Option and Comity

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution gives the United States Senate the prerogative to give "Advice and Consent" in confirming Executive Branch nominations, especially the judiciary. For most of the Republic, confirmations of Supreme Court justices were not voted on in a markedly partisan manner. 

The Senate, which liked to consider itself as the world's greatest deliberative body, usually operated in a manner which vetted high court nominees in a conscientiously deferential manner to the President.  For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been chief counsel of the ACLU and a noted feminist attorney, yet she garnered a 93-3 confirmation vote in 1993. 

Admittedly, this was not always the case. President George H.W. Bush's nominee of Clarence Thomas endured a contentious confirmation hearings  in 1991 which he likened to a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks".  

And  of course the vitriolic attacks on Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan's 1987 pick to fill a Supreme Court opening, resulted in the verb "to Bork" to be added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2002.  But the adamant opposition from the left stemmed, however peripherally, to nitpicking "flaws" in the nominees.

Much of the comity that the Senate enjoyed was due to Cloture Rule (Senate Rule XXII) which was instituted in 1917.  In order to end debate on a filibuster, three-fifths of Senators (today 60 votes) is required.  Applying that to judicial nominees, Presidents often picked less stridently partisan or controversial candidates, as some Senate Minority votes were needed in order to advance to the confirmation vote.  

Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) found this 3/5ths Cloture requirement to be inconvenient in his effort to aid President Barack Obama in packing the judiciary (particularly changing the balance in the 4th Circuit, a.k.a. "The Rocket Docket").  Thus, in 2013 Reid exercised "The Nuclear Option" which abrogated Senate Rule XXII for judicial confirmations save Supreme Court nominees. 

 Reid was warned on the Senate floor by then Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that you will regret using the nuclear option.   In the 115th Congress, when Senate Democrats became openly obstructionistic about any nominations made by President Donald Trump, Majority Leader McConnell extended the "nuclear option" to include Supreme Court nominees, which resulted in Neil Gorsuch being confirmed by a 54-45 vote.

After Justice Anthony Kennedy's announced retirement from the Nation's High Court, Democrats have campaigned for the Senate to delay confirmation hearings for the SCOTUS opening until after the 2018 midterm elections.  Their facile rationalization is that Republicans ought to follow the same standard used to deny Merritt Garland a confirmation hearing in 2016 because it was an election year.  Of course, this partisan plea ignores that it was a Presidential election year and had over 70 years of precedent.  In addition, Democrats are not in the majority and they set the agenda. Elections do have consequences.  

So does changing and exploiting rules.  Democrats might have some gravitas to their suggestion to stall SCOTUS confirmation hearing until after the midterms if they were not already slow walking nearly all Trump confirmations.   Senate rules allow for 30 hours of debate on each nominee.  Democrats have been routinely requiring the entire 30 hours of debate, which would mean that President Trump's picks could receive senatorial "advise and consent" in nine years. So the threat that Democrats will further slow walk Senate proceedings in retaliation or to forestall a SCOTUS confirmation vote is meaningless. 

The recalcitrant response of Democrats should be a cue to Majority Leader McConnell on how to react to the diminution of comity in the Senate.  If Democrats are going to slow walk everything in retaliation or retribution for the Senate leadership for exercising their "advice and consent" on Supreme Court nominees in a timely manner, then keep them in session.  McConnell already effectively cancelled the traditional long summer recess so they can meet their budgetary duties. So they get to spend the dog days of summer on Capital Hill and enjoy the swampy weather in the District of Calamity (sic).

But the lack of comity and the need for elected officials to do their job might mean spending more time on Capitol Hill.  Since Democrats seem to relish filibusters and slowing the process down, the Majority Leader should change how filibutsters are treated.  Instead of the failure of a cloture vote resulting in the legislation (or the nomination) being pulled, let the debate continue.  If legislators want to invoke "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and talk until they are hoarse and drop from exhaustion, that is their prerogative.  But just as the nuclear option changed things in unexpected ways, tinkering with the filibuster might have adverse effects on Senate minority rights in the future.

Moreover, so that the Senate is not simply the place where legislation goes to and dies, remain in session through October instead of taking the election break.  From an objective standpoint, they will be doing their jobs (instead of concentrating on getting re-elected).  Politically, this hurts Senate Democrats (as they have 25 of 33 seats up, including 10 in states where Mr. Trump won).  And it might make obstructionism less appealing and allow incumbents to give comity a chance.

When the Constitution Is Used As Kleenex

On Constitutional Push Back to California's Sanctuary State Law

San Diego County voted in with a 3-1 margin to defy California's Sanctuary State law.  In October 2017, Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) signed SB-54, which was passed by the Democrat majority in the California legislature, which vastly limited who state and local law enforcement can hold, question and transfer at the request of federal immigration authorities.  Basically, the Sanctuary State law mandates that California's law enforcement officials defy federal immigration law. 

When appearing at the National Press Club, Governor Brown highlighted his intractability to enforcing existing federal immigration law as he proclaimed that California National Guard troops would not perform immigration enforcement activities, including vehicle repair or monitoring security cameras.

Some California municipalities and local governments have formally voted to follow federal law, which is contrary to SB-54.  Many of these jurisdictions have joined in the Sessions Justice Departments lawsuits regarding SB-54, AB 450 which prohibits employers from allowing warrant-less access to non public workplace areas and AB 103 which enjoins local governments from expanding or making new contracts for new civil immigration detention centers.

European Parliament President Poo-Poos Catalan Declaration of Independence

DNC Chair Tom Perez Reveals Himself as a Constitutional Dunce

During a speech at the University of Indiana Law School, Democrat National Chairman Tom Perez claimed that the Constitution did not create the Electoral College.  

Progressives have tried to minimize President Trump's election by citing the fact that he did not win the popular vote. Be that as it may, that is inconsequential because Electoral College votes are allocated from each state based upon a winner take all (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska). In the 2016 Electoral College Vote,  Republican Donald Trump won with 304 Electoral College votes to Democrat Hillary Clinton with 227 votes with seven faithless electors (Two from Mr. Trump and five which should have gone to Mrs. Clinton).

As Mr. Perez graduated cum laud at Harvard Law and also earned a Masters Degree from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, it is hard to believe that he did not know that the Electoral College was entrenched in Article II of the Constitution, and its methodology was modified by the Twelfth Amendment after the messy election of 1800 and also the Twenty-Third Amendment (1961) enfranchising DC in Presidential elections.  Perhaps in those Ivory Towers of Education, they look down at the Electoral College as just being a "party school".

The contemporary trend in legal studies, however, claims that the Constitution is a living document which can be changed to suit today's day and age.  Yet legitimate legal arguments can not ignore what is in plain text.  

A political propagandist once observed that: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it ." Of course, most people do not like to be associated with the German Third Reich fascist political philosophy of Joseph Goebbels. 

Based on the DNC Chair's inaccurate assertion, Tom Perez proved himself to be a Constitutional Dunce and strongly indicated that he is just a party hack, trying to claim victory by any means necessary.

Chuck Norris on the Constitution

Ronald Reagan on the Constitution

President Ronald Reagan invoked the special character of the American Constitution during his Farewell Address in 1989.

Richard Posner on the Constitution and Jurisprudence

Bill Nye-- Not the Constitution Guy

One of the supposed highlight of the DC March for Science, which was the largest of the Earth Day gatherings around the world, was childrens' infotainment 1990s science host Bill Nye "The Science Guy".

During his remarks in the rain, Nye reiterated his assertion that the Constitution of the United States protects science.

Nye has been claiming since 2015 that the Framers of the Constitution invocation of protecting the "progress of science and the useful arts"  in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution meant the politicians should educate the public about art and have a role in promoting science and a plethora of progressive pursuits like environmentalism and big infrastructure,

Bill Nye at DC March for Science, April 22 2017

Alas, Bill Nye is not the Constitution Guy.  Article I Section 8 is known among lawyers as the Copyright Clause. It protects inventors and intellectual property creators with keeping the benefits of the fruits of their labors.  Namely, others can not steal and profit from their ideas under the law.

Nye's facile interpretation of Article I Section 8 makes one wonder about his other musings.

It is safe to say he is neither Bill Nye the NASCAR Guy nor Bill Nye the Constitution Guy. Considering his public policy pontifications, he may be better described as Bill Nye, the Red Herring Guy.