I feel like the arguments to the contrary here really show how many Americans feel deeply uncomfortable with holding powerful leaders accountable. But many other democracies have had their leaders go to jail for their misdeeds with no problem. If we can’t entertain that yes, someone like Trump and his cronies deserved prison time for trying to overturn an election, then how can we call ourselves a true democracy? Courage is key in a political system like ours, or else we’ll lose it.
That's shoulda woulda coulda thinking and it doesn't do anything for us now, but you are right. I don't know what the unintended consequences of arrests and legislation would have been but I doubt we would be worse off than we are now.
I couldn't agree more but will only note that it should have been Mitch McConnell voting to convict as the first step towards prosecution -- and McConnell knew it (which is my theory as to why his brain has been scrambled. Guilt is a bitch).
I don't excuse Biden's spinelessness but I can low-key understand why he thought the long game was the better option. He KNEW (because it had just been demonstrated) that the GOP would not back him. The threat of a civil war was nonzero.
I blame Mitch McConnell now and forever. Trump should NEVER have been on the ballot. That is on the GOP -- and McConnell specifically. Should Biden have cleaned up their mess? Absolutely. Should he have been put in that position? No way, and that was the death of the republic. February 9, 2021.
When I consider counterfactuals I realize the either good fortune or good planning that waited to stage the coup on Jan 6. I doubt Nancy Pelosi would have seated anyone, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, MTG, to name a few, who had conspired to assist the coup.
Yes, that would have forced a nasty response but such would have occurred while the Dems had a trifecta.
Kill 10 people, and you'll go to jail for life. But if you cancel USAID grants and 1,000,00+ people die? Well, we can't even deal with that. Nobody will do anything. Makes me sick.
The difference between Trump and Biden was that Joe knew the limits of his office and what things he could and could not intervene in. Even if he did get the notion to imprison the MAGA crowd, at least one person on his team would have told him, "You can't do that." And, unlike Trump, he would have actually listened to what they said.
But if someone on Biden’s team said imprisoning insurrectionists would be “wrong,” that person’s judgment should be questioned. Members of Congress across the board were nearly murdered on live tv because Trump didn’t like the election results. He deserved to face the full weight of legal consequences then, and the fact that he didn’t means that US democracy may be over for good in a matter of months or years. It’s sad but true.
The thing to do then was to have called the cops in earlier to prevent the rioters from getting out of control. Trump decided not to do that, and so they nearly got away with it. Whereas another President of either party would have acted far sooner.
I read recently that Biden didn’t want his Presidency overshadowed by Trump’s prosecution. It’s so gobsmackingly ego driven instead of putting the needs of the country first, regardless of the mess. It needed to be done and he didn’t have the stomach for it.
I think Biden and a lot of Ds felt like if they just did good things in office and focused on delivering for the american people, they would win every election and trump would fade away.
Boy that’s an understatement. Given the obstruction of McConnell’s Senate and the sheer number of impeachable offenses, I’ll never understand how the Dem establishment thought this was just going to go away. It was ludicrously short-sighted, especially because they knew our election apparatus was compromised.
I keep thinking baby and bathwater here. I think the biggest mistake was the overcaution of Garland, coming as he did right after the egregious partisanship of Barr. I'm not with the "dragged his feet" crowd--I do think it was a reasonable choice to try to restore the non-partisan approach of the DOJ, but it was still, in the event, the wrong one. But even if he HAD acted earlier, I'm not sure that trump's endless stalling would have resulted in anything other than the delay unto death we encountered, nor that convicting him would have changed the election results. He was, of course, a convicted felon when elected, and that made no dent in outrage at the price of eggs.
It WOULD have been nice to have got to Cannon's bizarre reason for dismissal earlier, so that it could have gone up to SCROTUS, but can we be sure what SCROTUS would have done with it? What if they had upheld it and invalidated Special Prosecutors? Where would we be able to find, once we have a DOJ that cares about things like Justice, someone who can actually ACT at a second remove independently? We are going to need it once the chickens come to roost in 2029 (when Next Potus will actually take charge) and a whole lot of people who do NOT have presidential immunity may have to answer for their behavior.
As far as Biden's health goes. I'm not going to read that book. Someone can tell me if he suffered a stroke just before the Clooney event, coming as it did after a mindboggling schedule of his European trip. Before that, he didn't seem impaired, nor did he ON that trip. I turn 81 shortly, and am still going strong and so I empathize with the feeling that WHILE going strong I'm gonna keep it up. I know that's possibly unrealistic and I might think twice if a whole lot of people depended on me. But I also live in an area where a 10 Earthquake is 500 years overdue. All you can do on your own is live with either age or the Big One until the bad stuff happens. (I also have an aunt and other female relations who were still growing strong into their 90s, so I tip the hat to genetics.)
I agree that T should have been in jail from Day One -- not pissing & growling & scheming & griping on the links at Mar-A-Lago. Ditto Jordan & the rest of that clan.
But I've also wondered seriously if Merrick Garland was explicitly told to soft-pedal the response. Was he really told to sit on his hands for two years so as not to "look political" -- until the work of the J6 Committee made that too embarrassing? If Biden has a lot to answer for, maybe that's also part of it.
Yes, we needed stronger action immediately. The namby-pamby crap we got is directly responsible for the crap we're living through now -- whoever is responsible for it.
I think Biden’s overall issue was more an obsession with norms and institutions that didn’t meet the threat that Trump and the GOP posed. However, the muted reaction to that thread could lead more cynical people to think that Biden and Dems wanted Trump as the nominee rather than a “normal” Dem. The big defense for Biden was often “he’s not Trump.”
This reminds me of a time at least a decade ago in the Obama years when I attended a small public health conference for tobacco prevention. There was a speaker from the FDA, who revealed that they could regulate the nicotine levels in everything. The audience, local and state level public health workers who were actively working every day on cessation and prevention in their communities, were absolutely aghast. A few of us (myself included) tried to ask the FDA lady, in as politely as possible, WELL THEN WHY THE HELL DONT YOU DO IT? Why let more generations of young people get addicted to substances that don’t even have to be addictive? What are you waiting for? How many more people should die before you act? We were just stunned. But then years later Biden at least talked about it before he lost. But basically the people in power really disliked nicotine but they disliked the idea of regulating Big Tobacco even more. Let’s not do anything to upset the corporations. The disconnect between the local people and the federal people then was just as bad as the disconnect between the average Democratic voter and the Democrats in Congress. Like, fucking do something you idiots. Don’t make us do all of the heavy lifting at the local level because you just don’t feel like doing anything at the top, because you’re the ones that actually have some authority to stop this!
Even when good people who mean well hold positions of power they won’t use them to do the things that can help the people because of fear. That’s sad. Like the liberal justices in Trump vs Anderson. Our guardrails aren’t guardrailing.
I really strongly disagree, and I think the crux of the disagreement comes down to this, "If you believe in the rule of law, you should believe in the rule of this law! It’s important! Why do all other laws matter except the one that would disbar fascists from power?"
One of the precise questions at play is what is the proper process to enact that constitutional provision and who should enforce it. I don't actually think the best way to handle questions of constitutional interpretation is for the president to announce his opinion and then instruct the justice department to arrest people.
I think appointing Marrick Garland looks like a mistake but, in general, I think it's a good idea for the president to appoint an AG who will go through the proper procedures of building a court case.
Additionally that specific constitutional clause was adjudicated in Trump v Anderson:
I don't like the Supreme Court's decision; I think the Colorado Supreme Court was correct but I also don't think the president should just bypass the courts to decide for himself.
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
But, beyond that, I just don't think that "swift decisive executive action" is the tool to build the sort of politics I want to see. It has it's place; I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but I don't think it should be given a central place.
The things I am most concerned about -- Climate Change, labor rights, building a more inclusive society and economy, public health, etc . . . are all ones that require sustained long term cooperation to address. I'm feeling pessimistic about that right now but, at the same time, I don't see a way around it; the challenge is figuring out how do we build a politics that is capable of supporting long term cooperation.
Sure, but even without a precedent the process still matters. Part of my point I'd that, in general, disputes about elections start in state court not with the president instructing the (FBI? Capitol Police? Secret Service?) to arrest people.
Garland was trying to prosecute Trump for federal crimes, but it made sense that a state prosecution (in GA) was the one most directly connected to Trump's efforts to overturn the election. I am sad that case turned into a mess.
process matters…but I don’t think it matters more than the constitution. and the constitution says insurrectionists can’t serve. so…to me that sounds like the president has a duty to his oath to prevent insurrectionists from serving.
I just don’t think it’s actally following the rule of law if you decide that some laws don’t matter since holding powerful people accountable is inconvenient, which seems like what the main barrier here has been.
Maybe we're just talking past each other. To help me understand a little better, can you give me an example of what you would consider the closest comparable action by a president unilaterally taking action to defend the constitution? I'm just curious what sort of action you're actually imagining that Biden would take.
For me the best case that I can think of where a direct show of federal force helped lead to a positive political outcome would be Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock Arkansas. But he didn't do that as an opening move, that followed a unanimous Supreme Court decision. That's what I think of as a case where process contributed to a good outcome.
But if I just think about cases where a president ordered a rival politician arrested or barred from the legislature WITHOUT A COURT RULING, that doesn't seem like an inspiring set of examples to draw from.
I realize there isn't going to be a perfect comparison, but that's why I just ask, in your mind, what's a good example of a chief executive seizing emergency powers that could have been a good role model for Biden in that situation.
I mean, the comparison is to Lincoln, who did a lot of pretty aggressive things with executive power on the grounds that there was an insurrection and that if you didn't defeat it, there was no constitution.
Let me try putting it a different way -- in terms of similarities or differences in the situation faced by Biden and Lincoln I think it matters that, when the January 6 rioters were arrested, charged, and convicted they were in fact sent to prison and incarcerated. Even if you believe that a disturbingly large number of people in the country participate in political behaviors that I believe are a threat to the country and the rule of law, they did not (during Biden’s term) deny the legal authority that sentenced the rioters.
I think that makes a difference. I think there's a difference between saying that current political trends could take us to a situation which is comparable to the Civil War and saying that we are already there.
I think the threat is real, and worth taking seriously, but I still think we're in a fairly different situation than 1861.
Sure, I immediately think of Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, which has been in the news lately. Looking up the timeline, I see that it happened earlier than I thought (May 1861) but, I'd note, that's not seen as one of Lincoln greatest moments and I think generally that has not been treated as a precedent to emulate.
Additionally, while I think the January 6 invasion of the capital was very, very bad, I don't think it was a precipitating event on the scale of seven states seceding, forming a new government, and seizing federal military forts. To say that Biden should have responded, on day 1, with the same urgency that Lincoln felt after the beginning of the Civil War seems like a stretch.
But, again, perhaps I'm being too cautious-- are there other examples since Lincoln?
Seems like history gives us a unifying starting place to orient our efforts together.
What gives us a unique shared history is centuries of the most brutal of slaveries — a history of racial sadism shared by no other country.
Police brutality can then be seen as having roots still nurtured by hundreds of unresolved years of slave hunting, with no apologies. No reparations. And now a no-talk rule because ‘woke’, right?
So in this example it is history which guides our sequence.
1
Talk about what was done, for how long, and who was harmed.
2
Imagine finally wanting to repair that legacy.
3
Start by discussing ways to repair that damage with actual repairs. This is how we go about ‘repairing’ any relationships which have been wounded.
I really strongly disagree, and I think the crux of the disagreement comes down to this, "If you believe in the rule of law, you should believe in the rule of this law! It’s important! Why do all other laws matter except the one that would disbar fascists from power?"
One of the precise questions at play is what is the proper process to enact that constitutional provision and who should enforce it. I don't actually think the best way to handle questions of constitutional interpretation is for the president to announce his opinion and then instruct the justice department to arrest people.
I think appointing Marrick Garland looks like a mistake but, in general, I think it's a good idea for the president to appoint an AG who will go through the proper procedures of building a court case.
Additionally that specific constitutional clause was adjudicated in Trump v Anderson:
I don't like the Supreme Court's decision; I think the Colorado Supreme Court was correct but I also don't think the president should just bypass the courts to decide for himself.
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
But, beyond that, I just don't think that "swift decisive executive action" is the tool to build the sort of politics I want to see. It has it's place; I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but I don't think it should be given a central place.
The things I am most concerned about -- Climate Change, labor rights, building a more inclusive society and economy, public health, etc . . . are all ones that require sustained long term cooperation to address. I'm feeling pessimistic about that right now but, at the same time, I don't see a way around it; the challenge is figuring out how do we build a politics that is capable of supporting long term cooperation.
I feel like the arguments to the contrary here really show how many Americans feel deeply uncomfortable with holding powerful leaders accountable. But many other democracies have had their leaders go to jail for their misdeeds with no problem. If we can’t entertain that yes, someone like Trump and his cronies deserved prison time for trying to overturn an election, then how can we call ourselves a true democracy? Courage is key in a political system like ours, or else we’ll lose it.
That's shoulda woulda coulda thinking and it doesn't do anything for us now, but you are right. I don't know what the unintended consequences of arrests and legislation would have been but I doubt we would be worse off than we are now.
I couldn't agree more but will only note that it should have been Mitch McConnell voting to convict as the first step towards prosecution -- and McConnell knew it (which is my theory as to why his brain has been scrambled. Guilt is a bitch).
I don't excuse Biden's spinelessness but I can low-key understand why he thought the long game was the better option. He KNEW (because it had just been demonstrated) that the GOP would not back him. The threat of a civil war was nonzero.
I blame Mitch McConnell now and forever. Trump should NEVER have been on the ballot. That is on the GOP -- and McConnell specifically. Should Biden have cleaned up their mess? Absolutely. Should he have been put in that position? No way, and that was the death of the republic. February 9, 2021.
Judge Luttig was, in my view, correct, when he argued the 14the Amendment Section 3 was self executing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/
When I consider counterfactuals I realize the either good fortune or good planning that waited to stage the coup on Jan 6. I doubt Nancy Pelosi would have seated anyone, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, MTG, to name a few, who had conspired to assist the coup.
Yes, that would have forced a nasty response but such would have occurred while the Dems had a trifecta.
The road not travelled.
Kill 10 people, and you'll go to jail for life. But if you cancel USAID grants and 1,000,00+ people die? Well, we can't even deal with that. Nobody will do anything. Makes me sick.
“They may dislike fascism. They may even dislike fascism a lot. But they dislike the idea of holding the powerful accountable even more.”
Always easier to fear something here and now than something waiting in the wings. The known versus the not quite sure. J
Still, this is an excellent point in an essay of clear and I think sound logic.
Sorry for the double post; having issues with substack right now.
No problem! These things happen..:
You can use the three little dots next to your post to delete one at any time.
I have done so.
The difference between Trump and Biden was that Joe knew the limits of his office and what things he could and could not intervene in. Even if he did get the notion to imprison the MAGA crowd, at least one person on his team would have told him, "You can't do that." And, unlike Trump, he would have actually listened to what they said.
But if someone on Biden’s team said imprisoning insurrectionists would be “wrong,” that person’s judgment should be questioned. Members of Congress across the board were nearly murdered on live tv because Trump didn’t like the election results. He deserved to face the full weight of legal consequences then, and the fact that he didn’t means that US democracy may be over for good in a matter of months or years. It’s sad but true.
The thing to do then was to have called the cops in earlier to prevent the rioters from getting out of control. Trump decided not to do that, and so they nearly got away with it. Whereas another President of either party would have acted far sooner.
Yeah, the way that a lot of cops were consumed by the crowds, and no extra help came to quell the chaos, was downright chilling.
I read recently that Biden didn’t want his Presidency overshadowed by Trump’s prosecution. It’s so gobsmackingly ego driven instead of putting the needs of the country first, regardless of the mess. It needed to be done and he didn’t have the stomach for it.
I think Biden and a lot of Ds felt like if they just did good things in office and focused on delivering for the american people, they would win every election and trump would fade away.
which…was a massive and dangerous miscalculation.
Boy that’s an understatement. Given the obstruction of McConnell’s Senate and the sheer number of impeachable offenses, I’ll never understand how the Dem establishment thought this was just going to go away. It was ludicrously short-sighted, especially because they knew our election apparatus was compromised.
I keep thinking baby and bathwater here. I think the biggest mistake was the overcaution of Garland, coming as he did right after the egregious partisanship of Barr. I'm not with the "dragged his feet" crowd--I do think it was a reasonable choice to try to restore the non-partisan approach of the DOJ, but it was still, in the event, the wrong one. But even if he HAD acted earlier, I'm not sure that trump's endless stalling would have resulted in anything other than the delay unto death we encountered, nor that convicting him would have changed the election results. He was, of course, a convicted felon when elected, and that made no dent in outrage at the price of eggs.
It WOULD have been nice to have got to Cannon's bizarre reason for dismissal earlier, so that it could have gone up to SCROTUS, but can we be sure what SCROTUS would have done with it? What if they had upheld it and invalidated Special Prosecutors? Where would we be able to find, once we have a DOJ that cares about things like Justice, someone who can actually ACT at a second remove independently? We are going to need it once the chickens come to roost in 2029 (when Next Potus will actually take charge) and a whole lot of people who do NOT have presidential immunity may have to answer for their behavior.
As far as Biden's health goes. I'm not going to read that book. Someone can tell me if he suffered a stroke just before the Clooney event, coming as it did after a mindboggling schedule of his European trip. Before that, he didn't seem impaired, nor did he ON that trip. I turn 81 shortly, and am still going strong and so I empathize with the feeling that WHILE going strong I'm gonna keep it up. I know that's possibly unrealistic and I might think twice if a whole lot of people depended on me. But I also live in an area where a 10 Earthquake is 500 years overdue. All you can do on your own is live with either age or the Big One until the bad stuff happens. (I also have an aunt and other female relations who were still growing strong into their 90s, so I tip the hat to genetics.)
I agree that T should have been in jail from Day One -- not pissing & growling & scheming & griping on the links at Mar-A-Lago. Ditto Jordan & the rest of that clan.
But I've also wondered seriously if Merrick Garland was explicitly told to soft-pedal the response. Was he really told to sit on his hands for two years so as not to "look political" -- until the work of the J6 Committee made that too embarrassing? If Biden has a lot to answer for, maybe that's also part of it.
Yes, we needed stronger action immediately. The namby-pamby crap we got is directly responsible for the crap we're living through now -- whoever is responsible for it.
I think Biden’s overall issue was more an obsession with norms and institutions that didn’t meet the threat that Trump and the GOP posed. However, the muted reaction to that thread could lead more cynical people to think that Biden and Dems wanted Trump as the nominee rather than a “normal” Dem. The big defense for Biden was often “he’s not Trump.”
This reminds me of a time at least a decade ago in the Obama years when I attended a small public health conference for tobacco prevention. There was a speaker from the FDA, who revealed that they could regulate the nicotine levels in everything. The audience, local and state level public health workers who were actively working every day on cessation and prevention in their communities, were absolutely aghast. A few of us (myself included) tried to ask the FDA lady, in as politely as possible, WELL THEN WHY THE HELL DONT YOU DO IT? Why let more generations of young people get addicted to substances that don’t even have to be addictive? What are you waiting for? How many more people should die before you act? We were just stunned. But then years later Biden at least talked about it before he lost. But basically the people in power really disliked nicotine but they disliked the idea of regulating Big Tobacco even more. Let’s not do anything to upset the corporations. The disconnect between the local people and the federal people then was just as bad as the disconnect between the average Democratic voter and the Democrats in Congress. Like, fucking do something you idiots. Don’t make us do all of the heavy lifting at the local level because you just don’t feel like doing anything at the top, because you’re the ones that actually have some authority to stop this!
Even when good people who mean well hold positions of power they won’t use them to do the things that can help the people because of fear. That’s sad. Like the liberal justices in Trump vs Anderson. Our guardrails aren’t guardrailing.
“They may dislike fascism. They may even dislike fascism a lot. But they dislike the idea of holding the powerful accountable even more.”
Always easier to fear something here and now than something waiting in the wings. The known versus the not quite sure. J
Still, this is an excellent point in an essay of clear and I think sound logic.
I really strongly disagree, and I think the crux of the disagreement comes down to this, "If you believe in the rule of law, you should believe in the rule of this law! It’s important! Why do all other laws matter except the one that would disbar fascists from power?"
One of the precise questions at play is what is the proper process to enact that constitutional provision and who should enforce it. I don't actually think the best way to handle questions of constitutional interpretation is for the president to announce his opinion and then instruct the justice department to arrest people.
I think appointing Marrick Garland looks like a mistake but, in general, I think it's a good idea for the president to appoint an AG who will go through the proper procedures of building a court case.
Additionally that specific constitutional clause was adjudicated in Trump v Anderson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Anderson
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-wins-colorado-ballot-disqualification-case-us-supreme-court-2024-03-04/
I don't like the Supreme Court's decision; I think the Colorado Supreme Court was correct but I also don't think the president should just bypass the courts to decide for himself.
The obvious point of reference to support my position would be "A Man For All Seasons" -- https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes/
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
But, beyond that, I just don't think that "swift decisive executive action" is the tool to build the sort of politics I want to see. It has it's place; I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but I don't think it should be given a central place.
The things I am most concerned about -- Climate Change, labor rights, building a more inclusive society and economy, public health, etc . . . are all ones that require sustained long term cooperation to address. I'm feeling pessimistic about that right now but, at the same time, I don't see a way around it; the challenge is figuring out how do we build a politics that is capable of supporting long term cooperation.
Well, that court decision wasn’t in effect at the beginning of the term. Would they make a different decision right after trumps coup? We don’t know!
And there’s no cooperating with fascists on those things. You crush fascism or nothing is possible.
Sure, but even without a precedent the process still matters. Part of my point I'd that, in general, disputes about elections start in state court not with the president instructing the (FBI? Capitol Police? Secret Service?) to arrest people.
Garland was trying to prosecute Trump for federal crimes, but it made sense that a state prosecution (in GA) was the one most directly connected to Trump's efforts to overturn the election. I am sad that case turned into a mess.
process matters…but I don’t think it matters more than the constitution. and the constitution says insurrectionists can’t serve. so…to me that sounds like the president has a duty to his oath to prevent insurrectionists from serving.
I just don’t think it’s actally following the rule of law if you decide that some laws don’t matter since holding powerful people accountable is inconvenient, which seems like what the main barrier here has been.
Maybe we're just talking past each other. To help me understand a little better, can you give me an example of what you would consider the closest comparable action by a president unilaterally taking action to defend the constitution? I'm just curious what sort of action you're actually imagining that Biden would take.
For me the best case that I can think of where a direct show of federal force helped lead to a positive political outcome would be Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock Arkansas. But he didn't do that as an opening move, that followed a unanimous Supreme Court decision. That's what I think of as a case where process contributed to a good outcome.
But if I just think about cases where a president ordered a rival politician arrested or barred from the legislature WITHOUT A COURT RULING, that doesn't seem like an inspiring set of examples to draw from.
I realize there isn't going to be a perfect comparison, but that's why I just ask, in your mind, what's a good example of a chief executive seizing emergency powers that could have been a good role model for Biden in that situation.
I mean, the comparison is to Lincoln, who did a lot of pretty aggressive things with executive power on the grounds that there was an insurrection and that if you didn't defeat it, there was no constitution.
Let me try putting it a different way -- in terms of similarities or differences in the situation faced by Biden and Lincoln I think it matters that, when the January 6 rioters were arrested, charged, and convicted they were in fact sent to prison and incarcerated. Even if you believe that a disturbingly large number of people in the country participate in political behaviors that I believe are a threat to the country and the rule of law, they did not (during Biden’s term) deny the legal authority that sentenced the rioters.
I think that makes a difference. I think there's a difference between saying that current political trends could take us to a situation which is comparable to the Civil War and saying that we are already there.
I think the threat is real, and worth taking seriously, but I still think we're in a fairly different situation than 1861.
Sure, I immediately think of Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, which has been in the news lately. Looking up the timeline, I see that it happened earlier than I thought (May 1861) but, I'd note, that's not seen as one of Lincoln greatest moments and I think generally that has not been treated as a precedent to emulate.
Additionally, while I think the January 6 invasion of the capital was very, very bad, I don't think it was a precipitating event on the scale of seven states seceding, forming a new government, and seizing federal military forts. To say that Biden should have responded, on day 1, with the same urgency that Lincoln felt after the beginning of the Civil War seems like a stretch.
But, again, perhaps I'm being too cautious-- are there other examples since Lincoln?
Seems like history gives us a unifying starting place to orient our efforts together.
What gives us a unique shared history is centuries of the most brutal of slaveries — a history of racial sadism shared by no other country.
Police brutality can then be seen as having roots still nurtured by hundreds of unresolved years of slave hunting, with no apologies. No reparations. And now a no-talk rule because ‘woke’, right?
So in this example it is history which guides our sequence.
1
Talk about what was done, for how long, and who was harmed.
2
Imagine finally wanting to repair that legacy.
3
Start by discussing ways to repair that damage with actual repairs. This is how we go about ‘repairing’ any relationships which have been wounded.
Sorry to run on.
Robert
I really strongly disagree, and I think the crux of the disagreement comes down to this, "If you believe in the rule of law, you should believe in the rule of this law! It’s important! Why do all other laws matter except the one that would disbar fascists from power?"
One of the precise questions at play is what is the proper process to enact that constitutional provision and who should enforce it. I don't actually think the best way to handle questions of constitutional interpretation is for the president to announce his opinion and then instruct the justice department to arrest people.
I think appointing Marrick Garland looks like a mistake but, in general, I think it's a good idea for the president to appoint an AG who will go through the proper procedures of building a court case.
Additionally that specific constitutional clause was adjudicated in Trump v Anderson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Anderson
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-wins-colorado-ballot-disqualification-case-us-supreme-court-2024-03-04/
I don't like the Supreme Court's decision; I think the Colorado Supreme Court was correct but I also don't think the president should just bypass the courts to decide for himself.
The obvious point of reference to support my position would be "A Man For All Seasons" -- https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes/
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
But, beyond that, I just don't think that "swift decisive executive action" is the tool to build the sort of politics I want to see. It has it's place; I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but I don't think it should be given a central place.
The things I am most concerned about -- Climate Change, labor rights, building a more inclusive society and economy, public health, etc . . . are all ones that require sustained long term cooperation to address. I'm feeling pessimistic about that right now but, at the same time, I don't see a way around it; the challenge is figuring out how do we build a politics that is capable of supporting long term cooperation.
Imagine if John Roberts had crowned Biden king instead of Trump…