Constitution Archives - Ramblin' with Roger

Thank djt for the Constitution lessons

official acts

I want to thank djt for teaching the American people Constitution lessons. Even before the election of 2016, people were wondering whether, if he had read the document, did he understand it.

As The Nation noted earlier this year, he’s brazenly violated parts of the Constitution, “including the emoluments clause of Article 1, Section 6, and the appropriations clause of Article 1, Section 9. The foreign emolument section states that, without congressional assent, neither the president nor other office holders can ‘accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.’ Yet, as the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee documented, ‘Trump’s businesses received at least $7.8 million in payments from foreign governments and government-backed entities from 20 countries.'”

Americans now have a better sense of how impeachment works. There had been only one impeachment (Bill Clinton) in over a century and a half. With djt, we had two in less than 14 months. People now know that impeachment means indictment and not conviction. He was impeached in 2019 over extortion of the Ukrainian president.

20210106

Then, in early 2021, he was impeached over his actions on January 6. Of course, the Senate chose not to convict him in both cases. In the latter situation, they decided it wasn’t necessary because he was no longer going to be President. After the effects of January 6, wasn’t it clear after being rebuked by members of Congress that he would never be running for public office again?

There was a conversation about whether Vice President Mike Pence and members of the US cabinet might invoke Amendment 25 to have the then-president removed from office because his actions were not in keeping with what a president ought to do both before and especially after Jan 6.

Speaking of January 6: I mentioned to someone that, in 2025, Kamala Harris would be titularly in charge of certifying the November 5, 2024, Presidential vote. They asked if it had happened before with a Presidential candidate in that role. Of course, most recently, Al Gore when he lost to Dubya in 2000.

Still, I am an old political science major. I had all but forgotten the certification of the election the previous November because it was pro forma before 2021, when someone fomented a riot.

“Even conservative lawyers J. Michael Luttig, Peter Keisler, Larry Thompson, Stuart Gerson, and Donald Ayer have argued in their amicus brief in the case that ‘Trump incited the threat and use of violent force as his last opportunity to stop the peaceful transfer of executive power.’ They state unequivocally that he ‘had the intent that the armed mob, at the very least, threaten physical force on January 6, 2021, in response to his speech on the Ellipse.'”

Constitutional when it suits him

Less than two years ago, djt suggested on “Truth” Social “for the termination of the Constitution” by overturning the 2020 election and reinstating him to power.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Supreme Court [heard] arguments in “a potentially historic case that could affect former President Donald Trump’s efforts to run for election this year. The case, Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson [turned] on an interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Disqualification Clause, and its language barring certain former elected and appointed officials from holding office if they took part in an insurrection. SCOTUS determined he could not be banned from the Colorado primary ballot. The nine justices ruled that only Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment’s provisions against federal officials and candidates.

His SCOTUS friends also ruled that he has ‘absolute immunity’ for official acts and offered a broad description of what that means. Although Jack Smith has re-introduced a tighter set of indictments, it’s really difficult to convict a president for his actions while he’s in office.

A couple of people I know IRL think schools should do a better job teaching civics. Well, maybe, but djt is doing a pretty good job on his own.

Let us eat cake

Happy Birthday, Constitution – Family Day, September 17, 2006. A1, Washington, D.C.

Per the National Archives: “Twenty years ago, Congress passed a law recognizing September 17 as Constitution Day. On that date in 1787, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia put their signatures on the Constitution of the United States. Local celebrations of Constitution Day started over 100 years ago, but it didn’t become federal law until 2004.”

Happy Constitution Day.

The Ten Commandments

make no law respecting an establishment of religion

A random dude on Facebook – I didn’t know him – wrote that he read on Facebook that the state of Louisiana is mandating that The Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms. But he didn’t necessarily believe it because it was on Facebook.

Back in my working librarian days, I would fairly often have conversations about media literacy. I’d ask someone for the source of information. They’d say Facebook or Twitter. My follow-up would be, “But what was the source, the reference?”

In any case, when I read the information on Facebook, I already knew about it in newsfeeds from the New York Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, and Newsmax, among others.

The general conversation on that Facebook stream then turned to: “Well, with all of the problems in our schools, this isn’t really that much of a big deal.”

I developed a low-grade headache.

Then I was reminded about something that a couple of people I know IRL have been bugging me about. They believe that civics is not being taught in our schools. What IS civics anyway? It is “a social science dealing with the rights and duties of citizens.”

Amendment 1

So, citizens, there’s a thing called the Constitution of the United States! It replaced something called the Articles of Confederation, the nation’s first framework, effective March 4, 1789.

But the critics of the Constitution wanted more guardrails. Constitutional supporters agreed to create a Bill of Rights “which consists of 10 amendments that were added to the Constitution in 1791.”

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Ah, but you note that it was a Louisiana STATE law that imposed the Ten Commandments. However, the Supreme Court has “interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.”

Requiring classrooms to display the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments reeks of the state of Louisiana establishing religion, this old poli sci major and Christian will tell you. Gov. Jeff Landry (R-LA) makes this clear. “If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses.”

Of course

So naturally, the presumptive Republican nominee for President supports it. Per Newsmax: “‘Has anyone read the ‘Thou shalt not steal’? I mean, has anybody read this incredible stuff? It’s just incredible,’ Trump said at the gathering of the Faith & Freedom Coalition [on June 22]. ‘They don’t want it to go up. It’s a crazy world.'”’

Conversely, Austin, TX pastor Zach Lambert notes: “If your version of Christianity wants to put the Ten Commandments in schools but take free lunch out of them, you are worshipping something other than Jesus.”

Read the fuzzy argument that Oklahoma’s state superintendent of public education, Ryan Walters, makes in requiring all public schools to teach the Bible and the Ten Commandments.

Getting back to civics

I worry about how the “rights and duties of citizens” are being abridged. In recent years, being able to serve on a jury, serving as an election poll watcher, and even the very right to vote, have been threatened. When I wrote that I would have served on a particular jury, it wasn’t because I would have wanted to; it’s because a citizen has an obligation, so the external threats are unAmerican. Poll watcher intimidation is unAmerican. Wholesale purging of voter rolls: unAmerican.

As we celebrate the 4th of July, let us remember the preamble of the Constitution, a direct result of the Revolutionary War fervor. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Then we need to act as though it were true.

Radical Republicans, SCOTUS, and justice

Reconstruction

For Constitution Day, which is September 17, I want to discuss the Radical Republicans. No, not Gym Jordan, Elise Stefanik, and many in the current GOP, who are indeed radical but not for justice.

On August 15, Professor Stephen E. Gottlieb, professor emeritus at the Albany Law School, presented a talk, Should We Abolish the Supreme Court? He referenced his book Unfit for Democracy. and The Case Against the Supreme Court by Erwin Chemerinsky.

Professor Gottlieb noted that those in his party who put Abraham Lincoln’s feet to the fire were labeled Radical Republicans. Gottlieb remembers this designation was offered as pejorative when he attended public school. My recollection of my school days is the same.

“The American Battlefield Trust preserves America’s hallowed battlegrounds and educates the public about what happened there and why it matters.” The organization offered up this article.

“The Radical Republicans were a group of politicians who formed a faction within the Republican party that lasted from the Civil War into the era of Reconstruction. They were led by Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives and Charles Sumner in the Senate. The Radicals were known for their opposition to slavery, their efforts to ensure emancipation and civil rights for Blacks and their strong opinions on post-war Reconstruction.”

After engaging in a bloody Civil War, incrementalism was not on the minds of many Republicans, whose party was only about a decade old. “While President Lincoln wanted to fight the war largely for the preservation of the Union, the Radical Republicans believed the primary reason for fighting was for the abolition of slavery.”

The Civil War amendments

It would have been impossible for the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to have passed without the Radical Republicans. “The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was an effort by the Radical Republicans to reinforce the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery and had been passed the year prior. With this Civil Rights Act, the radicals were also taking steps towards establishing citizenship for Blacks by defending their civil rights and granting them equal protection under the law. In 1867, they were successful in passing the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to Blacks…

“New Reconstruction Acts were passed and called for each rebel state to draft a new constitution as well as ratify the new Fourteenth Amendment… Congress, meaning primarily Radical Republicans, would then have to approve these new state constitutions before readmitting the rebel state back into the Union… Furthermore, they deployed military troops to the South to maintain order and to protect the rights of Black citizens. In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was passed, granting Blacks the right to vote.”

The legislation inhibiting Andrew Johnson’s ability to remove his own cabinet members, which led to the impeachment of the President in 1868, was an overreach. While the Radical Republicans dominated the late 1860s, their power dwindled in the early 1870s. Corruption seeped into the party, including fights over civil service reform. Beyond that, figures like Sumner “believed that the era of Reconstruction was successfully completed and no longer needed Radical supervision.”

Then the Tilden/Hayes election of 1876 killed Reconstruction, and Jim Crow ruled, not just in the South.

A century later

The justice that was supposed to have been codified in the 1860s and 1870s had been thwarted, in large part because of the Supreme Court’s decisions such as the “separate but equal” Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

As a result, civil rights for Black people had to be relitigated, mainly in the 1950s and 1960s. It was addressed in legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

But it was also manifest in decisions by the Warren Court (1953-1969), not only overtly about race (Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, Loving v. Virginia), but cases of justice regardless of race. Professor Gottlieb suggested that this period was the highlight of the Supreme Court’s history.

“In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio strengthened the Fourth Amendment’s protections by banning prosecutors from using evidence seized in illegal searches in trials. In 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright held that the Sixth Amendment required that all indigent criminal defendants be assigned a free, publicly-funded defense attorney. Finally, the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona required that all persons being interrogated while in police custody be clearly informed of their rights—such as the right to an attorney—and acknowledge their understanding of those rights—the so-called ‘Miranda warning.'”

More recently

This reminded me of the SCOTUS decision by the Roberts Court in June 2013, which “struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act, weakening a tool the federal government has used for nearly five decades to block discriminatory voting laws.” It was as though the justices decided that “we have overcome.”

Many, including me, were then SHOCKED when SCOTUS provided a significant victory for voting rights in 2023. “It handed down a 5-4 decision in Allen v. Milligan that preserves longstanding safeguards against racism in US elections, strikes down a gerrymandered congressional map in Alabama, and all but assures that Democrats will gain at least one congressional seat in the next election from that state.”

The arc of the moral universe is undoubtedly long. Whether it bends towards justice, I’m less confident.

A more perfect union

The Second Amendment — probably one of the most sloppily written rights ever endowed to a people.

I came across an article modifying absolute adjectives. Think “more unique.”

“The general rule is that absolute adjectives can’t be modified. And yet … sometimes writers do it.”

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…” — The Preamble to the United States Constitution.

“To form a ‘more perfect Union’ is different from forming ‘a perfect Union.’ The accurate version implies that the People are attempting to get closer to perfect, not that they have created something perfect. It’s a subtle but important distinction.”

I thought about this as we suffered under the myth of Originalism from the current Supreme Court. If a right wasn’t enshrined by our very perfect founders in 1787 or 1791, it isn’t a “real” right?

You say you’ll change the constitution.

In The Boston Globe, Abdallah Fayyad noted that FDR argued “for what he called a second Bill of Rights — guarantees from the federal government for a base level of economic comfort for every American. Among those rights were health care, employment, housing, social security, freedom from monopolies, and more. Roosevelt did not go so far as to say that these rights required constitutional amendments; they had already become economic truths that the nation ‘accepted as self-evident’ as a result of the New Deal and therefore had to be guaranteed by the government if it sought to truly fulfill the political rights enshrined in the Constitution.”

FDR’s ideal was that we would become freer people. Instead, SCOTUS, in the last decade or so, has gone backward. The “logic” of Alito in overturning Roe is tortured. As I feared, post-Roe may be, in some substantial ways, worse than pre-Roe. At what precise point might the woman’s life be endangered, and will the courts agree with the doctor’s assessment?

A2

Fayyad continued: “Take a look at the Second Amendment — probably one of the most sloppily written rights ever endowed to a people. There are many people, including conservatives, who believe that the Second Amendment is unclear, but too few who speak seriously and earnestly about updating and clarifying it. As a result, the United States has the distinction of having the most heavily armed population in the world.” Kelly, too, noted how weird A2 is.

The Fifth Amendment is very important, even as djt mocked people who would embrace the right not to self-incriminate in the fall of 2016. I think it’s unfortunate that people assume the guilt of a person doing so. Still, I took some pleasure in reading that the case against djt may have become “immeasurably stronger” because he pled the 5th.

Understandably, confidence in SCOTUS has sunk to a historic low. I don’t know how to right the ship in the near term. Packing the court, which gets bounced around, is not going to happen because even people who would agree with the outcome would wince at the process.

Other than wringing our hands…

Ultimately, to create justice, we need to fight for it. Jon Meacham says, “The battle begins with political engagement itself.” Humanities Washington offers a “media project that explores the complexities of our democracy in order to help strengthen it.”

Adam Russell Taylor, president of Sojourners, wrote in his book, A More Perfect Union: A New Vision for Building the Beloved Community: “It is time to choose a path that acknowledges and repents for the ways we have failed to live up to America’s promise. It is time that we boldly pursue a shared vision of a future rooted in our most deeply held religious and civic values.

And “it is time to embark with even greater urgency on the task of building the Beloved Community, which will enable us to achieve a more perfect union and a radically more just nation.”

It won’t be easy. Happy day before Constitution Day.

Indian Citizenship Act centennial: 2024

What it means to be an Indian Nation today

The status of the Native American or American Indian in the United States is most peculiar. This article reminded me that the centennial of the Indian Citizenship Act is coming up in 2024.

As you may know, Article I, Section 2 reads: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power To… regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Even the Fourteenth Amendment notes: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”

Silent Cal

From the article: “The Indian Citizenship Act [was] signed into law on June 2, 1924, by President Calvin Coolidge. As the very title of the legislation states, the act made all Indians in the United States citizens of the United States.”

According to the act, … all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided that the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.

“The debate [following the 14th Amendment] was so pronounced that the Senate Judiciary Committee pondered the issue. In 1870 it rendered its verdict:

… the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States…

“Strangely enough in the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857, the frequently reviled Chief Justice Roger Taney had argued that American Indians could, in fact, become citizens. The caveat was that it had to be under congressional and legal supervision. In 1924, that is exactly what Congress did.”

This leads to some interesting arguments about how “to address what it means to be an Indian Nation today in the 21st century.” Read some more about the implications of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.