Frank's Musings

The arguments and jurists’ questions in the 4/26/2024 COTUS hearing on the appeal of the abuse of power trial that has been filed against Donald Trump addressed the proposal that a sitting president of the US is exempt from criminal liability for any of his/her official actions while in office.  In the opinion of constitutional scholars, such as Lawrence Tribe, it is a preposterous interpretation of the Constitution to hold that the individuals sworn under oath to see that the laws of the land are faithfully executed are themselves not obliged to adhere to those laws.

It is no less surprising that Justices on the liberal wing of the SCOTUS wished to consider which circumstances could provide a rationale for such an authoritarian measure to be adopted by the nation’s commander-in-chief (cf. the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by President Lincoln during the Civil War).   Notwithstanding, those liberal Justices seemed to recognize that a violation of the president’s duty to uphold the Constitution may be justified by a threat to the nation itself.  The only thing threatened by an opponent’s challenge to the president’s re-election is personal power, which cannot be identified with the existence of the state. 

It was Louis XIV who declared “L’etat, c’est moi!”  His descendent, Louis XVI, lost his head for continuing in that frame of mind.  I don’t espouse such a punishment for “King Donald;” but our revolution and others in the 18^th Century ended the lawlessness of exceptional rulers.  That is the principle that must be upheld when the Court issues its opinion, hopefully in the next few weeks, well before readers of the National Enquirer tabloid have made up their minds regarding the November 2024 election.

In response to Mr. Trita Parsi's Guest Essay in the 4/21/2024 New York Times, "Biden’s Small Win — and Bigger Failure — in the Middle East," it must be said that Biden’s policies towards Israel re Gaza have not isolated the US internationally. Yes, they have reiterated America’s long held solidarity with Israel; but that only disturbs those who mistakenly identify the existence of the Israeli state with the survival of its current leadership.

The recent movie, “Civil War,” seems to portray the effects of the disintegration of rules-based civic order. It does not and probably could not analyze the political causes behind that development. Moreover, instead of a breakup of the American political federation it apparently predicts the ungluing of the country’s common cultural webbing.

In other words, the film shows the social effects of triumphant libertarianism, not the philosophy and action plan of its leaders. Apparently, the country disintegrates into several regions that react differently to the attempt by a despotic president to hold onto power beyond his elected term of office.  Moreover, it postulates that the benefits of a diverse and interdependent society are not clear to everyone. Some regions trust in designating government under the rule of law; other regions are dominated by lawless vigilantism.  Could it be that the film’s box-office popularity and the chaos and violence it portrays will awaken the public to the danger of giving vent to childish solipsism and impatience with the obligations of responsible citizenship.

That is apparently the objective of its writer and director, Alex Garland.  The problem is that those who will pay to watch the film will likely be the Americans who have already lost their willingness to submit to enlightened leadership or never had it.  They will enjoy the chaos it depicts rather than learn the lesson that political disorder must be avoided.  What Garland might better have portrayed were failed attempts to restore civic order and possible avenues of influence and persuasion that could more successfully quell the disorganized violence of civil warfare.  Framing the film in the eyes of news reporters probably enhances its credibility for critical audiences; but achieving Garland's cautionary goal demands not only a good film, but also an effective publicity campaign.

Libertarians define freedom as the absence of obligations. Liberal democrats celebrate the freedom to choose their obligations.

The reason patients’ time is usually abused at doctors’ offices is that payments from Medicare are inadequate. Doctors over-schedule appointments and patients end up compensating them by sacrificing their free time waiting to be seen.

The wonder of Trump’s appeal to his followers and associates, like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, is their willingness to indulge his narcissistic urges.  The same careless appeasement was found by the judge who sentenced the parents of the convicted shooter, Ethan Crumbley, of Michigan school children in 2021. 

Perhaps it’s more accurate to label Trump’s advisors as rapacious seekers of political advantage owing to their recognition that his petulance strikes a chord with many U.S. voters.   These voters share his refusal to accept that living in a democratic society requires most citizens to acquiesce to the authority and rule by the common welfare.  Bannon and his ilk are certainly not tempted to give Trump credit for creating the MAGA movement.  But since Trump stumbled onto the crest of that wave of middle-class resentment, Trump’s advisors have been anxious to take advantage of the ensuing government chaos that could favor their personal goals.

It is a simple analogy to liken the movement’s adoption of Trump to the advantage that a gun supplier took of the Crumbleys’ parenting failure; on the other hand, the consequence of that unintentionally tragic commercial transaction, the murder of four innocent youngsters, was more immediately and personally devastating then even the re-election to the presidency of an incompetent would-be dictator.  Nevertheless, both circumstances bear witness to a major weakness in the American psyche.  The serendipity of America’s geographic wealth and of its freedom from ancient human traditions has allowed Americans to ignore some of the norms that have contributed to the flourishing of humanity in the rest of the world.

People in most of the world never cease to be amazed by what Americans think they can get away with and to search for any sign that, in the end, their more conventional style of life produces desirable results without the typical American risks of near disaster.   Americans take those risks.   Many of them believe that you only live once and that even though history repeats itself, that’s someone else’s problem.  In answer is the lesson from the CSNY song, “Teach Your Children Well.”

The Constitution stipulates that the federation is based on certain common beliefs (truths) held by the people.  Implicated in that stipulation is the common acceptance by the people of the definition of individual personhood when it comes to the civil rights the Constitution guarantees to citizens.  The right to life of those individuals is their most fundamental one, and certainly cannot be subject to currents of political thought that may vary by section of the federation.  Moreover, so basic a right should not be subject to changing codes of morality over time.  Ironically, this is an instance in which the concept of originalism does indeed defeat the concept of a living constitution.  No matter how much the latest medical technology allows us to stretch backwards an organism’s civic existence, there is only the threshold of viability for it to cross before it merits being treated as an independent subject of the rules of our society.  (Even though that threshold is commonly widened by several years after birth when it comes to criminal liability.)

A mother is graced with a biological power that not only allows her to give birth, but also to nurture or interrupt, for any reason, the growth of an organism in her pregnant body at least until its rights are reasonably guaranteed by society’s rules, i.e., the Constitution.  No provision or amendment of the Constitution deprives mothers of that power.

Labels: of

It’s uncanny the parallels in Adam Gopnik’s review of Tomas W. Ryback’s book, “Takeover,” in the March  25, 2023, New Yorker, between the threat of autocracy in the U.S. if Donald Trump is elected as President again and the rise to power of Hitler.  From the media mogul, Hugenberg, and Rupert Murdoch, to the close confidantes wishing to take advantage of his appeal to disaffected petite bourgeoisie, shopkeepers, rural residents and domestic workers, like Hindenburg, von Papen, and General von Schleicher, and Hitler’s transparent solipsism when it came to his vaunted policies, Hitler never disguised his motivations, and they were ignored by both an overwhelmingly segment of the voting public as well as by a nonplussed liberal and educated sector of society.