Wow. Jack Bernard must have really had some kind of major conversion experience to go from his former party (Republicans) to his current anarchic state of mind.
I say anarchic because he is not advocating for reforms that restore the constitutionality of our current polity, but is instead seeking to abolish the Constitution.
He characterizes these changes as “electoral reform,” but when you call for abolishing the electoral college, mandating early voting, and granting the vote to anyone — including felons — who calls or emails to register, all in the name of establishing “true democracy,” you have a recipe for political and societal disaster and the end of the American experiment.
His assertion assumes that our country should be a “true democracy,” but we are in fact a republic with a system of checks and balances in order to prevent the abuses that would occur under such a regime.
Mr. Bernard laments how our founders had “little faith in the average American voter,” but a more precise way of describing their view is that they had a realistic understanding of human nature.
While the initial impetus for the American revolution was to throw off the shackles of monarchical tyranny (such as it was), the founders were also wary of swinging too far in the other direction towards mob rule and the tyranny of the majority.
They knew that man, while being capable of some truly wonderful things, was also prone to depravity and that a good governmental system would take this into account and prevent abuses by either a dictator or a mob.
And the principles and values they enshrined in our Constitution ultimately served as the foundation and motivation for the various corrections and reforms of our society, from the elimination of slavery, to women’s suffrage, to the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s.
Of course our founders were not perfect men and possessed some prejudices that cause them to fall short in the eyes of some unfairly judgmental people of today, but without their foresight and accurate understanding of the nature of man and the purpose of government, we would not be the beacon of democracy and freedom that we have become.
At least Mr. Bernard has the integrity to say the quiet part out loud and admit he wants to dismantle key parts of the Constitution in order to achieve some sort of political and social utopia.
His counterparts in the Democratic Party’s leadership consistently seek to hide their true motives and dupe voters in the middle into believing they are moderates. Witness the media-led campaign to re-cast Kamala Harris as tough-on-crime and tough-on-the-border in spite of her miserable record and past statements.
Mr. Bernard well reflects the general Democratic attack on our Constitutional system, whether it be calls for packing the Supreme Court, attacking the first and second amendments, or weaponizing the DOJ to go after political opponents. These are the objectives of the swamp creatures that Trump rightly targets for defeat.
The fact that Mr. Bernard would accuse Trump of being insufficiently committed to draining the swamp is laughable. The swamp’s constant attacks on him, since 2016 until now, prove that he is in fact its greatest foe.
Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.
Poor Jack, He just cain’t hep it!
Vote on Tuesday; if you can’t get there, you don’t deserve to vote. Up voting age to 25 (ask the insurance industry about the importance of that age among drivers), that is the minimum age of congressmen for a good reason (maturity). No mail in voting, register in person at your county office only. If you can’t get to an office open on M-F, you probably don’t need to be voting…if you are Jack Bernard, you don’t need to be voting….
Better yet: pass a law that any organized political party can incorporate and do the following: primary voting will be by people who sign up to join the party. No more tax payer primary elections. The only public election should be a one and done with the expenses paid by the taxpayers, and the organized party’s.
A more equitable voting strategy would be to have general primaries (so called “jungle primaries”) in which all candidates appear on everyone’s ballot regardless of party. Then let the runoff be between the top two vote-getters (assuming no one gets 50% + 1). With this system, voters are less likely to be forced to choose extreme candidates from either side because it would be much harder to “primary” an opponent by taking an extreme position. This is one small step toward de-polarizing the electorate.
If one can securely bank online, I think we can find a secure system to vote online or by mail. This was rarely questioned before a certain candidate had to find an excuse for losing the popular vote in two consecutive elections.
A little history – The voting age was 21 five decades ago, but it was deemed unfair to be sending a young soldier off to Vietnam at 18 who had no say in his government or commander-in-chief. If someone is old enough to fight for his/her country, s/he is old enough to vote. Leave the voting age alone.
Exactly. Leave the voting age alone.
If you aren’t old enough to purchase a handgun, cigarette or liquor you shouldn’t be old enough to vote. As for sending 18 year olds to Vietnam against their will, too young for them too. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
But it’s ok to tax them at year’s end, take money from their paycheck and all and not give them the ability to vote? Some on these boards should think before commenting.
A little self-reflection might be in order. Taxes know no age limit, but voting should have a minimum age.
Lulu – Voting does have a minimum age. It is 18.
STF, since you appear to have lost the context, Doon begged the question about being fair to tax tax people but not let them vote? Kids of any age are taxed if they earn money, but as you pointed out voting has a minimum age, currently at 18. But society doesn’t feel they are old enough to make the right decisions to drink or purchase a hand gun until they are 21. Which I feel is legitimate reason not to send them to war or vote, perhaps it’s just a mom thing.
Growing up my mom would let me pick out the cereal I wanted. I kept busy studying all the packages and I’d pick out the ones with the best prizes. Have you ever noticed which cereal is at the lower levels at the grocery store? At least they stopped with the prizes inside.
Seems many electors never grow up and pick candidates the same way at the ballot box. Amazing what a $2000 promise will buy failing to realize they will pay for it in inflated prices on goods and services.
Poor Jack, He just cain’t hep it!
Vote on Tuesday; if you can’t get there, you don’t deserve to vote. Up voting age to 25 (ask the insurance industry about the importance of that age among drivers), that is the minimum age of congressmen for a good reason (maturity). No mail in voting, register in person at your county office only. If you can’t get to an office open on M-F, you probably don’t need to be voting…if you are Jack Bernard, you don’t need to be voting….
Better yet: pass a law that any organized political party can incorporate and do the following: primary voting will be by people who sign up to join the party. No more tax payer primary elections. The only public election should be a one and done with the expenses paid by the taxpayers, and the organized party’s
Fiction – True, I did quote a source that cited a fringe far-left Democrat group advocating for packing the Supreme Court, but it was supported much more widely by Congressional Democrats than just the Congressional Progressive Caucus / “The Squad”.
According to NPR, “The measure, the Judiciary Act of 2021, is being co-sponsored by Reps. Jerrold Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee; Hank Johnson of Georgia; Mondaire Jones of New York; and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts.” (“Democrats Unveil Long-Shot Plan To Expand Size Of Supreme Court From 9 To 13” NPR.com 4/15/21) None of these sponsoring representatives are in The Squad.
Doon – Yes, the size of the Supreme Court has varied in our country’s history. But the intent behind Democrats’ recent push to add justices is clearly court-packing. “… Democrats and progressives have in the last year called to expand the high court as a way to dilute the power of the Supreme Court’s current 6-3 conservative majority …” (“Pelosi has “no plans” to bring bill expanding Supreme Court to House floor” cbsnews.com 4/15/21)
It’s rich to complain about the “political” Supreme Court only when the decision doesn’t fit your desired outcome. The Supreme Court must stay true to the intent and meaning of the Constitution and our laws, not create new law based on the whims of popularity or Woke culture.
If the Supreme Court ruled based on popularity, we’d just need a poll to decide, right? Then we could reverse it easily later as opinions shift. Brilliant! Who needs a Supreme Court in your world?
The “will of the people” is properly with the law-making Congress, elected and replaced by us, The People. The “will of the people” does not reside in the judiciary.
We have to rely on the imperfect-but-better-than-any-other-option system that our Founders gave us. We’re even muddling along with a Justice who can’t say what a woman is
It has nothing to do with populism. What you say is not true. The Supreme Court added “absolute immunity” to the law of the land. It wasn’t an interpretation of our Constitution. Not even attorneys have immunity in their lawyer/client privileges when the relationship allows a continuation of criminal behavior. The Trump Party that replaced the Republican Party would go crazy if our current President were to conspire with our Attorney General to alter the next election. There is no room in a constitutional democratic/republic for absolute immunity.
Doug – The Supreme Court was forced to rule on the issue of criminal liability for actions a President takes while in office due to the unprecedented lawfare conducted by Biden’s DOJ and progressive prosecutors against Trump. It’s the first time in our history that one President used the powers of the DOJ to bring criminal charges against a previous President (and chief rival in an upcoming election).
The Court’s decision only says that a President has immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts and duties of the office”. Conspiring with the Attorney General to alter an election is clearly not an official act or duty of the office. C’mon, man!
The ruling is based on legal precedent established in the 50-year-old Supreme Court case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which gave presidential immunity from civil liability for actions taken while in office. So the Court’s decision is based on a half-century of legal precedent, applied to criminal vs civil allegations.
It’s also based on common sense, as cited in the Nixon case. Presidents would be chilled from exercising the powers and duties of the office if the legal system were used against them for doing the job. Plus, we’d get tons more lawfare from political enemies, as we see today against Trump.
Here’s one practical example for you: On September 30, 2011, in the midst of US efforts to stop ISIS and radical islamists, President Barack Obama ordered a drone strike on American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Iraq. Al-Awlaki and one other American were killed, as were two more US citizens in other strikes. (Politifact “Four U.S. citizens killed in Obama drone strikes, but 3 were not intended targets”, 3/19/14)
Should Obama be tried as a murderer? Would he have decided to take these actions if he knew he’d likely face trial for it? I think the answer to both is NO, but you are apparently unable to see the consequences of what you and other progressives say you want. C’mon, man.
Civil liability is one thing. Criminal liability is another. Obama should be tried. If the evidence supports a President doing something seemingly criminal, dismiss the charges, or allow a prudent jury (probably of judges) to make a finding of not guilty. If not, maybe the President should have chosen a different course of action. There are such things as justifiable homicide. Being President is not supposed to be a party gig. It’s serious work, tremendous responsibility, and most likely detrimental to one’s health.
What’s amazing to me, is that people don’t care about the law of the land. Life would be much more simple for all if people simply tried to obey laws.
The Supreme Court was not forced to rule on the issue. It’s also a bold lie to state that the President used the powers of the DOJ to bring criminal charges against the previous President. The ruling is based on Nixon vs Fitzgerald? C’mon that case was immunity from civil liability, you know, a President getting sued by someone who got fired from his job. Read the case.
To equate civil liability to criminal liability shows your inexperience with the law. A refresher, in civil cases the aim is to compensate the victim or address the harm done, whereas criminal liability is intended to punish and deter criminal behavior.
As for the Awlaki case, look at the 2001 AUMF … or what they call the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed (at that time) to permit striking al-Queda post 9/11 and also to justify the investigation into Afghanistan. Basically, the operation you cite constituted a lawful conduct of war and was justifiable under international law (defensive use of force).
Thank you, Doon. Even if the Global War on Terrorism had not been executed, there was enough evidence on file first to try him In absentia and then take whatever action was justified. SWATs do it routinely with simple court orders or emergencies followed by appropriate investigations and hearings. A President has access to all kinds of evidence and justifications. One does not have to be a criminal to properly execute the office.
Doon – If it wasn’t the DOJ’s unprecedented pursuit of Trump for possessing documents from his time as President (as Biden and Clinton did), or for contesting election results (as Gore did), then what is the reason the Supreme Court took up the case? Just for giggles?
Civil and criminal liability are different paths to punish wrong-doing. Your claim that a civil lawsuit does not punish the accused shows you know nothing about our legal system.
Heck, some plaintiffs sue just to tie someone up in court and to cause financial and emotional harm. Read “The Process is the Punishment”, a book by Malcolm Feeley written 30+ years ago. That’s before the possibility of a judgment that bankrupts the accused. Yeah, no punishment there. C’mon, man.
You’re also wrong in your assertion that Obama faced no criminal legal jeopardy for murdering al-Awlaki, an American, by executing him without his Constitutional right to a trial. “18 US Code 1119 says that if an American kills another American overseas, that’s considered murder under US law. Anyone who does it can be tried in the same way as an American who murders someone inside US borders”. (“Obama’s legal argument for droning an American citizen without trial, explained” Vox 6/23/14)
Without Presidential immunity for official acts, Trump’s DOJ could have brought Obama up on murder charges under 18 US Code 1119 for killing al-Awlaki. You’d be screaming like a little school girl if that had happened, and I would also have opposed doing it for all the reasons the Supreme Court cited.
Your amateur legal eagle license is hereby revoked.
The bottom line is Obama presented legal sufficiency to have Awaki killed.
Awaki could have surrendered to the Government and defended against the charges against him but chose not to do so. Awlaki makes a good case study of why a President should not have absolute immunity. See U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Civ. A. No. 10-cv-1469 (JDB). One may consider Awaki was tried In absentia.
1. He was an American citizen. Our laws state one cannot kill an American citizen even when the citizen is overseas.
2. After considerable investigation and DoJ legal research, he was determined to be a criminal.
3. Through proxy, the court was petitioned for relief of charges against him, alleging the President, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the CIA did not have legal sufficiency to prosecute him.
4. The court upheld the defendants’ legal sufficiency.
5. He was killed.
Now, if a President has absolute immunity, he could order the killing without legal considerations, making killing an easy decision without being subjected to questioning. Why would you give a guy absolute immunity after he demonstrates no remorse after several felony convictions?
“What is the reason the Supreme Court took up the case? Just for giggles?” Humpty Dumpty asked them to!
Doug – Your argument fails because you fail to show why Obama couldn’t have been charged with murder without the presidential immunity FOR OFFICIAL ACTS you whinge on against here. There was no “trial in absentia”, so he easily could have been put on trial.
Obama may have been acquitted at trial, but the point is, without immunity for official actions he would be forced to spend his time and fortune on defending himself. The process is the penalty.
And future Presidents would think twice, and may not take the right action for fear of being tried by his political rival after he left office, looking at what Obama (theoretically) went through.
That’s what Dems have done by corruptly using the legal system against Trump. Trump will have his Manhattan “conviction” thrown out on appeal for any of a number of legal and judicial missteps, but the damage is done.
I’m looking past today at the awful precedent Dems have unleashed. Trump may be the next president, he might not. But the “legal warfare” genie in politics is out of the bottle, and we are a lesser country because of it.
Humpty Dumpty and the gang could have charged Obama with murder. As far as I know, they could until SCOTUS made the absolute immunity ruling. But, would the case have gone anywhere? It seems Obama had legal sufficiency to have Awaki killed.
Nothing wrong with legal warfare until such times it either fails to reduce corruption (deter, just like criminal prosecution should do for all of us) or corruption does not take place because people act with integrity. Not now.
As you said you vote platforms. I vote people.
“Packing the Supreme Court,” now there is an interesting conjecture for you. Is there no memory of the 2016 Senate Majority Leader (Republican) blocking confirmation of a lawful President’s nomination of a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia? But, as one might say, that was in a Presidential election year and the American people deserved to decide on who would become the next President and therby nominate a more relevant candidate for Supreme Court Justice. That may go back too far into history for some. How about the Senate Majority Leader (Republican), just 35 days before the 2020 Presidential election, hastily moves to confirm the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg? It’s not the Democrats who are trying to pack the Supreme Court. The guilt falls on us, for electing people without integrity. We continually point to the splinter in our opponent’s eye while we have a log in our own.
Doug – You are mistaken about “court packing” and Democrats’ efforts to do it. I’ll help you.
“The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, frequently called the “court-packing plan”, was a legislative initiative proposed by (Democrat) U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.” (Wikipedia)
It’s also current Democrats who are pushing this: “Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus renewed their calls to pass legislation to add four members the the court, which would bring the total number of justices to 13…” (Democrats Push For Court-Packing After Controversial Supreme Court Rulings: Why The Proposal Is Likely Doomed, Forbes 7/5/23)
Even Joe Biden, in a moment of lucidity before he flip-flopped on the issue, sees this for what it is: “… in a subsequent interview on MSNBC, (Biden) said that expanding the number of justices could “politicize it maybe forever in a way that’s not healthy.” (Forbes 7/5/23)
It’s Democrats who want to make the Supreme Court just another political body, like the Senate or the House, rather than its Constitutional function as the interpreter of the law as written, not as what current fads or Woke culture warriors want.
Penny – You are being a bit disingenuous here, and you are better than this argument. No President of either party and no plank in either party platform has called for expanding the Supreme Court since the 1930s. Citing the wishes of a more extreme, minor group of Democrats proves nothing. Extreme groups from the right and left frequently propose policies that are not representative of their party and have no chance of being realized.
Mr. Tucker’s example of unfairness in Senate approval of Supreme Court nominees is appropriate because the senior senator from Kentucky changed the rules in the middle of the game. And now we see the quid pro quo as these new Supremes give near blanket immunity to their appointer.
The mere suggestion that our current Supreme Court is somehow apolitical is ludicrous. Their new motto should be: “Here’s the answer, now what’s the question.”
To temper things, the Constitution establishes a Supreme Court, but the Constitution also leaves it to Congress to determine the details of this judicial branch, including its size. Has it always been nine (9)? No, it has varied several times (6x) in its short 235-year history from a high of ten (10) to a low of six (6).
Using your own words (2 cents) of a “representative republic,” how is it that today’s Supreme Court configuration and certainly its mindset, is it currently reflecting the will of the people within this republic? The Court’s approval rating is at near-record lows (43%) and with no term limits in sight. Yet some do not invite any change at all (or discussion) despite our Constitution that allows for it. Now is that constitutional?
The supreme court should not be deciding the will of the people but rather the law as it was written and its constitutionality. Most liberal court jurists view the law as what it should be, most conservative courts view the laws as how it was written. It is up to the legislature to reach a compromise to reflect the will of the people in the laws that they create framed in the limits placed on it by constitution.
Both liberal and conservative Supreme Court jurists are activists who write new laws. Can anyone really believe that the founders thought forward to multinational corporations’ free speech rights when the 1st Amendment was adopted? Yet, we have Citizen’s United that relied on absolutely nothing any originalist could identify historically. There are many others (e.g., Heller). The latest, of course, is presidential immunity which has no historical support whatsoever.
I admit that liberal jurists are just as likely to create laws from the bench, but it is prevalent on both sides of the aisle.
Little Trey writes a whole letter defending a president who willfully and repeatedly attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election while claiming to champion respect for the Constitution.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Like a RICO level conspiracy to elect and conceal a brain dead president for 4 years?
Hi Jack – Then bring on the indictments and impeachment proceedings if you have a case. The G.O.P. has a majority in the House and could impeach 46 today.
If there is a case, I’d like to see it.