Why I Am a Secessionist

I am a secessionist because, while other people in These States are trying desperately to save the Union and preserve the American democratic system of government, I believe it is possible to do neither.

Under Donald Trump, the United States has become more of a pariah country than ever before, and it has forfeited so much goodwill and trust in its international commitments that, even if a Democratic President were to be elected in 2028 - highly unlikely, given the way everything is going - returning to the status quo ante is out of the question.  As I said before, if we tried to rejoin any international agreements after Trump is gone, whenever that is, they won't want us back.  

Meanwhile, Elon Musk and his minions have successfully dismantled the federal government to the point where there's not much of a government left.  And despite the unpopularity of these cuts, Trump and Musk have already made it clear that these cuts are permanent (except for when they need to rehire people they shouldn't have fired), and there's nothing anyone can do about it.  There is no appeal against a Trump or Musk decision.  Trump wouldn't be doing any of this if he didn't think he could get away with it.

But the fact that Trump himself is in power is the best reason for states to secede and possibly bring about the dissolution of the Union into roughly a dozen countries is enough to a reason to be for secession.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says quite clearly that people who take part in an insurrection or rebellion are not permitted to hold government office, and yet here we are, with the White House under the control of an indicted insurrectionist . . . and a convicted felon.  The Fourteenth Amendment also provides for due process and says all Americans are equal under the law.  Donald Trump observes none of these sections of the Fourteenth Amendment.  He also has violated restrictions on the executive branch, and he has restricted free speech in numerous areas, such as on college campuses while trying to suppress a free press, as evidenced by his efforts to silence CBS News in general and "60 Minutes" in particular.  

Donald Trump has damaged the constitutional system of government beyond repair.  The United States is not able to continue.  The country is too big and it has too many differences between states and regions to allow co-existence.  To respond to the inevitable point that secession itself violates that Constitution,  I say this: Trump has repeatedly violated the Constitution and has always gotten away with it.  If his actions are not seen as unconstitutional, then nothing is unconstitutional!       

And that is why I support secession.  I believe that Democratic states like New Jersey  must leave the Union and possibly seek a new federation with likeminded states in the American Northeast that, mindful of the flaws in the U.S. Constitution, could start over with a newer republican government.  Do not try to save the Union.  It's over. 

Rocky Mountain High!

And the Colorado Rocky Mountain high . . . 

I've seen it raining karma in the sky.

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that, because Trump instigated the insurrection against the certification of the 2020 presidential election in Congress, he cannot appear on the ballot for President in the primary election in the Centennial State in 2024.  Because Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says so:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." 

The Republicans are short by about seventy votes in the House and there's no way in hell that they can get 67 votes in the Senate.

Oh yeah, the U.S. Supreme Court has to weigh in and will get the final say.  Well, all originalists on the highest court in the land . . . if you believe that original intent of the framers rules the day, you have to rule against Trump!

And have a good time doing it. 😂

Union Rules

President Obama gave his 2011 State of the Union address tonight, and while I thought the speech was well-delivered and also measured in terms of what the United States needs to do to regain its edge, it wasn't exactly the rousing call to action I thought it might be. He was very specific in stressing the need for support for economic opportunity, education, and rebuilding infrastructure, and he declared the fact that Americans are falling behind as a wake-up call comparable to Sputnik. It didn't energize me to action, though. It only made me satisfied that he knows what needs to be done. Still, the spirit of cooperation seemed pretty genuine, if only because the attack on Gabrielle Giffords continues to reverberate among members of Congress.

Obama made it clear that he wants to push ahead to create jobs and get spending under control, and he threw in a few zingers - suggesting an end to tax breaks for oil companies, for example. The only problem, of course, is that he faces a Republican House that doesn't want to meet him halfway on anything. Representative Paul Ryan's official response for the Republicans - specifically on health care reform - was more incendiary than conciliatory. He hinted that vital social programs ought to be destroyed. He didn't suggest anything he might support Obama on. And, of course, he wrapped himself in the Constitution and the aura of the Founding Fathers.

At least Ryan, a congressman from Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, seems to know a thing or two about history - unlike Michele Bachmann, the undistinguished not-so-gentle woman from Minnesota, who is giving a Tea Party response. Bachmann recently praised the Founding Fathers, particularly John Quincy Adams, for ending the scourge of slavery.

The Founding Fathers, of course, not only did not end slavery, they counted slaves in the Constitution as three-fifths of a person - though they did end the foreign slave trade with the ratification of that document (it was abolished in 1808). And while she was right to praise Adams for working tirelessly to end slavery - I assume she saw Amistad - she kind of confused John Quincy Adams with his Founder father, John Adams.

Bachmann's easy victory over Tarryl Clark in her House district in the November election suggests that not only is she stupid, but so are her constituents.

Senate News

With Ted Kennedy's death, seven seats in the United States Senate have been or soon will be opened since the last election, mainly in the form of resignations. This is the highest number in sixty years. Some, like President Obama's seat, are scheduled to be filled by election according to the calendar already, but four of them will be require special elections. The Massachusetts seat requires one by January.

The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, turned the power to elect U.S. Senators over from state legislatures to the people. Before that, Senate candidates campaigned to get their would-be constituents to vote for their party's state legislative candidates. (It turns out that, had direct election by the people existed in 1858, Abraham Lincoln might have been elected to the Senate; although Stephen Douglas won re-election because the Democrats narrowly held on to control of the Illinois legislature, the Republicans actually won the popular vote.) Before 1913, governors always appointed people to fill the remainder of unexpired U.S. Senate terms; now special elections are constitutionally required, though the states are given the power to set them up and decide how to do so.

Massachusetts had allowed governors to make interim appointments before a Senate election, but the state changed the law in 2004 and barred the governor from doing so when it became likely that John Kerry would be elected President and Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, could appoint his interim replacement. Homophobes in Ohio and a videotape from a terrorist leader in a cave ruined Kerry's chances, but the law remained in effect. No one ever expected Ted Kennedy to die in office. Also, no one probably expected the Democrats to actually elect another governor in Massachusetts! (Deval Patrick was, in 2006, the first Democrat elected governor there in twenty years.)

So now Bay Staters have an empty Senate seat and Democrats are short a sixtieth vote in the middle of the health care reform debate- which is why Kennedy wrote to have that law changed, as previously noted here. In the meantime, there are in Congress bipartisan - yes, bipartisan - efforts to pass a constitutional amendment requiring and dictating the terms of special elections to be held in all cases of Senate vacancies, taking away that right from the states. Considering the unintended consequences of the situation in Massachusetts, that might not be a bad thing.