Tag: Congressional Republicans

Laws, Not Men

By Stephen Macaulay

The hand-wringing has been going on since, oh, about January 7, after Congressional Republicans, by and large, started thinking about their personal paychecks, which could be, they fear, taken away by Trump’s base. And so we begin to see the mewing about how the Trial of Donald Trump, the Sequel, will do nothing but tear the fabric of society still further.

Speaking of fabrics: that brings to mind the American flag. You know, that symbol of this country that was used by one of the insurrectionists at the Capitol on January 6 to beat a prone police officer.

MAGA, huh?

This country is predicated on principles. There is codification in the Constitution.

To paraphrase John Adams, this is a country of laws, not men.

And to quote someone who is probably more well recognized, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”

Did the man who said, on more than one occasion, “"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible," ever believe that he wasn’t above the law?

But he isn’t.

Like all presidents Trump swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” 

Article II, Section One, of the Constitution is about the Executive Branch. In it, it states, “The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

That day was January 6. The Congress was doing its Constitutional duty. 

And Trump, who had been claiming for months — even before the election was held —that it would be fraudulent, claims with not a scintilla of proof before or after, wasn’t having any of it.

Article II, Section One, also states, “The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed.”

So let’s see: Biden had the greatest number of popular votes. Biden had the greatest number of electoral votes.

Constitutionally he won the election.

So to go against that, didn’t Trump not “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”?

(Let’s not enter into some hypothetical where an election could be rigged and the wrong person wrongfully elected. Again, we are a country of laws, and so were there to be evidence that that happened, then it would be addressed. Rudy Giuliani waving his arms is not proof of anything.)

According to the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, “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.” (Emphasis added)

Clearly there was an “insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution of the United States on January 6, given that the elected representatives were in the Capitol performing their Constitutional duties.

Trump, having whipped up the crowd on January 6, told the assembled that “After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you.” That is walk down to the Capitol. He, of course, lied.

So they walked down. They broke into the Capitol. Some claimed that they were going to hang the Vice President of the United States.

And Trump said in a tweet (before his ability to tweet was rescinded due to his vague association with what most of us know as “truth”) to the throngs who were doing things like urinating and rubbing feces on the walls of the Capitol, “We love you, you’re very special.”

Sounds like “aid or comfort” to me.

Let’s not count the number of Republican senators who may vote to convict Trump.

Let’s count the number of elected officials who believe in the rule of law and who will uphold the Constitution of the United States.

If they give this a pass because they think it will cause more division, then isn’t that just giving in to the people who have broken the law?

—–
Click on News & Notes for details of the impeachment article against former President Trump.

With COVID Relief Still Under Debate, Where Do We Go from Here?

By Nic Woods

President Donald Trump signed late Sunday evening the omnibus funding package, including $900 billion in coronavirus relief that Congress passed last week after denouncing the $600 relief checks to taxpayers as “disgraceful.”

The amount – $600 – is paltry, but so is the $2,000 Trump and Democrats in the House of Representatives sought, but Congressional Republicans blocked. 

The $2,000 may have helped six months ago, but it is all too little now for the households that need it most.

The relief the bill claims to offer does not make up for lost wages from closed businesses and, for those facing eviction, $2,000 is only a drop in a bucket that has grown larger for months. For small businesses that have really taken a hit (many of which were never able to receive funds in the first round “stimulus” bill) any relief may come too late to delay the inevitable. 

Many iconic places across the nation have already closed for good.

While an abomination, but also an opportunity for discourse that should happen post-COVID, along with health care, separating life security from job security is a conversation long overdue. If anything, the pandemic has shown what our country looks like when unfettered capitalism fails us all.

Because the “invisible hand of the market” does not work if supply and demand are as out of whack as they have been since March. As Harvard Business School economist Michael Luca told The New York Times back in October, “if a market is not safe, people won’t participate in it.” 

So COVID-19 has only exacerbated a process that has been occurring for much of the past 50 years. Secure, well-paying jobs with benefits were going the way of the dodo bird prior to 2020. Now service jobs – which have become a pillar of our economy, but also tend to require close contact – are in deep trouble. Retail and hospitality will continue to suffer unless they can guarantee worker and customer safety, and even large companies that did well during the outbreak are shedding jobs. 

Even the gig economy, which so many have relied on to make ends meet until jobs open up, has become oversaturated, with more shoppers, personal assistants, delivery persons and drivers than individuals or companies that need them.

But one thing is for sure. People who are not used to living in full, constant survival mode are going to be increasingly disgruntled having to scrounge for food, shelter, and clothing while others are making out like bandits. And it is something we must start talking about, because it is not just affecting the working class anymore. In a global pandemic, everyone is affected. 

And money protects no one when only some have it and others don’t. So, to those who fear socialism? What if a little is necessary to save capitalism from itself and keep the destitute from aiming their pitchforks at your door?

Nic Woods dedicates this column to the memory of anthropologist, activist, and author David Graeber, who died Sept. 2. Graeber’s work laid the groundwork that inspired Woods to write the column.

—–