Trump to Constitution: Drop Dead

By Todd Lassa

Donald J. Trump last weekend claimed the United States as his very own banana republic by calling for suspension of the Constitution so he could be reinstated as president, because, you know … the Big Lie.

In case you missed it, this is what he said (via Politico) on his Truth Social site (as Elon Musk awaits his return to Twitter): “A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

Wonder whether it was one of Trump’s star attorneys who suggested it was within his right to call for ditching the Constitution? Or perhaps the advice came from antisemite Ye, white supremacist Nick Fuentes and/or far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopolis (who has just departed Ye’s 2024 presidential bid according to the Daily Beast – the campaign for which the artist formerly known as Kanye West wants Trump to be his running mate).

“Republicans are going to have to work out their issues with the former president and decide whether they’re going to break from him and return to some semblance of reasonableness,” said incoming House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY), “or continue to lean into the extremism, not just of Trump, but Trumpism.” (PBS News Hour.)

One might also wonder what constitutional originalists on the right think of Trump’s call for “termination” of rules, regulations and articles found in the Constitution.

GOP lack of reaction to Trump’s latest comments so far rival the party leadership's lack of their reaction to his dinner with Ye, Fuentes and Yiannopolis. ABC News This Week host George Stephanopoulos on Sunday had to press Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH) for his comments on the Truth Social post.

Joyce, chairman of the Republican Governance Group said, “It’s early. I think there’s going to be a lot of people in the primary … I will support whoever the Republican nominee is.”

At first glance, the defeat of many Trump-backed candidates in the midterms, and then the notorious Mar-a-Lago dinner two weeks later have been hailed as a voter affirmation of American democracy. Even the New York Post was ready to write the obituary for Trump’s political career as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis emerged as the new darling of the hard-right wing. But the inability of such GOP leaders as Rep. Kevin McCarthy and Sen. Mitch McConnell, topped by Joyce’s comments on This Weekhave kept Trump’s future alive and well. According to Politico, latest polls show the ex-president remains the most likely 2024 GOP nominee.

_____
COMMENTS: editors@thehustings.news

Angels & Delirium

By Stephen Macaulay

In a paper published in AI & Society, Natasha Lushetich writes, in part, “Apart from shedding light on the rift between the realm of ideality and materiality and corporeality, characteristic of the two-world theory derived from Western metaphysics (Nishitani 1991), this paradox also sheds light on human inability to process complexity as multiplicity, collapsed orders of magnitude, virtuality and/or vertiginous speed.” Lushetich is referring to Medieval thinkers facing the paradox of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

While you might begin to wonder whether you’ve happened to stumble upon a page that isn’t The Hustings as you thought it was or that somehow I’ve managed to, well, stumble, a moment of patience.

The angels paradox generated, as it were, lots of heat and very little light. Aquinas et. al disputed and debated what the answer is. Or could be. Or should be. Or might be.

Or. . . .

Arguably this scholastic exercise was something that we might consider to be not much more than quibbling — the status of the Medieval thinkers involved in trying to answer it. It was a place where there was an intersection of belief and intellectual precision. (Given that Lushetich’s paper was published in 2021, it is clear this is still something that is relevant in certain intellectual niches.)

Donald Trump posts on the ironically named “Truth Social”:

"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"

One could quibble. One could note his bizarre syntax. One could point out that he continues to maintain something for which there is no evidence (on Truth Social, no less).

There are far too many people who continue to attempt to dance on the head of a pin when it comes to chastising Trump while simultaneously staying in his favor.

“No, he shouldn’t have had a dinner date with a Nazi sympathizer and a white supremacist, but damn, doesn’t he look good?”

Let’s not try to be too clever by half, to be delicately epistemological about all this.

The former president of the United States is saying there should be the ending of the Constitution because he is the “RIGHTFUL WINNER” of an election he didn’t win.

This is the Presidential Oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Protect and defend, not end.

Anyone who believes in the idea and ideal of America can no longer support Donald Trump. Sure there are people who like some of his ideas or some of his accomplishments, but the individual who is publicly taking this decision is clearly not playing by the rules that have been the guiding principles of this country.

It doesn’t take a Medieval philosopher to attempt to figure this out. There is no complexity. No multiplicity. No several things to hold in one’s mind simultaneously.

It is plain and simple, not in the least bit paradoxical. Trump wrote it. Clearly he believes it. And a man who wants to overthrow the Constitution of the United States is someone who clearly does not have the best interests of the commonweal in mind.

_____
COMMENTS: editors@thehustings.news

AG Garland on the Kansas Abortion Law Amendment

Once again, the pollsters had it wrong, as did the strategists. Kansas voters last Tuesday in a referendum rejected an amendment that would have removed the right to abortion from the state’s Constitution, by a decisive 61% to 39%. It seems we witnessed an outbreak of democracy. Let's hope it's a new trend.

Both sides of the aisle have got it wrong by relying on the courts. The Constitution above all supports voters to determine how they will be governed -- We the People. The First Amendment is also apparently in play here.

Click on The Gray Area for U.S. Attorney Gen. Merrick Garland’s remarks Wednesday to the Reproductive Rights Task Force.

--Ken Zino

•••

Left's Turn?

Time to rethink the One China policy? Enter your comments in this column or the right column, or email editors@thehustings.news.

Scroll down this page to read about last Tuesday’s primary races, including the stunning vote to reject a change in Kansas’ Constitution that could have led to stricter abortion laws.

Scroll further to read about Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, New York Post and Fox News stepping away from Donald J. Trump.

Coverage, analysis and commentary on the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol insurrection are on Pages 2-6.

_____

Primary Returns

(WED 8/3/22)

Arizona ... A deeper shade of red leads the GOP primary for governor, where Donald J. Trump's pick, Kari Lake beat former Vice President Mike Pence's choice, Karrin Taylor Robson, whose campaign website platform leads off with "Finish The Wall." Lake has 46.2% to Robson's 44.4% as of Wednesday morning, with six more candidates, including three write-ins, all in single-digits. (Per The New York Times and Ballotpedia.) Lake will face Democratic nominee Katie Hobbs in November. In the GOP primary to challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, Trump-endorsed Blake "Make America Safe Again" Masters took 35% of the vote, to Jim Larson's 30.4% and Mark Brnovich's 20%, plus four other candidates each under 10%.

•••

Kansas, Missouri, Michigan … In the first such post-Roe v. Wade challenge, Kansas voters rejected an amendment that would remove the right to abortion from the state’s Constitution, by a resounding 61% to 39%, The New York Times reports. Voter turnout for the state’s primaries hit a new record, according to MSNBC. …

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt beat second-place finisher Vicky Hartzler and former Gov. Eric “RINO Hunter” Greitens in the state’s GOP primary to replace retiring Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, Associated Press reports. By 10:30 p.m. Central time Schmitt had 41.5% to Hartzler’s 24.6% and Greitens’ 20.8%. One thing you can count on is that Schmitt will have turned out to be the Eric that Trump endorsed. …

Freshman Rep. Peter Meijer, one of 10 Republicans who voted for Donald J. Trump’s second impeachment, was leading and expected to win the GOP primary for Michigan’s 3^rd House District, edging Trump-endorsed candidate John Gibbs, 50.6% to 49.4%, according to MSNBC. ….

UPDATE: Trumpian Gibbs edged out Meijer for the win in the close Michigan race.

Also in Michigan, District 11 Rep. Haley Stevens beat District 9 Rep. Andy Levin, 60% to 40% for the Democratic primary for the 11^th District, per Ballotpedia. The two were forced to face each other due to redistricting. …

And in the GOP primary for Michigan’s governor, conservative commentator, businesswoman and Trump endorsee Tudor Dixon easily beat Ryan Kelley, who pleaded not guilty to misdemeanors in the January 6 Capitol riot, and three other Republican candidates. Dixon will face popular and controversial Democratic incumbent Gretchen Witmer in November.

--Todd Lassa

_____
COMMENTS: editors@thehustings.news

An Appeal to Reason, and Reasonable Gun Control

By Andrew Boyd

First off, I’d like to suggest we set aside absolutism in order to have a meaningful discussion around gun rights. There are few if any ways in which appeal to absolute rights are useful. We have the right to free speech, but it has its limitations, most notably the incitement of violence. I have some problems with that one, in that speech of one does not equate to action of another, and people with agency (that is, people), are responsible for their actions as individuals, but I can understand the argument for such a constraint. Collectivism or socialism is another hot one. In reality, we practice collectivism in many areas of law, regulation and economic cooperation. The argument revolves around how much collectivism and at what cost to liberty.

Such is the debate around gun control. Few people will argue that the Second Amendment prevents the government, the collective, from placing constraints on the individual. You can’t own a tank, a missile, a bazooka, or a mortar. These are arms, but not something that, collectively, we feel would be of net benefit to the polity in the hands of private citizens. So, the right to bear arms does not appear to be absolute as we practice it today.

Second, let’s abolish terms that serve no purpose but to obfuscate, namely “military-style assault weapons.” No one has ever made a reasonable attempt to define these terms. An AR-15 is a military-style weapon in aesthetics only. It’s one of hundreds of types of semi-automatic long rifles that offer the same levels of lethality to the user, regardless of their appearance. It does not have selectable burst or fully-automatic fire, as does an M-14 military rifle. If you want to ban the AR-15 on any objective standard, you’re banning all semi-auto long rifles. If that’s your poison, so be it. A bolt-action rifle is plenty good for hunting. What about semi-automatic single action handguns, whose lethality is not so much different given a bullet of similar caliber? Yes, less velocity and long-range accuracy, but more easily concealed.

What about capacity, then? We can decide on capacity limits as a function of lethality, which seems not all that intrusive to me. Six, eight, 10? Somewhere in there is fine with me. My line, as pertains to 2A, is my capacity to mount a defense against a home invader. My Glock 17 with single stack magazine, holding eight rounds, and the capacity to exchange magazines with relative alacrity is sufficient to me, as is my Remington 12-gauge shotgun with a seven-shell capacity.

As to the rules for buying a gun, I’m all for criminal background checks and the closing of any loopholes that allow the avoidance of same. And if you want a federal gun registry, that also doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to me. I’ll go further and suggest it wouldn’t be a terrible thing for someone purchasing a gun to have demonstrated some level of proficiency in handling, safety and use, much like we require with a driver’s license.

Will any of that substantially reduced incidents of gun violence? I don’t think so. Will it reduce the capacity of individuals to protect themselves and their property? Also, not substantially to my mind. So, will it have changed anything? I’m afraid not, but I’m prepared to accept these as reasonable constraints on my Second Amendment rights. Is that enough from the leftist perspective? I can’t really answer that definitively, but I suspect that what the left is really aiming for is the complete abolishment of guns held legally, and that I feel is only giving criminals greater freedom to steal, rape, maim and kill.

Add in defund or defang the police, unsubstantiated claims of systemic and widespread racial animus in policing, and the selective application of red-letter law, as I believe we’re seeing now in the investigative and prosecutorial actions of law enforcement with respect to the awful, terrible January 6 Capitol Hill incursion and the BLM/Antifa summer of mayhem, and you’re getting perilously close to a hill I’m prepared to die on.

Leftists must decide on what principals they stand, as must we all.

_____
Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

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.

The New Boss

By Stephen Macaulay

When people get new jobs, and they happen to be at upper management or executive positions, they like to change things to make it more in line with how they do things. For example, I once had a new boss who detested paper clips and demanded that everything be stapled. While that seems like not a big deal, it surely was to those who had spent years accumulating paper clips.

So imagine what happens when you become the President of the United States and have the ability to do things somewhat more substantive than determining when breaks can be taken or expense reports filed or whether transoceanic trips can be flown in Economy Comfort rather than steerage. New bosses have lots of power.

Joe Biden is the new guy. He wants to do things his way. After all, he did win the election. (Guess I might have stuck “Spoiler Alert” at the beginning of this paragraph.) One of his biggest priorities is to reverse the Trump administration’s harsh initiatives that put restrictions on immigration.

Recently departed President Trump tried to prevent counting non-citizens in the 2020 Census. As a result, the Trump administration has delayed the census count past its Constitutionally mandated due date. While it may seem odd, not counting non-citizens violates Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Yeah, that Constitution. The resulting delay of the count past the Census Bureau’s December 31 deadline also means state Electoral College vote numbers and House of Representative districts cannot be apportioned.

Another Biden administration executive order also ends the “Muslim” travel ban. This called for restricted travel and immigration from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia Yemen, Eritrea, Nigeria, Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, and Tanzania. Not specifically a “Muslim” travel ban, it was one with a wink. Do you think that were there not such a restriction, people from those countries would have been at the Capitol in numbers on January 6?

Biden’s easiest EO puts a hard stop to building The Wall. According to FactCheck.org, as of late December 2020, of the 438 miles of the “border wall system” built under the Trump administration, “365 miles of it. . .is replacement for primary or secondary fencing that was dilapidated or of outdated design. In addition, 40 miles of new primary wall and 33 miles of secondary wall have been built in locations where there were no barriers before.” My math has it at 73 miles. Given the number of times that Trump mentioned The Wall you might imagine there’d be more. There isn’t. There was a lot that was said during the past four years that was Fake News. Much of it from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Spoiler alert: Trump lost Pennsylvania in 2020.

***

Other first-day executive orders:

100 Days Masking Challenge. With over 403,952 dead of COVID-19—no, it didn’t “just disappear”—let’s stop making this partisan. Viruses don’t vote. So asking all Americans to wear a mask and for enforcement on federal properties, it is an acknowledgement that it is still a massive problem—a fatal, massive problem.
Create the Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense. Remember when Trump was whining about how Obama dealt with the 2014 Ebola epidemic? Well this position was created by Obama, and like many things done by that administration, eliminated by the Trump administration. How did that work out? See above.
Rejoin the World Health Organization. Maybe it was snowed by China. And if we’re talking about being snowed: remember the chest thumping after the U.S. China Phase One trade agreement was put into effect? According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, through November 2020, “China’s year-to-date total imports of cover products from the United States were $86.9 billion, compared with a prorated year-to-date target of $153.8 billion. Over the same period, U.S. exports to China of covered products were $82.3 billion, compared with a year-to-date target of $141.7 billion.” That’s one hell of a dealmaker. As for the WHO specifically: viruses don’t carry passports. They get fought globally. Or they do far more damage than they otherwise would.
Extend eviction and foreclosures moratoriums. This is a multiagency lift. Had the pandemic been addressed early on, perhaps this wouldn’t be necessary. It wasn’t. This is.
Pause student loan payments until September 30. Again, see previous.
Rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. If Ford Motor Company — a major U.S. corporation that sells hundreds of thousands of pickup trucks every year—thinks climate change is real and that the Paris Accord is worthwhile, isn’t it?
End the Keystone XL pipeline. Check the price of gas at your local station. The Biden administration also wants to reverse the decisions that turned over what had been national monuments in places like Utah and Maine to development. Seriously: Once they’re developed they’re done.

—–

Dangerous Fiction

By Stephen Macaulay

“We’re going to win this election in a landslide.”

Yes, you know who said that. But you probably don’t know when he said it: Not before November 3. Not November 3. Not the following several days.

No, Donald Trump said that December 10, 2020, at a Hanukkah event at the White House.

A landslide.

If that doesn’t scare the hell out of all of the people who continue to carry his water, then there is something wrong with them. Doesn’t reason matter?

This absurdity really needs to stop.

This is dangerous. Dangerous to our democracy. Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter to her Democratic peers that the 126 House Republicans who signed on to the Texas attorney general-led effort to have the Supreme Court reverse the results of the election—which the Court rejected--an action that is tantamount to “subverting the Constitution,” this isn’t something that just Democrats need to take to heart: Anyone who has an American flag flying from their porches need to understand that these efforts to undermine what has been part of the fabric of this country since 1789, when the first presidential election was completed (the election was held from December 15, 1788 to January 10, 1789: were those House Republicans around back then, one wonders how apoplectic they would have been about that) are unacceptable.

Meanwhile, Trump is purportedly working harder than ever on what I would call a Quixotic quest except that it would besmirch Cervantes.

But there are other things going on. For example, on December 10 unemployment numbers for the previous week came in: new claims of 853,000.

And as for the big picture, there were some 19-million unemployment claims (week ending November 21, the most recent figures).

What’s more, what’s worse, is that on December 10 the CDC Tweeted: “As of December 7, national forecasts predict that 12,600 to 23,400 new #COVID19 deaths will be reported during the week ending January 2. These forecasts predict 332,000 to 362,000 total COVID-19 deaths in the United States by January 2.”

So what is the current occupant of the White House doing? Is he talking about the economy? Is he laying out a plan to help reduce the massive unemployment that has been a consequence of COVID-19, the virus that was supposed to have “just disappear[ed]” months ago?

Is he providing the sort of spiritual leadership that has been the role of presidents, to provide solace for the loss of life? Know that on December 10, there were 290,000 Americans who were lost to COVID-19. By December 14, the count had topped 300,000.

And he treats himself like a victim.

There is a lot of talk about the 74-million people who voted for Trump. There is less discussion of the 290,000+ who have died and their families. What has he done, or is he doing, for them?

What seems to be forgotten in all this is that he is operating on our dime. He is working for us. If you were working and spent all of your time pissing and moaning about how you were being overlooked and underappreciated, you’d probably find yourself in the category of the aforementioned unemployed statistics.

You are paid to do your job. If you don’t do it, well, in the words of you know who: “You’re fired!”

He’s not doing his job. He might as well leave right now. Pence hasn’t exactly been overworked the last four years, unless one counts trying to come up with tortured excuses for his boss. And this would provide the opportunity to give Trump a presidential pardon.

Funny thing about all of the talk of pardons. According to "Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary," the definition of pardon is: “To use the executive power of a governor or president to forgive a person charged with a crime or convicted of a crime, thus preventing any prosecution and removing any remaining penalties or punishments.”

Seems like he’s not just doing his job, but perhaps there is more to it. Or maybe that’s less.

—–

Texas AG’s Case was Legitimate

By Bryan Williams

I have always found the selective amnesia of people a curious thing. My wife will be the first to tell you I have selective amnesia (though I swear I don't recall she said this or that!), but I do remember big things. My high school band teacher was one of my favorites. He was fond of saying, “A short pencil is better than a long memory." The news is not written in pencil, but it is written online.

I still find it curious that Nancy Pelosi is outraged by the GOP signing on to the Texas Attorney General's (very creative) suit as subverting the Constitution. I hate to break it to the Speaker, but the whole purpose of sending lawsuits to the Supreme Court is to determine if they stand constitutional muster. Everyone has a right to her or his day in court no matter how specious or far-fetched the lawsuit may be. You gotta give Texas AG Paxton some points for creativity though. He had a point, whether or not voting in each state and the District of Columbia was conducted November 3 in a clean, legal manner. The Supreme Court said, "Nice try, but nope." What would have subverted the Constitution is not giving Paxton and 126 GOP members of Congress their day in court.

And here comes the "short pencil" part: Remember about four years ago when people within Barack Obama's government were spying on Trump and his incoming team using dubious legal means? Was that not a subversion of the Constitution? What about all the executive orders President Obama signed? Is that not a subversion of the Constitution, and even of the very power Pelosi wields in the House?

I don’t think the most die-hard liberal, or Joe Biden supporter would assume there could be absolutely no election fraud in 2020, considering the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots in such an atypical year. Rules for signature verification on ballots varies widely from county to county, and the United States has over 3,000 counties.

Do I wish Mr. Paxton had tried a different tactic? Yes. I’m not a lawyer, but I think he should have asked the Supremes to rule on signature verification consistency, and how the lack of such consistency affected his state’s voters’ rights.

Was he trying to subvert the Constitution? I don't think he believes he was, nor do I think the GOP House members who signed on believe they were. I wish people would be more careful with their language. Pelosi's subversion comment was hyperbole. But what else would we expect in a year like this? Keep those pencils sharp, and short.

—–

Of Time, Bells & Meaning

By Stephen Macaulay

In 1787 Paul Revere opened a bell foundry in Boston. In addition to things like copper spikes and bolts that were used for shipbuilding, Revere cast his first bell in 1792. One of them was produced for the USS Constitution. During the War of 1812, the bell was put out of commission by a British ship, HMS Guerriere.

(For those of you who have forgotten their American history classes, the War of 1812 pitted the U.S. against the United Kingdom, which would seem unthinkable today as the U.K. is now one of our closest allies—well, given the way the current administration has treated our closest allies, maybe it isn’t so unthinkable. Anyway, during this war the U.K. and Native Americans were on the same side; the U.S. tried to get chunks of Canada; the Brits burned the White House. Again, much of this seems bizarre, but things were different 208 years ago. Hang on to that thought.)

While Revere’s bell foundry is somewhat obscure, it is worth noting that in 1787 the U.S. Constitution was signed.

According to the official White House website, “The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times.”

Which is germane because it is clear from this that the founders didn’t think that what they had created was carved in stone tablets.

Even the White House understands that. Things change. Even words.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has described herself as a “constitutional originalist” and that she takes a textualist approach to the law.

During the hearings for her appointment to the Supreme Court, Lindsay Graham, a former JAG lawyer (there is no evidence that he, like Harmon Rabb, suffers from night blindness, although he seems to be vexed by a tendency to behave as a presidential lickspittle), asked Judge Barrett what all that means in a way that could be understood.

She replied, "So in English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it."

She added, "So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it."

“The meaning doesn’t change over time.”

Really?

So the words as written in 1787 have the same meaning as they do today? Back when Paul Revere was casting bells?

Let’s look at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which is important vis-à-vis the recent decision regarding the U.S. census as this is where taking the census every 10 years came from:

“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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.”

Note how there seems to be a randomized capitalization of words. Presumably were one to write that way on one a paper submitted to Judge Barrett when she was teaching they would have been in a World of Hurt because We don’t capitalize Nouns Nowadays.

What’s more, there is the word “Persons” not “citizens” (or Citizens). There are Persons counted as fractions (or Fractions).

And meaning doesn’t change over time?

Macaulay is a cultural commentator based in Detroit.

—–