Madison defined Tyranny as:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” - James Madison
This follows the definition John Locke gave for tyranny.
Last night I was browsing twitter, trying to bore myself to sleep, and instead I ran into articles about people being grabbed off the street in Portland, Oregon. The first articles I thought someone was trolling me. Then I looked. And it really was going on! So I tweeted about it last night, and thought I'd write about it today, so I don't forget and because this is more serious than a lot of the other awful things going on right now. It is right up there with COVID-19. Indeed, since Portland is experiencing a COVID-19 upsurge, the fact that Homeland Security is sending in troops, not invited by Mayor or Governor, and with no rank, insignia or respect for rule of law, is very serious indeed. Instead of Trump sending in doctors and medical supplies, he is sending in troops to invade the city.
Officers with no badge or insignia are grabbing people in the dead of the night, throwing them into patrol cars, and their excuse is “antifa”.
This week the Supreme Court ratified Florida's poll tax on former felons, completely ignoring both the spirit and letter of the 24th Amendment!
Florida had barred felons who had served their time from voting. The state recently passed a constitional amendment stating:
“all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.”
Naturally the legislature passed a law “that required residents who have been convicted of a felony to pay all court costs, fees and fines before they can become eligible to vote.”
Since the court system doesn't seem to have any obligation to present a final bill to prisoners when they've done their time, this amounted to a poll tax, since there is no requirement that the courts not pile on additional fees (that amount to taxes) and in usual style, can turn a felon into a debt slave for years after they have done their time. Voting rights advocates sued, the first time on the grounds it discriminated against the poor, and the second time because such gratuitous fees and levies amount to a poll tax aimed at preventing the poor from voting. The district court noted these thingsf and also concluded:
“that because it could take years for the state to figure out how much residents with past convictions must pay to be eligible to vote, the law will discourage voters from registering at all, because they will be afraid that they will be charged with fraud if they make a mistake.”So being mistaken about whether one has paid the taxes or not would lead to further incarceration!
This was appealed on 24th amendment grounds and also matters of justice. The appeal was denied with no grounds cited. Obviously to prevent the constitutional amendment from actually helping most citizens it applies to by the 6/3 Republican Majority.
Sonya Sotomayor notes:
“This Court’s order prevents thousands of otherwise eligible voters from participating in Florida’s primary election simply because they are poor,”And
“And it allows the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to disrupt Florida’s election process just days before the July 20 voter-registration deadline for the August primary, even though a preliminary injunction had been in place for nearly a year and a Federal District Court had found the State’s pay-to-vote scheme unconstitutional.”This is another example of how the Conservative Judges interpret "due process" meaning "following the forms" and don't really care if either the spirit or the substance of the constitution is applied.
- Sources and Further Reading
- https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/sotomayor-blasts-supreme-court-for-upholding-florida-poll-tax-that-excludes-voters-simply-because-they-are-poor/
- Just as Bad:
- Barr Vs Lee
In an article titled: Post-Roger Stone: Ten ideas for repairing Trump’s justice system By Jennifer Rubin, She writes:
“President Trump granting clemency to his crony Roger Stone, who served as the go-between for the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, on practically the eve of Stone’s incarceration for multiple crimes attendant to his coverup on behalf of the president, is grotesquely corrupt but unsurprising.”
She notes that “Stone virtually confessed to a quid pro quo,” (To me he was boasting), telling Howard Fineman,
“He [Trump] knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.”
I don't think anyone with integrity doesn't feel that this wasn't a high crime and a misdemeanor.Rubin writes:
“Silence for clemency. A separate system of justice for the president’s henchmen. This is the very definition of corruption.”Former Candidate Romney put it baldly in a tweet:
"Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president." Link to TweetShe reports:
“By this action, President Trump abused the powers of his office in an apparent effort to reward Roger Stone for his refusal to cooperate with investigators examining the President’s own conduct,”She also reports how House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said in a written statement released Friday:
“No other president has exercised the clemency power for such a patently personal and self-serving purpose.”Actually, her hero George Herbert Walker Bush, exercised his clemency and pardon powers in 1992 for just such a patently corrupt and self serving cause when he pardoned the perps in the Iran Contra scandal. But what counts with Republicans is what they are doing now, so I can forgive past crimes as long as folks have seen the light. This post is about her suggestions for fixing the problems. I'm endeavering to analyze the problem by critiquing her suggestions. Most of them are obvious or things that were taken out of the law due to misuse or to protect the wrong people. Any reforms made should be based on firm Constitutional Grounds. And if that is not adequate, it might take a Constitutional Amendment.
In a research article published by Reuters: (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-misconduct/) They report on how too many judges at state and local level have been given immunity, impunity and passes to commit crimes themselves. Worse their victims have found it nearly impossible to get compensation or accountability when they've been clearly harmed by the behavior of the judges. The article sums itself as follows:
I agree entirely with the following:
"The senseless murder of George Floyd and other people of color, is a shame and an injustice. The violence generated by white supremacist and systematic racist prevents the building of a more perfect union. The consequences of the lack of corrective action by churches, corporations, civic and social organizations are a part of what must change. GABIDDC will not stand on the sidelines and be a part of silence that is deadly. We will soon asking you to attend our vitual meeting to create a plan of action for implementing chang. GABIDDC is a representative organization and public opinion directs our work. Stay tuned and continue for healing and positive change."
Black lives in DC matter.
GABIDDC
Governor Cuomo is calling for the reorganizing of our disjointed and dysfunctional health service into a National Health System.
This would necessarily include a National Health Service, public private partnerships, and a mix of reserve elements and active elements. A lot of people, including me, have seen the need for this for a long time, and so it is about time we begin taking the concept seriously.
A national system has to be organized under either the current National Guard or in parallel to it. The easiest way would be to add a Reserve Health Guard Militia to the National Guard Schema. The existing Uniform Health Service would be expanded. And Reserve Health Guard Officers trained using existing medical schools in country, of Citizens, in return for service according to uniform standards. These officers would then be used for emergencies, shortages, to serve the Naval and Land forces, and in deprived locations where market based healthcare fails. Once they had completed a term of active service they would remain either reserve officers or Auxilliary Reserve officers but be free to go into private practice.
Private doctors and healthcare companies would fall under the Reserve Health Service as Private Reserve Auxilliary "militia" members. Their entire companies could be called into service during emergencies. As a condition of their operating license, each company, institution, installation and provider would have to sign a contract with the National and State HealthCare Reserve and agree to meet readiness demands, in return for Federal compensation at a reasonable price when they are called into service or voluntarily serve emergency medical needs. They would have to meet federal and state standards.
Just in time supply would be supplemented by Emergency reserve capabilities. The scenario is that factories producing consumer coulds would have standbye protocols and equipment for rapid retooling to produce vital goods. Active duty Public Health Medical Logistics and forecasting Professionals would be able to create forcasts and requisition reserve supplies to meet those needs rapidly when called on. Congress should reconstitute the Pandemic Response institutions necessary for this.
The plans can be put into place and prepared in advance. Drills can be done. Food, Medicine, Health Care is as much a Security issue as weaponry and force of arms. Wars have been lost because armies were too sick to fight. Cuomo's recommendations are overdue. Universal healthcare does not mean we have to nationalize industry. It does mean that industry needs to remember they are part of a country and have duties as well as privileges. It does mean that profiteering and privateering, for private separate advantage, have no legitimate place in healthcare.
Chris Holte
Elections are, in essence, a judicial process where common citizens acting as voters, judge the fitness of candidates and elected officers to serve them. They need the power to:
These are judicial functions, but also personnel decisions. Election courts don't decide whether or not a person is guilty of crimes, but whether they are fit for the office the people are electing him or her to.
Because elections are a judicial process they should be run with best practices that embody the best and most appropriate judicial principles.
The role of the election court is to ensure that the hiring authority, we the people, oversee the appointing of officers, Governors, Presidents, legislators. The people deserve to know what they are getting into.
There are five sets of Stakeholders in an election.
All these stakeholders need to be represented in the process, which is why elections need to be run as if a court.
The required scrutiny, vetting and accountability, requires the election be run as a court would be run. A proper election court must involve all the stakeholders who have an interest in the outcome of that election. It is up to the hiring authority, thru elections to judge candidates and officers on their qualifications and accomplishment. To do that requires that the court include representation of the candidates, their factions and parties, and that they are able to argue their case. The Beauty of using election courts is that the judge and juries involved can verify and validate the claims made by the candidates and their factions.
We we need better election judging because currently "election judge" is often a misnomer. They need to behave like judges. That happens when they are prohibited from holding other office for the term of their office and beyond at least one term. It also happens when the local factions and candidates have a right to representation in the processes and events of the election. Representation of candidates in the court should be mandatory. The representatives should have a say in selecting the review panels that question candidates. The judge function should be limited and subject to agreement from stakeholders except on matters of law. Election Judges, through the the processes of the election court and the actual election, should have the power to enforce that these functions are done according to law but not to dictate outcomes or excert undue influence.
Every Candidate for a position of Trust, for elective or appointive office, should be vetted through an election court jury panel that includes the voters who stand to elect him or her. During Primaries the panels should be registered party members. During the general election, the pool of all registered voters. The purpose of these panels is to question candidates and investigators so that voters can judge the fitness for office of candidates and elected officers. The ultimate jury is the voters. The jury structures would serve the purposes of groups like the League of Women Voters or similar. They manage and develop information for scrutiny, vetting, debates. The panels would also rule on decisions made by election judges that are disagreed with by principles in the election (Candidates, factions, parties and their representatives).
The press is named and protected in the USA constitution for a reason. The reason is that elections require that ordinary people, who don't have time to be involved in elections full time, are kept informed. For that reason investigators and reporters need a license to investigate and report on candidates for office, and of elected officials seeking reelection and of the government offices they hold. This is a critical thing and needs to be resourced and funded by the public. The press should have a right to participate in elections in this role. They should be part of the election courts, questioning candidates and presenting information to voters.
When an election is scheduled, an election judge should stand up an election court for each phase of the election. Candidates should have to sign an agreement that their background be checked and scrutinized. The court can decide how much of the details of that information can be kept confidential, but the public should be informed of any past criminality or relevent scandal through the election jury panel.
As an entry point for running for office each Candidate for office should agree to be investigated and scrutinized then and at the end of their term should they win the election. Candidates for reelection should have the performance of their previous term investigated, scrutinized and reviewed by the "Election Jury" panel under guidance of representation and testimony of investigators. If they want to run for reelection this should be mandatory. If they are stepping down, it should be done anyway.
We have a duty to look into candidate finances, associations, criminal and civil history, just as if they were applying for a clearance for a public trust job. Because they are. They should also agree to end of term scrutiny.
This professional confidential review, should be done by a panel led by Election judge, with testimony by investigators and local reporters, some brought in by the Election judge, some by the interested Parties, including the candidate.
Those completing a term should have their performance reviewed and that review, with minority opinions represented entered into the public record after review by the panel. They work for "We the People."
Interested parties and local press should have the right to petition to be part of this panel as witnesses and observers. They should be sworn to confidentiality for the duration of the hearings. Violating that oath should be cause for ejection and bar from further participation for a term. But once the work is done, it should be public record.
All this would be under oath. Perjury would be referred to an ordinary court.
The product of this panel would be a report, which would be required to be a factual document allowing minority and majority opinions based on facts alone. The subject would be limited to fitness for office and background.
Disagreements on content would be referred to a jury of ordinary citizens using the voir dire process. Once all the panel, or jury, agree on the factual content of the report, it can be published and used in the election. Parts not agreed on in opinion, if they are factual, go to a minority report.
Election courts would be to use the same process of using experts and investigators for a review panel would look at elected officers at the end of their term, whether they run for reelection or not.
A free press is necessary to the health of our society because it has a role in the recording, vetting and accounting of what the government does. Reducing reporting to a clerical role destroys its power to check officials. In elective courts journalists would be required to do sensitive investigations, not release sensitive information until the proper time.
Journalists, investigators, jurors, Judges, all officers of the Election court should be sworn in as officers of the court. Their words should be considered under oath and penalty of perjury.
It is easy to get confused about the founders. They worked together to create the constitution, but North and South never really understood each other well. Philadelphia, Boston, and New York formed one axis. But the other axis stretched from Georgia to Virginia. They joined to fight the British. Without Unity, there would have been no United States and the States of the North would have gone from Colonies to neo-colonies and never escaped oppression. That unity was formed around economic, cultural and familial ties. But it also was formed around a willingness to embrace the concepts of Federalism, Democratic Republicanism, commonwealth and Democracy.
Some of those principles came from history and philosophers. But some of the sources were more intimate. Formal influences came from experience with the Dutch, the Swiss, Italian City States & Ancient Greece. They also came from enlightenment writers. But additional experience was informed by our own maritime history with piracy and privateering, conscription and militias. And our experience with neighbors like our own Indigineous.
The Indigenous practiced forms of Democracy and Federation, that may have influenced the formation of our country. Politifact quotes Jon W. Parmenter's The Edge of The Woods: Iroquoia, 1534-1701:
“It is highly probable that Anglo-Americans during the revolutionary era looked to Haudenosaunee governance as a model of a successful collective polity, and borrowed elements of Haudenosaunee practice in developing revolutionary American constitutional governments,”
Politifact also cites a speech given in 1744, by Canassatego, an Onondaga chief, to representatives from Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia at a treaty conference in Lancaster, Pa.:
“We heartily recommend Union and a good Agreement between you our Brethren,...Never disagree, but preserve a strict Friendship for one another, and thereby you, as well as we, will become the stronger. Our wise Forefathers established Union and Amity between the Five Nations; this has made us formidable; this has given us great Weight and Authority with our neighbouring Nations. We are a powerful Confederacy; and, by your observing the same Methods our wise Forefathers have taken, you will acquire fresh Strength and Power; therefore whatever befalls you, never fall out one with another.”
However, it wasn't Democracy that made the Iroquois so powerful it was the concepts of Federation. The viral meme about the Iroquois conflates Democratic, Republican and Federation principles. The “E Pluribus Unum” concept is what the Iroquois were talking about and what Benjamin Franklin and others was referencing with his famous and somewhat brutal quote that if the Iroquois:
“capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union," then the new nation of European origin should be able to as well.”
So the idea of Democracy was not central to the indigineous influence on our founders. They were worried about what happens when States start out in disunity; they go to war. Federation is about avoiding and mitigating conflict.
“The concept [of Federation is] based on peace and consensus rather than fighting."
I've found compelling evidence that Robert and Governeuer Morris were pirates. And Hamilton was not perfect either. But I've also found evidence they were nationalists, just as patriotic as the Southerners, abolitionists and wanted a unified nation not a confederacy. His work with Madison and Jefferson gave us a Strong nation that still survives.
Had we been a loose confederacy, the Civil war would have started sooner and never ended. Fractured states are subject to external predation, colonialism and neo-colonialism.
Hamilton wanted direct election of the President. He was able to stop the Congress from making the selection of the President by the State Governors or Congress, but the Electoral College was a compromise with Southern Politicians who did not want popular sovereignty.
He also gave us a strong independent judiciary, which has saved us, even when it has been somewhat corrupt at times. As we can see right now, a Judiciary subject to executive and legislature, in the hands of a corrupt factional legislation and executive, would be the death knell of our Republic.
The General Welfare clause has allowed our country to serve its people instead of its oligarchs.
And Morris was the loudest, and pretty much the solo, voice against slavery at the Convention. Had he been listened to we might have avoided the Civil War.
So these fellows, who in some ways were pirates, learned some of their appreciation for liberty from that. Robert Morris ran a pirate fleet during the Revolution. Like I said, pirates tended to be more democratic. Privateers, not so much. As I've noted before Thom Paine also learned something about democracy from crewing on Privateers. The ones that treated people fairly also operated more democratically -- and more like free pirate ships.
Just some thoughts from an article I've been reading.
I started this Post around June. I was listening to Representative Jerry Nadler, who heads the Judiciary Committee that would become an impeachment inquiry, and he was talking about "time constraints" and the difficulty of impeaching the President. It made me think, it really is difficult to impeach anyone. And that degrades the power of impeachment and attenuates its potential effectiveness. But:
The benefits of the House impeaching the President anyway are:
For this reason, impeachment articles are worth doing, even with the knowledge that they'll get to the Senate and be ignored or tabled. It is my belief that each Article should focus on one set of infractions, document the criminality and abuse of power and why they are reason for impeachment. The reason for separate articles is that they should result in separate prosecutions, changes in law and impeachment/prosecution of co-conspirators. I personally like the "Drip Drip of investigations" idea. There are at least 8 or 9 articles needed, by my count, and each of them embraces several to hundreds of counts. For more on this see:
Meanwhile this post addresses ideas for improving our antiquated process:
