Category Archives: James Madison

Part I: The faux grounds for Trump’s impeachment and his perfect defenses

The Dem’s have no statutory basis to demand Trump’s impeachment — and Trump has valid defenses to charges that his Ukraine dealings were an abuse of power.

This will be a two part post.  Part I deals with the law relating to impeachment.  Part II will deal with how the Senate should handle the trial of any Articles of Impeachment that come out of the House’s Star Chamber impeachment inquiry.

Introduction

Let’s assume for argument’s sake that the Democrats running the House’s Star Chamber impeachment inquiry do in fact come up with Articles of Impeachment.  What will they be?  And will the President have any affirmative defenses?

No less a legal and historical scholar than Maxine Waters claimed in 2017:

Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment. What the Constitution says is ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ and we define that.

If true, that would leave the President with no defense other than that the Democrats are wrong on the facts.  Thankfully, Waters is  wrong.  To the contrary, the parameters for impeachment are defined at law and, because of that, the Democrats face insurmountable obstacles in impeaching Donald Trump for any and all acts related to his July 25 phone call with President Zelenksyy of Ukraine.

First, the House cannot validly impeach Trump for using the same powers other presidents traditionally wielded. Thus, if it has been custom and practice for presidents to negotiate using foreign aid as a tool, then Trump’s doing so is similarly beyond a valid impeachment charge.

Second, the House cannot validly impeach Trump for asking a foreign power to aid him in the legitimate exercise of his constitutional authority. Leaving aside whether Trump might personally benefit from the investigation, no American citizen (even, theoretically, Hillary Clinton) is above the law. The fact that an election looms does not change that fact. In other words, Democrats cannot avoid criminal culpability by insisting that investigations are illegal as an election draws near.

The Law of Impeachment

The Constitution, Article II, § 6, states that impeachment is a remedy that can be used to remove “civil officers” for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Founders, writing a Constitution and not a hornbook, did not further define “high crimes and misdemeanors,” because they did not need to define it for it was a phrase well defined in British common law of the era.

Note: For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “common law” is nothing more than “judge made law,” as opposed to legislatively-created statutes. Past judicial decisions are looked to as for future decisions, a practice that, in 18th Century Britain, created most of the “law of the land” and defined many rights vested in British citizens.  Much of our Constitutional provisions and our rights as Americans come out of British law as it existed in 1787, and the “common law” is still an element of law in Britain and the United States today.

When the Founders relied upon recognized “common law” principles related to impeachment, they looked to the 500 years of British judicial history before 1787 (See John Hatsell, Precedents and Proceedings In The House of Commons, Vol. IV (Impeachment) (1796)).  It is that body of common law that defines “impeachment” as the term is used in the U.S. Constitution.  In his seminal study of the Constitution, Commentaries on the Constitution, 3 Volumes, (1833), Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story examined impeachment in Vol. II (§§ 794-96). He opened his examination by acknowledging the role common law played in understanding the doctrine:

The only practical question is, what are to be deemed high crimes and misdemeanours? Now, neither the constitution, nor any statute of the United States has in any manner defined any crimes, except treason and bribery, to be high crimes and misdemeanours, and as such impeachable. In what manner, then, are they to be ascertained?

After dispensing with commission of crimes in office as an obvious grounds for impeachment, Story addressed “political” offenses as grounds for impeachment, as well as the limitation upon those offenses:

. . . [T]here are many offences, purely political, which have been held to be within the reach of parliamentary impeachments, not one of which is in the slightest manner alluded to in our statute book. And, indeed, political offences are of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task of positive legislation would be impracticable, if it were not almost absurd to attempt it. . . . Resort, then, must be had either to parliamentary practice, and the common law, in order to ascertain, what are high crimes and misdemeanors; or the whole subject must be left to the arbitrary discretion of the senate, for the time being.

The latter is so incompatible with the genius of our institutions, that no lawyer or statesman would be inclined to countenance so absolute a despotism of opinion and practice, which might make that a crime at one time, or in one person, which would be deemed innocent at another time, or in another person.  [Emphasis added]  The only safe guide in such cases must be the common law, which is the guardian at once of private rights and public liberties.

(At the bottom of this post, you will find a handy-dandy poster reflecting this principle, which you can share with friends on social media.)

Story then lists a wide range of offenses for which officials were impeached in Britain since the 14th century. almost all involving neglect, oppression, or exercise of arbitrary power.  Thus, contrary to what Maxine Waters claims, there are limitations on what constitute impeachable offenses. The official charged must have deviated from a historically established pattern and practice.  Democrats cannot validly impeach the President for duly exercising the powers of his office, nor for reasonably acting to advance malfeasors’ punishment for breaking the laws of the land.  Indeed, the President is bound by his office to enforce the laws of this nation.

More recently, Alan Dershowitz has also weighed in on what can legitimately constitute a charge of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  His view is more restrictive than Story’s, but the two agree that there are outer boundaries and that simple political offenses or, as Dershowitz frames it in the language of Madison, “maladministration,” do not constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors.

There is a debate among students of the constitution over the intended meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Some believe that these words encompass non-criminal behavior. Others, I among them, interpret these words more literally, requiring at the least criminal-like behavior, if not the actual violation of a criminal statute.

What is not debatable is that “maladministration” is an impermissible ground for impeachment. Why is that not debatable? Because it was already debated and explicitly rejected by the framers at the constitutional convention. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, opposed such open-ended criteria, lest they make the tenure of the president subject to the political will of Congress. Such criteria would turn our republic into a parliamentary democracy in which the leader — the prime minister — is subject to removal by a simple vote of no confidence by a majority of legislators. Instead, the framers demanded the more specific criminal-like criteria ultimately adopted by the convention and the states.

Of course, since 1789, it is U.S. History that defines impeachment in our country.  Notably, in the three past instances in which the House has impeached a president, each has been for an actual crime committed by the President.  The House impeached Andrew Johnson for violating a law of dubious constitutionality when he removed the Secretary of War. The Senate refused to convict.  The House impeached Bill Clinton when he committed a crime in a civil case by perjuring himself when asked about his having had sex with a White House intern. The Senate refused to convict.  Lastly, the House voted to investigate Richard Nixon, when he was an accessory after the fact to the criminal Watergate Hotel break-in. Nixon resigned.

The bottom line is that there are limitations on what grounds exist for impeaching a president, that a president cannot be impeached for engaging in a historically established pattern and practice, and that past presidential impeachments have revolved around criminal acts. So what have the Democrats got?

The possible bases for the Democrats’ Articles of Impeachment

I. Statutory bases for impeachment

When trying to predict the Democrats’ future actions, only three possible laws or legal conflicts come to mind — that Trump violated campaign finance laws, that he obstructed justice, and/or that he interfered with Congress’s power of the purse. As set forth below, however, none of those are applicable.

A.  Campaign Finance Law

The Whistle Blower asserted that Trump’s July 25 phone call, in which he sought information about the 2016 Russian hoax and potential corruption by Joe and Hunter Biden, broke two laws relating to election campaigns.  He cited 52 U.S.C. § 30121, which makes it illegal to accept any “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” from a foreign national.  But no court has ever interpreted the term “other thing of value” to include mere information.  Even the highly partisan Mueller team, when explaining their decision not to prosecute Trump Jr.’s meeting at Trump Tower with Russians for the express purpose of obtaining facts detrimental to Hillary Clinton, stated at Vol. I, p. 187:

[N]o judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law. Such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign-source ban, see 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) (imposing monetary limits on campaign contributions), and raise First Amendment questions. Those questions could be especially difficult where the information consisted simply of the recounting of historically accurate facts.

B.  Obstruction of Justice

The House may go so far as to claim that Trump obstructed justice by refusing to cooperate with the House’s “impeachment inquiry” regarding the Ukraine matter.  This will not fly.

The House doesn’t normally have judicial power for the Constitution, at Article III, explicitly provides that the “judicial power” resides in the Courts.  The House can assume “judicial power” for a limited period of time only if and when the House of Representatives authorizes it.  Trump maintains that the House, which has repeatedly voted not to open impeachment inquiries against him, is operating unlawfully and his administration has no duty to comply.

Importantly, even as Trump has refused to respond to subpoenas, the House has assiduously avoided testing its subpoenas in Court.  Law professor Alan Dershowitz dealt with this issue in a recent article at Gatestone Institute, Impeachers Searching For New Crimes:

This brings us to President Trump’s directive with regard to the impeachment investigation. Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders. Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.

C.  The Withholding of Aid

Aid for Ukraine was part of Public Law 116-6, which Trump signed on February 15, 2019.  Nothing in the law states specifically when the funds must be released (just as there was none in the 2016 law), with the only proviso being that the administration disburse before the fiscal year in question ends.* When it comes to Trump and aid to Ukraine, his administration transferred or otherwise made the 2019 funds available to Ukraine by September 10, 2019, well before the end of the fiscal year.

One can argue whether any president has inherent power to withhold aid permanently from a foreign country once Congress has authorized the money — something President George H.W. Bush did when he unilaterally cancelled aid appropriated for Yemen in 1991 — but that is not a question applicable to this situation.  Moreover, as David Rivkin points out at WSJ and in his blog, “Congress attempted to curtail this power [i.e., the President’s power over foreign aid] with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but it authorizes the president to defer spending until the expiration of the fiscal year or until budgetary authority lapses, neither of which had occurred in the Ukraine case.”  Thus, nothing President Trump did conflicted with Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.

II.  Non-statutory basis for impeachment

Leaving the law behind, there seems to be a wide range of possible grounds for Democrats to impeach Trump (GrabieNews has so far compiled a list of 95 bases), almost all of which are ultimately nothing more than “orange man bad and we disagree with his policies.” That said, the only one that would pass the laugh test would be a charge that the President abused his power by conditioning foreign aid to Ukraine on opening investigations relating to the Russia hoax and to Joe Biden, a 2020 candidate for President.  This is the “quid pro quo” that will almost surely be in any Articles of Impeachment. Passing the laugh test, though, so that the media can relay it to a credulous public with a straight face, still does not make it a valid impeachment charge.

There are multiple problems with this quid pro quo argument, the first being that presidents have primary authority over foreign policy.  Historically, presidents have regularly used foreign aid as leverage when negotiating with foreign countries.  As David Rivkin explained:

More fundamentally, the Constitution gives the president plenary authority to conduct foreign affairs and diplomacy, including broad discretion over the timing and release of appropriated funds. Many presidents have refused to spend appropriated money for military or other purposes, on grounds that it was unnecessary, unwise or incompatible with their priorities.

Thomas Jefferson impounded funds appropriated for gunboat purchases, Dwight Eisenhower impounded funds for antiballistic-missile production, John F. Kennedy impounded money for the B-70 bomber, and Richard Nixon impounded billions for highways and urban programs. Congress attempted to curtail this power with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but it authorizes the president to defer spending until the expiration of the fiscal year or until budgetary authority lapses, neither of which had occurred in the Ukraine case.

Presidents often delay or refuse foreign aid as diplomatic leverage, even when Congress has authorized the funds. Disbursing foreign aid—and withholding it—has historically been one of the president’s most potent foreign-policy tools, and Congress cannot impair it. Lyndon B. Johnson used the promise of financial aid to strong-arm the Philippines, Thailand and South Korea to send troops to Vietnam. The General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) concluded that this constituted “quid pro quo assistance.” In 2013, Barack Obama, in a phone conversation with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, said he would slash hundreds of millions of dollars in military and economic assistance until Cairo cooperated with U.S. counterterrorism goals. The Obama administration also withheld millions in foreign aid and imposed visa restrictions on African countries, including Uganda and Nigeria, that failed to protect gay rights.

So, all things being equal, Congress has no right to curtail the Executive’s historic powers. Again, to reiterate what Story said, Congress may not “make that a crime at one time, or in one person, which would be deemed innocent at another time, or in another person.” Moreover, under the statute as written, Trump had authority over the timing of aid to the Ukraine at least through the end of the fiscal year.

That being the case, we are left with one remaining question: Did Trump use his legitimate power towards an end that was itself an abuse of power?

The Democrats desperately want to answer that question affirmatively. They insist that asking for any investigative assistance into crimes that may have been committed in the 2016 Russia Hoax and any crimes committed by Joe Biden are so beyond the pale as to justify impeachment and overturn an election.  Their problem is that nothing that Trump did is an abuse of the power because the Constitution imposes upon the president the obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  Indeed, it is ludicrous to suggest to the contrary, at least unless we are to amend the Constitution, explicitly or implicitly, to hold that progressives are above the law.  We will be in a shooting civil war before that happens, whether in fact or in deed.

Consequently, as Rivkin further states at the WSJ and in his blog,

Investigating Americans or Ukrainians who might have violated domestic or foreign law—and seeking the assistance of other nations with such probes, pursuant to mutual legal-assistance treaties—cannot form a legitimate basis for impeachment of a president.

Or as Andrew McCarthy states:

It is common for presidents to ask their foreign counterparts to assist Justice Department investigations. House Democrats will not acknowledge this because they seek to delegitimize the Barr/Durham probe as a Trump 2020 campaign initiative; but it is not.

The sole factual issue for this defense will be whether Trump had valid reason to request Ukraine’s assistance in investigation the Russia hoax and whether Trump had a reasonable basis to inquire further into Joe Biden’s possible criminal acts, specifically whether he violated 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3 (Prohibited foreign trade practices by persons other than issuers or domestic concerns).

As to the former, the mere fact that the DOJ is reviewing the origins of the worst political scandal in our nation’s history, namely the attempted coup that was the Russian Hoax (let alone that it is now a criminal investigation), was a valid justification for Trump’s request for assistance from the Ukraine.  Moreover, President Trump had a predicate — i.e., a reasonable indication to believe that a crime may have been committed — to ask for assistance investigating whether, when Joe Biden demanded that the Ukrainian Chief Prosecutor be fired as a non-negotiable condition for receiving American aid, the Prosecutor was investigating Hunter Biden directly or indirectly through his Burisma ties.  Cry as the progressives might, this is a legitimate issue, one raised at the time internally during the Obama administration, one that Joe Biden proudly boasted about and, nevertheless, one that the Obama administration never investigated.

I can think of no other grounds for impeachment, though I am sure Schiff & Co. will have some inventive surprises.  In the next post, I will deal with how the trial in the Senate should proceed, given that the House has denied any due process rights, including the right to be represented at the hearings, to the President.  There are more than ample ways — fully Constitutional — in which the Senate can vindicate the rights of the President, hold a fair trial, and make the House Democrats rue their sins in the process.

____________________

*The law in 2016, which has the identical fiscal year proviso, was the law that applied when Biden was the Vice President. Thus, his threat to withhold the money did not violate the law. It was his threat to withhold the money to protect his son’s dubious business practices that raises eyebrows.

Impeachment

The post Part I: The faux grounds for Trump’s impeachment and his perfect defenses appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

On Constitution Day, Leftists assault the Constitution

For most of America, September 17 was “Constitution Day.”  For progressives, it was a day to launch a multi-pronged assault on the Constitution.

On September, 17, 1787, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention signed their finished product, the Constitution, and released it to the states to consider for ratification. It would be a year before eleven states ratified the Constitution, passing it into law, and three years before all thirteen states ratified the Constitution. It would be four years before the states ratified ten of the first twelve proposed Amendments to the Constitution, creating the Bill of Rights.  Regardless, it is the 17th of September that we commemorate as “Constitution Day.”

But not the progressive left.  To the extent they spent any time at all referencing the Constitution this past week, it was to attack it.  Call it “Un-Constitutional Day,” if you will. The most direct attack was an attack on originalism — the truism that the Constitution must be interpreted as closely as possible to its commonly understood meaning on the day it was signed in 1787.  Next, the Left, through its house organ, the New York Times, launched an attack on due process, with Democratic candidates for President calling for  Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh’s head.  And the last attack, without doubt the most dangerous in the near term, was a renewed call in the New York Times to pack the Supreme Court with progressive ideologues.

An Attack on Originalism.

At The Hill, a progressive lawyer, Kim Wehle, argues that “Justice Gorsuch is wrong — ‘originalist’ judges make stuff up too.”  What is she talking about?

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently authored a book, the title of which, A Republic, if you can keep it, is from a famous Ben Franklin quote.  At the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Franklin, who was justly famous for his wit and brevity, was asked what type of government the men at the Convention had created.  Franklin replied “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

What Franklin meant was that, in the words of Prof. Richard Beeman, “democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.”  Not surprisingly, Gorsuch’s book deals with his judicial philosophy of originalism as the Foundation of our Republic and the threat that progressives’ “living Constitution” obscenity poses to our Republican form of government.

Two paragraphs from Wiki (citations and links omitted) do a good job of summing up the issue and presaging Gorsuch’s recent book:

In a 2016 speech at Case Western Reserve University, Gorsuch said that judges should strive to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be—not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.

In a 2005 article published by National Review, Gorsuch argued that “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda” and that they are “failing to reach out and persuade the public”. Gorsuch wrote that, in doing so, American liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide, and this has led to a compromised judiciary, which is no longer independent. Gorsuch wrote that American liberals’ “overweening addiction” to using the courts for social debate is “bad for the nation and bad for the judiciary”.

It’s not clear whether Kim Wehle deliberately or from lack of acumen fails to understand this principle. What is clear is that, on Constitution Day, she claimed that the living Constitution philosophy is no worse than Gorsuch’s originialism because originalist judges also “make stuff up” as they go along — just as, she fully admits, progressive judges do.  That is a calumny.  Writes Wehle:

Accordingly, Gorsuch reportedly tells his law clerks: “‘Rule No. 1: Don’t make stuff up,’” and “‘when people beg, and say, ‘Oh, the consequences are so important,’ and when they say, ‘You’re a terrible, terrible, terrible person if you don’t,’ just refer back to Rule No. 1. And we’ll be fine.’”

Here’s the problem: The implicit suggestion that the law and the Constitution are black and white — and that all that honorable judges need to do is apply its plain language and move on — is a myth.

That is a horse manure statement of the issue.  No one, not least of all an originalist, claims that the law is black and white.  Teasing out the most likely meaning of a clause, a sentence, or a paragraph as the Founders drafted it and as the people who voted upon it understood it is not easy and, by the nature of the evidence relied upon, subject to a range of interpretations.

It helps the originalists that the Founders left us a fair number of clues about what they thought and intended. In addition to focusing on the words themselves, as those words were understood at the time and as were voted upon at the Convention and then as finalized by the Committee of Style, jurists can look to a few contemporaneous sources who describe the debates at the Constitutional Convention.  They can also read what people wrote after the Convention but before ratification, such as the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, which argue about the provisions and their meanings.   There were debates in the state conventions. And lastly, there is the entire sum of historical events that were known to the Drafters and the people of the era and that we can assume had an impact on the way in which they drafted the Constitution, whether they mention these events or not.

The key to this “range of interpretations,” though, is that every one of them is anchored firmly in the history and soil of the American colonies in 1787.  This history ensures that an originalist change has a limited range of permissible interpretations beyond which he may not go. Even within those parameters, the judge is further limited by the mandate that he choose which interpretation is most accurate, not which his conscience finds most desirable. That is not, as Ms. Wehle claims, “making stuff up.”  And indeed, it often means that originalist judges will in good conscience disagree.  As Ilya Shapiro recently opined at the USA Today, “Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices.”

The example Ms. Wehle uses to portray originalism’s alleged bankruptcy is bizarre, for it stands for the opposite proposition.  Wehle focuses on Scalia’s opinion in a case almost two decades old. In that case, Scalia wrote that the Fourth Amendment requires that police show probable cause and obtain a warrant before using a thermal imaging device to observe a home for the excessive heat that home-grown marijuana generates. As Wehle points out, thermal imaging did not exist in 1787. Through that statement, she apparently thinks she’s proving that Scalia was of necessity “making stuff up.”  Horse manure.

What the Supreme Court Justices are being paid to do is tease out the bedrock principles of the Founders and apply those to new situations, including new technology, which is precisely what Scalia did.  The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to search a private home.  Whether they conduct that search physically, by breaking down a door, or without physical intrusion, using new technology, the core principal behind the 4th Amendment still applies.  It is still a search requiring that police act with probable cause.

What Ms. Wehle is arguing for is policy-based jurisprudence with unelected, life-term Supreme Court Justices acting as a politburo, imposing their own policy choices as Constitutional law..  She wants judges to ” put their policy goals on the table for the rest of us to see and evaluate.”  This is an outright assault on the Constitution.  Justices on the Supreme Court have one power under the Constitution.  Per Article III, Section I, they hold “the judicial power.”   The power of imposing “policy goals” on this nation has nothing to do with the judicial power.  Imposing policy goals is solely the province of the Congress which, under Article I, Section I of the Constitution has “all legislative power.”  At least unless Ms. Wehle and other progressives win their slow motion coup to permanently bend the Judiciary, and with it the very Constitution, to their will.

The Attack On Due Process

The Democrats turned the Kavanaugh Hearings, the goal of which was to determine his fitness for the Supreme Court, into an utter travesty when, at the twelfth hour, they made public unfounded charges that Kavanaugh had engaged in sexual batteries in high school and college.  It was, as to Kavanaugh, the same as the Russian collusion charges were to Trump — false allegations made at the last minute to forestall due process and to drum up a public outcry that would keep these two out of power or to weaken and delegitimize them so they could not fairly exercise power.

While due process of law is a foundation of our nation, its antecedents predate our Constitution by a millennium at least.  The Magna Carta of 1215 famously makes references to due process, although even did not invent “due process” but, instead, acknowledged its pervasive existence at law in England and stated that King John could not suspend it. The words “due process” are shorthand for all of those systems and processes we have developed over a millennium — from probable cause to search and arrest to jury trials to appeals to actions of habeus corpus — to ensure that, whenever the state uses its police power, it will do so with reliable fairness.

Due process is an answer to the ancient question, quis custodiet ipsos custodes – “who watches the watcher?”  Our Constitution answered that question in the political realm with checks and balances and in the legal realm with “due process.”   The latter is our way of making sure that multiple people — and, to the maximum extent possible, these people should have no bias as to the particular case — have to examine facts to determine a person’s guilt before the state can take that person’s life, liberty or property.

Due process of law is so fundamental to a republican form of government that a republic cannot exist without it.  If a government is free to exercise its power without the check of due process, then, by definition, you have a tyranny, even if it has not reached the tyrannical extremes of, say, North Korea.  Our English forebears recognized a tyranny when they saw one and waded through a river of blood, in multiple rebellions and civil wars, from the First Baron’s War in 1215 to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, to ensconce the right to due process of law as one of their rights against government.  Today, we call a government operating without due process of law a police state, a fascist state, a dictatorship, or a socialist utopia.

What the above means is that it should be a disqualifying event if someone seeking power in our government comes out in favor of punishment without due process of law. And yet here we are, during the weekend before Constitution Day 2019, with the NYT yet again raising unproven allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, hiding highly relevant information bearing on his innocence, and Democratic candidates for President reflexively calling for Kavanaugh to be removed from the bench.

Kavanaugh’s true crime is that he is an originalist, and the left does not need due process to establish that.  As to actual crimes, no need for due process when false allegations and a howling mob will do the job of limiting Kavanaugh’s right to life, liberty and property.  The Constitution be damned.

Packing the Court

If the Constitution limits the Supreme Court to exercising judicial power then — as was the case until the middle of the 20th century — then its makeup should not cause major controversy.  As progressives seized power in America, that changed, because they understood that they could expand their legislative reach by shaping a judiciary that intruded in the legislative sphere and, even better, exercised without check the People’s Article V power to amend the Constitution. Thanks to progressive policies, the Supreme Court became, not the least dangerous branch of government, as forecast by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers No. 78, but the most dangerous branch, which progressives routinely used to circumvent and subvert the ballot box and the Constitution itself.  This is why the Court’s composition went from non-controversial to the most important political question in America.  The progressives even gave us a new verb for this activism — “borking,” which describes progressive politicians assassinating originalist judges. Notably, in this lead-up to Election 2020, when Joe Biden is still considered the Democrat favorite, it was Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy who originated borking when they killed Judge Robert Bork’s nomination.

For the last century, a left-leaning Supreme Court has systematically and methodically changed our nation’s fundamental nature. They have removed Christianity from the public square, found a hidden right to abortion, expanded the regulatory state, approved disparate impact theory, authorized gay marriage, and given us a whole host of other decisions that, in ways both large and small, have gone beyond jurisprudence and, instead, fashioned new laws and amended the Constitution — acts beyond the Court’s powers, both statutory and Constitutional.  Indeed, for the past century, the Supreme Court has been the single most important tool that progressives have wielded.  In part, that was because Democrats regularly appointed hard left progressives to the bench whenever the opportunity arose.  In part it was because, all too often, Republican-appointed jurists often took a hard left turn once on the bench.

Regarding that last point about Republican-appointed judges, there’s even a name for it: the Greenhouse effect. Thomas Sowell posited this effect have noting the way in which squishy conservative jurists, all of whom came from a social milieu in which the New York Times was tantamount to the word of God, seemed to shape their opinions to please Linda Greenhouse, the NYT reporter assigned to the Supreme Court beat.

Thankfully, Republicans have finally learned that appointing any ostensible “conservative” to the bench, if that person lacks solid originalist credentials (e.g., John Paul Stevens or Anthony “Gay Rights” Kennedy), will almost certainly lead to disaster.  These people people inevitably begin to use their power to ensconce the New York Times‘ preferred policies rather than to interpret the Constitution.  No one knows that better than conservatives in 2019.

Through the Supreme Court’s century-long shift to hard Left activism, conservatives kept playing by the rules. Now, though, the real possibility exists that five originalists may end up on the Supreme Court. This means that the Court will interpret the Constitution as written, ending the era of progressive “judicial legislation.”  Rather than copying conservatives, who meekly acquiesced to the bastardization of the Constitution, progressives, faced with a return to Constitutional values, have announced that we need to change those rules.

More than a few progressives have floated a plan to pack the Supreme Court with progressive judges if the Supreme Court ever becomes staffed with five originalists.  This is a raw play for permanent political ascendancy.  The latest on Constitution Day came from professional race hustler and New York Times opinion columnist (but I repeat myself) Jamelle Bouie, who writes “Mad About Kavanaugh and Gorsuch? The Best Way to Get Even Is to Pack the Court.”

Kevin Williamson responds at NRO:

Bouie is a habitually sloppy thinker and writer, and here falls into two of the most common modes of partisan hackery. The first is the argument that his party must “play hardball” . . . lest the bad guys on the other team write their partisan “ideological preferences into the constitutional order.” . . . Bouie here is engaged in the New York Times version of shrieking “But they started it!” as a justification for playground misbehavior. Republicans don’t think they started it — not where judges are concerned, anyway. They think Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy started it in October 1987 with the smearing of Robert Bork, which permanently changed the character of Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Bouie foreswears an intention of trying to “make the courts a vehicle for progressive policy,” and, of course, he does this as he writes of the ways and reasons for making the courts a vehicle for progressive policy. And here is the second common mode of partisan hackery: The belief that one’s own ideological preferences are not ideological preferences at all but self-evident moral truths. This belief can be held either insincerely (and cynically) or sincerely (and stupidly). For Bouie, it seems to be a bit of both.

The point of packing the courts, he writes, is “to make sure elected majorities can govern,” and he cites Supreme Court checks on the grander ambitions of Franklin Roosevelt and Progressive Era as examples of the Court frustrating the those “elected majorities.” He goes on to celebrate Roosevelt’s bullying the Court into submission like some tinpot caudillo. Roosevelt was unable to follow through with packing the Court, but the gambit, Bouie writes, “had the desired effect,” i.e. terrorizing the Court into giving the Roosevelt administration a freer hand. . . .

Do read the entire article.  It is an excellent fisking of Bouie’s ramblings, though to be fair to Bouie, he is not innovating in idiocy.  He is merely parroting run-of-the-mill progressive thinking, which is thoroughly ignorant of the Constitutional design on one hand and totalitarian on the other.

Williamson goes on to point out that the Constitution is in fact designed to thwart what he calls majoritarian rule — i.e., democracy.  Our Founders feared and detested democracy as the worst of governing models.  James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was a man who was steeped in world history. With this background, he wrote of democracy in Federalist No. 10:

A pure Democracy, . . . can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. . . .

What the progressives propose is dangerous stuff.  Attempting to pack the Supreme Court to establish permanent progressive dominance in our nation would be an invitation to a second civil war.  That’s a Hell of a way to celebrate Constitution Day 2019, eh?

But in truth, this all didn’t just start in the past week.  The Progressive Left has engaged in sustained attack against the Constitution since President Woodrow Wilson obscenely declared the Constitution unworkable and inapplicable to the modern world.  Wilson believed that experts, working without any constraints, should rule America. In other words, he envisioned our modern regulatory bureaucracy.  The problem for progressives is that, in the early 20th century and today, far fewer than the two-thirds of Americans needed to amend the Constitution agree with them.  Wilson and the progressives therefore invented “the living Constitution” — the theory holding that the Constitution can be reinterpreted to mean anything that five justices, carefully selected for their progressive ideological purity, want it to mean.  With this background, modern progressives’s reaction to Constitution Day 2019 was just par for the course.

The post On Constitution Day, Leftists assault the Constitution appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.