Tag: Constitutional Law

Can SCOTUS Be Fixed?

A new year and a new focus on the political hacks we call the Supreme Court.

It is actually functioning as an extension of MAGA these days and it is time for us peasants to realize that it must be changed or replaced.

The justices of the US supreme court – even its conservatives – have traditionally valued their institution’s own standing. John Roberts, the current US chief justice, has always been praised – even by liberals – as a staunch advocate of the court’s image as a neutral arbiter. For decades, Americans believed the court soared above the fray of partisan contestation.

No more.

In Donald Trump’s second term, the supreme court’s conservative supermajority has seized the opportunity to empower the nation’s chief executive. In response, public approval of the court has collapsed. The question is what it means for liberals to catch up to this new reality of a court that willingly tanks its own legitimacy. Eager to realize cherished goals of assigning power to the president and arrogating as much for itself, the conservative justices seemingly no longer care what the public or the legal community think of the court’s actions. Too often, though, liberals are responding with nostalgia for a court that cares about its high standing. There is a much better option: to grasp the opportunity to set right the supreme court’s role in US democracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/19/us-supreme-court-legitimacy

If we agree that something needs to be done with SCOTUS and its drift from neutral arbitrator to MAGA enforcer then what can be done?

There are a few suggestions….

Should Democrats retake the White House in 2028 and have majorities in both chambers of Congress, one legal expert is arguing there are numerous ways the six-member conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) could be brought to heel.

In a Monday essay for Slate, legal writer and attorney Mark Joseph Stern directly addressed a reader’s concern that no matter what laws Democrats may try to pass under a potential new Democratic majority government, the Supreme Court could simply strike those laws down. Stern countered that there are several ways to re-establish Congress’ powers and prevent SCOTUS from acting as an unelected super-legislature.

First, Stern argued that Congress should immediately grant statehood to both Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. as part of a “suite of structural reforms.” He argued this was a necessary step to take in order to make sure that sparsely populated conservative states like South Dakota and Wyoming aren’t over-represented in Congress (both territories have already passed statehood resolutions, meaning all Congress needs to do is pass a bill to admit them).

“Remember, the senators who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court represented fewer people than the senators who voted to oppose him,” Stern wrote. “That is a huge structural problem that Congress can fix.”

Second, Stern proposed that Congress pass a law that would require the Supreme Court to have a 7-2 supermajority to strike down any legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. He noted that the Nebraska and North Dakota state constitutions already have amendments requiring a supreme court supermajority in order to toss out any laws, and called on a potential future Democratic government to “put it in there that the law cannot be struck down unless seven justices agree that it’s unconstitutional.”

Stern also advocated for imposing a strict time limit on the judicial review process, calling the Supreme Court to no longer be able to evaluate the constitutionality of any new laws more than one calendar year after their passage. He observed that the Supreme Court’s 2012 review of the Affordable Care Act took place after Democrats had already lost their majority in the House of Representatives in 2010, and that a one-year limit would mean that Congress’ partisan makeup would still be the same if the Court threw out any laws passed by that Congress and lawmakers wanted to try passing the law again.

The Slate author described these proposed reforms as a “good-faith effort by Democrats to recalibrate the balance of power by reestablishing Congress’ primacy and diminishing the Supreme Court’s untouchable supremacy.” However, he allowed for the possibility that these reforms may fall short. In that event, he called on Democrats to “add four seats” and pack the Supreme Court with new Democratic appointees.

“The current Republican justices have already shredded adherence to precedent. A future liberal majority should say no to unilateral disarmament and apply the same rules,” Stern wrote. “That is how Democrats put the court back in its place: by undoing its attacks on democracy and restoring the constitutional settlement the Roberts court has spent years dismantling.”

(alternet.org)

I do not think much will change (for now) no matter what happens in November.

Personally I think it is beyond time to put these smug bastards in their place or rid ourselves of their stench completely.

But that is just me.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

This Is Tucker Carlson?

I remember back in the day when Tucker had a nightly show on MNBC a time when I watched there was not much that I agreed with but from time to time I thought he made a few good points.  Then MSNBC kicked him to the curd and he circled the drain for awhile before sliding down the drain into the sewer that was FOX News then there was nothing coming from his mouth that was anything but sewer sludge….then FOX also kicked him to the curb and now he is wandering around searching for that audience he once had….

In the days after the blowhard was shot there has been a wealth of rhetoric especially from Little Donny Do-Little…..he is doing everything he can to subvert any opposition to his restrictive policies….

Then out of the dark Tucker shows up and once again let his thoughts be known….

Tucker Carlson’s volatile relationship with President Trump may have just cycled back to being a critical one, this time centered on the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and the Trump administration’s reaction to it. The former Fox News host’s main beef: the government’s targeting of anyone criticizing Kirk in the wake of his death—a targeting that Carlson says infringes on Americans’ First Amendment rights, per the Independent. “You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we’re seeing in the aftermath of his murder won’t be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country,” Carlson said on a Wednesday edition of his online show, calling Kirk a “free speech champion.”

And if those laws do come to pass? “If that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that, ever,” Carlson noted. “And there never will be. Because if they can tell you what to say, they’re telling you what to think.” And at that point, “there is nothing they can’t do to you, because they don’t consider you human,” Carlson added, per Newsweek. “They don’t believe you have a soul.” The Independent notes that Carlson’s diatribe seemed to target Attorney General Pam Bondi more than Trump himself, after Bondi made comments suggesting the DOJ would target hate speech in America.

Carlson added of Bondi’s remarks that maybe she “didn’t think it through and was not attempting to desecrate the memory of the person she was purporting to celebrate.” The Latin Times notes that the US “does not have a ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment, meaning most forms of such expression cannot be punished by the government.”

Once again I find myself agreeing with Tucker at least on this issue….

Time for civil disobedience is now.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Picking Apart The Constitution

We keep hearing in the media that the Trump thugs are slowly destroying our beloved Constitution….and it looks like those they say that may be on to something….

Archive searches suggest the White House has scrubbed Sections 9 and 10 pertaining to Habeas Corpus and judicial review of unlawful detention from the official congressional website on the Constitution.

“Does this regime think that by editing the website they can delete these basic rights, or do they just want to make it harder to read about them?” demanded one commenter on Resistbot.

A quick scan of the site’s constitutional summaries from Aug. 6 do not match more thorough archived shots of the same page from May. Among missing texts are summaries for Sections 9 and 10. Section 9 contains language pertaining to Habeas Corpus, including: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Section 10 outlines the rights (and limitations of rights) of states regarding organizing, particularly organizing against the federal government. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

https://www.alternet.org/white-house-constitutional-crisis/

In the rush to round up the usual suspects the Trump thugs will do anything to make some of their actions legal.

I guess he can convince idiots that he is ‘saving’ America from itself.

And the picking continues…..

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

More On That Possible Third Term

I covered this possibility recently and there were some facts in there that everyone should consider….for those that cannot remember back far I am here to help…..(and that is why I keep up my archives….so I can bne checked)….

What About That Third Term?

Please read this post first before moving on to my newest one…..

I know there is a Constitutional thing that states only two terms…..but that will not stop Donny if his ego wants more and more…..but how could this thing happen?

To clarify….what does the Constitution say about this third term?

The Constitution says that a president cannot serve more than two terms – an amendment that was added after Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected four times.

It is explicit….so how can Donny move the needle in his favor?

Democratic critics have used Trump’s third term chatter to say that he is trying to defy the Constitution.

However, some MAGA allies of the president have suggested at least one way around that.

One plan would involve Trump becoming JD Vance’s running mate and then, after a successful 2028 election, Vance resigning and Trump taking over.

(dailymail.co.uk)

Did not Putin try this in one form?

There has been some precedents for his desire and most are from Latin America…..

United States President Donald Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of remaining in office after his second term ends in 2029. Since the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1951, no U.S. president has challenged the two-term limit it established.

However, attempts to circumvent constitutional term limits are not unprecedented elsewhere.

Virtually every country in Latin America has enshrined constitutional term limits as a safeguard against tyranny. These rules vary: some allow only a single term, some permit two, while others enable non-consecutive re-election. Yet several presidents have managed to defy these provisions.

Recent examples include Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador.

Although the institutional norms and political cultures of these countries differ from those of the U.S., examining how term limits have been dismantled offers valuable insights into how any similar efforts by Trump might unfold.

https://theconversation.com/how-donald-trump-could-remain-president-of-the-united-states-255589

It is possible that this country can survive these four years but any longer and I have my doubts.

The Constitution should be the ultimate law of the land as it has been for all our years…..all this circumvention is just making the nation weaker and open to some massive exploitation.

Any thoughts you would care to share?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Does The 4th Amendment Still Apply?

A very happy Mardi Gras to everyone.

This is a question for all those armchair Constitutional experts…..and as so to help them with their brain wracking here is the jest of the Constitution’s 4th amendment…..

The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.

But read the words for yourself…..

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In recent memory there have been news reports of raids on houses and businesses, people harassed on their property for various reasons and of course the round-up of so-called illegal immigrants….

So the question do the protections under the 4th amendment still apply to the citizens of the US?

Americans who believe the Fourth Amendment protects them from warrantless government searches may be surprised to learn that this protection only applies to about 4% of privately owned land in the United States.

A 1924 ruling by the Supreme Court in Hester v. United States established what is known as the “Open Fields Doctrine,” which states that Constitutional protections regarding real estate only apply to a person’s home and “curtilage” (meaning a yard or garden), but did not apply to “open fields” (meaning any other property a person owns). In 2024, the nonprofit Institute for Justice conducted a study to determine how much of Americans’ private land fell into the “open fields” category that government could search without a warrant.

The answer, it found, was 96%.

“The ‘Open Fields Doctrine’ blows a massive hole in Fourth Amendment protections for Americans,” Joshua Windham, an Institute for Justice senior attorney, told The Daily Signal. “What that means is that the government can enter and roam around and surveil all of the property entirely without Constitutional limits, and that presents a grave threat to our most basic Fourth Amendment rights–our right to be secure in our property, our right to privacy from unreasonable government intrusion.”

This is not simply a question of legal theory, he said, it affects “everyday Americans who are going about their lives, running farms, walking nature trails on their properties, camping on their properties, doing all sorts of things that Americans across the country do every day on their private land, and all of that is subject, not just to government intrusion, but unlimited government intrusion.”

Precious Little Remains of Americans’ Fourth Amendment Protections, Studies Find

So after some thought do you think we still have our protections under the 4th amendment?

Or are we entering into some sort of police state?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

“We Don’t Need No Stinking Constitution”

For over 200 years the US Constitution has been the law of the land and today the document is under attack….even by an ex-president of the United States….

When he announced his reelection campaign, Donald Trump eased up on allegations of a stolen election in his speech. The former president ramped things back up in a big way this weekend, with a series of Truth Social posts calling for the suspension of the Constitution.

  • Trump: “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote, per the Hill. He later added, “UNPRECEDENTED FRAUD REQUIRES UNPRECEDENTED CURE!” per the Washington Post.
  • White House: The White House quickly fired back. “Attacking the Constitution and all it stands for is anathema to the soul of our nation and should be universally condemned,” said spokesman Andrew Bates. He called the Constitution a “sacrosanct document,” and added, “You cannot only love America when you win.”

Trump’s new line of attack comes after Elon Musk made public internal Twitter emails about the platform’s debate over a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. In Trump’s view, the emails show that “Big Tech” colluded with Democrats to squelch a negative story, per CNN. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!” wrote Trump. At Bloomberg, however, Kurt Wagner writes that the Twitter documents “broke relatively little new ground.” And Farhad Manjoo of the New York Times tweeted that they amount to a “half dozen screenshots of content moderation policy executives earnestly debating content moderation policy.”

Trump also sought to pull in other top GOP figures into the controversy. “I wonder what Mitch McConnell, the RINOS, and all of the weak Republicans who couldn’t get the Presidential Election of 2020 approved and out of the way fast enough, are thinking now?” he wrote. We might find out. At the Politico Playbook, the authors predict that “every Republican will be asked about Trump’s statement” to suspend the Constitution, adding, “If you are a Republican who thinks being asked to take a position on this is just some liberal media trap, consider what you would say if BARACK OBAMA or JOE BIDEN tweeted this.”

Then came the attacks from the Right on such a dangerous idea…..(the sound of crickets from the GOP)….

A few Republicans joined Democrats in denouncing former President Donald Trump’s call for the “termination” of the Constitution, but none of them run the party’s congressional delegations. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had not said anything publicly about the scheme to install Trump as president between elections by Sunday afternoon, NBC News reports. Nor had the Republican National Committee, though NBC had asked spokespeople for comment on Saturday. Trump’s comments did not seem to push any Republican politicians into ruling out support for Trump’s current presidential run, per the New York Times.

 

A few Republicans appearing on the Sunday talk shows opposed the idea. “Well, obviously, I don’t support that,” New York Rep.-elect Mike Lawler said on CNN’s State of the Union. “The Constitution is set for a reason, to protect the rights of every American,” Lawler said before suggesting the nation move forward. On CBS’ Face the Nation, Ohio Rep. Mike Turner called Trump’s plan “certainly not consistent with the oath we all take.” But he avoided a direct question about whether the party’s frontrunner should say such a thing. Ohio Rep. David Joyce also found the topic awkward in his appearance on ABC News’ This Week. He said he wasn’t aware of what Trump had said. Trump doesn’t have the authority to suspend the Constitution anyway, Joyce said, while adding that he’ll support “whoever the Republican nominee is” for president is in 2024.

Any thoughts on this ludicrous idea?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

That Rule Of Law

College Of Political Knowledge

Lecture Series–

Ever since the election of Trump in 2016 and since he was given the oath of office there has been this debate about the so-called “rule of law”….pundits have been accusing Trump to ignoring this ……and yet he continued to be the lawless president with no checks and balance…..

Now that Biden has handed Trump his walking papers the pundits have gone to applauding the return of the rule of law…..

Personally I think they all are trying to turn manure into sirloin.

First before I tell why I think this is nothing more that editorializing to get a paycheck…..let us define the “rule of law”….

The American democratic system is not always based upon simple majority rule.  There are certain principles that are so important to the nation that the majority has agreed not to interfere in these areas.  For instance, the Bill of Rights was passed because concepts such as freedom of religion, speech, equal treatment, and due process of law were deemed so important that, barring a Constitutional Amendment, not even a majority should be allowed to change them.

Rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are:

  • Publicly promulgated
  • Equally enforced
  • Independently adjudicated
  • And consistent with international human rights principles.

https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law

The “rule of law” requires measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of the law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.

  1. Principle of legality .
  2. Protection of human rights .
  3. The monopoly of government coercion to ensure law enforcement .
  4. Oversight by an independent judge in matters of the government implementing and enforcing the rule of law
  5. Honesty and open to the public .

None of which was there in the Trump administration.

When they allow a group like the Federalist Society to dictate what type of person is to be a judge then the independent judiciary is gone.

Now my take…..

The “rule of law” use to be principles that the nation lived by…..The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.

Then Trump was elected and the country suffered and was diminished…..the question should not be can we return to the rule of law but rather is the rule of law gone forever?

Do not get me started on the silliness of our “better angles”……those mythical creatures are gone forever.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Pardon–Will He, Won’t He

In the closing days of the Trump farce that was his presidency there has been a wealth of news reports and analysis by overpaid pundits to decide if Trump will pardon himself as a closing act to the sad tragedy of a presidency.

We know that the president has the power to pardon or commute but can he, Trump, really pardon himself?

Could President Trump pardon himself before he leaves office? He faces possible liability on bank and tax issues, and a former prosecutor in the Robert Mueller investigation makes the case in a New York Times op-ed that he should get hit with obstruction charges, too. A president, of course, can pardon others, but can he pardon himself? At the Atlantic, Eric L. Muller digs into the constitutional question and writes that it hinges on a single word. The Constitution, he notes, says the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The key word there is “grant.” If the framers had used “announce” instead of “grant,” it would be clear that a president could pardon himself as well as others. But “grant” is another matter.

Muller does a deep dive and finds that whenever the word is used elsewhere in the Constitution, it is used as a transitive verb. That is, one entity grants something to another. He also digs into the word’s “original public meaning” and finds the same—it seems that whenever “grant” was used in those days, two entities were involved. What sounds picayune is “linguistically important,” he writes. “Grant” in this sense is similar to words such as “surrender” or “relinquish”—”you can’t do them to yourself.” In his view, then, Trump appears to be out of luck. The question isn’t whether Trump can pardon himself, it’s whether he can grant himself a pardon. “The evidence, at least according to the text of the Constitution and its original meaning, says no.” Read the full analysis.

If he does then it could be his crowning glory of the most absurd portion of American history…the Trump presidency.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Is That Trumpian Threat Legal?

Our dictator-in-waiting has threatened the protests and the state governments with federal intrusion by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807……and how many know what it is?

Let’s look at the Act of 1807…..

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.

The act provides the “major exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of military troops under federal command within the United States for law enforcement purposes.  The president must firstly issue a proclamation ordering the insurgents to immediately disperse (per 10 U.S.C. § 254).

The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard:

  • when requested by a state’s legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state (§ 251),
  • to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
  • to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253).

The 1807 Act replaced the earlier Calling Forth Act of 1792, which had allowed for federalization of state militias, with similar language that allowed either for federalization of state militias or use of the regular armed forces in the case of rebellion against a state government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

Here is what all them fuss is about…..

“If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” President Trump declared Monday. His ability to do so amid the George Floyd protests centers on something called the Insurrection Act, which dates back to 1807. The details:

  • The act: It gives the president the right to call in active-duty troops (as opposed to reserves in the National Guard) for law enforcement. Typically, this would be done at the request of a governor, but legal experts say a president can do so without such a request, reports NPR.
  • Last time: The act hasn’t been invoked much. The last time was in 1992 during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, notes NBC News, though that was at the governor’s request. A footnote: William Barr happened to be serving as attorney general then, too, under the elder George Bush.
  • Desegregation: Prior to 1992, the act was most famously invoked during the Civil Rights era. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, for example, called in troops to enforce new civil rights laws in the South and end segregation. Eisenhower notably used the act in Arkansas, over the governor’s objections, to integrate schools in Little Rock, reports CNN. The act was also used to quell riots in Detroit in the 1960s.
  • Pushback: Just because the law has been so used in the past doesn’t mean today’s governors would acquiesce. “I reject the notion that the federal government can send troops into the state of Illinois,” said Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, per Forbes. A retired law professor tells the Washington Postthat states and cities “would fight tooth and nail to keep federal troops out.”
  • Where it’s murky: A post at JustSecurity.org delves into the legal intricacies with a look at specific provisions of the act. In broad strokes, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act bars the president from summoning federal troops for domestic law enforcement, and the Insurrection Act provides the biggest loophole to that. But it’s unclear whether all this is subject to judicial review, writes Mark Nevitt: “Courts have historically been reluctant to wade into these complex federalism and separation of powers waters and will certainly be wary of providing specific guidance.”
  • One view: Yep, Trump can invoke the act without the permission of governors or Congress, says Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School. “I think there’s a reason why the statute allows him to act even if states don’t ask him,” Vladeck tells the Post. “I don’t think the situation is as dire as the drafters of the statute might have contemplated, but invocation of the Insurrection Act here seems much less controversial to me as a legal argument than many of Trump’s other actions.”

To make it a bit simpler…..there are 5 questions that need answering….

  1. Can the President use the military to respond to domestic unrest?
  2. What is the Insurrection Act and its substantive and procedural provisions?
  3. How does the military actually interpret its role in civil disturbance operations?
  4. What other legal authorities could potentially authorize a military role in domestic law enforcement operations?
  5. What are the military’s rules for the use of force in such a scenario—i.e. does looting justify shooting?

The President and the Domestic Deployment of the Military: Answers to Five Key Questions

Five things to look at with this threat from Donald the Orange…..https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/500730-five-things-to-know-about-trumps-legal-power-under-the-insurrection

If you feel scholarly then maybe a more in-depth look at these laws would be good for you to understand…..(there are forms in this and filling out them is not supported)……

Click to access R42659.pdf

All this may be a moot point….for this issue may just be another of Trump’s grandstanding for the cameras.

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Trump–This Is What Nazis Would Do

Yesterday Donald the Orange had to go outside and show his fascist tendencies and venture to a church for a photo op and use a Bible as a prop…..

After President Trump’s dramatic threat to bring out the military to quell protests, he walked from the White House to the nearby “Church of the Presidents” to pose for photographers while holding a Bible. He also invited his attorney general, national security adviser, chief of staff, press secretary, and defense secretary to join him for photos before he walked back across Lafayette Square Park to the White House. Some faith leaders weren’t happy with the move. The Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, to which St. John’s Church belongs, said she was “outraged” by the moment and noted that Trump didn’t pray during his visit. “He took the symbols sacred to our tradition and stood in front of a house of prayer in full expectation that would be a celebratory moment,” Budde told the AP.

“There was nothing I could do but speak out against that.” She told the Washington Post the church was used as a “prop” and that she was not notified Trump would be visiting. And Rabbi Jack Moline, the president of Interfaith Alliance, slammed the fact that peaceful protesters near the White House were gassed and shot with rubber bullets before Trump held his photo op. “Seeing President Trump stand in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church while holding a Bible in response to calls for racial justice—right after using military force to clear peaceful protesters out of the area—is one of the most flagrant misuses of religion I have ever seen,” Moline said in a statement. “This only underscores the president’s complete lack of compassion for Black Americans and the lethal consequences of racism.”

Not to worry his words have been recorded for all to see in years from now……

In an act unprecedented in American history, Donald Trump has repudiated the Constitution and is attempting to establish a presidential dictatorship, supported by the military, police and far-right fascistic militia acting under his command. The Socialist Equality Party appeals to the working class and all those committed to the defense of democratic rights to oppose this criminal action.

Speaking on national television, Trump proclaimed: “I am your president of law and order… Our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists, arsonists, looters, criminals, Antifa and others.”

Trump’s fascistic rant came only minutes after he ordered massively-armed military police to launch a violent attack on citizens engaged in a lawful and peaceful assembly outside the White House to protest the police murder of George Floyd.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/02/pers-j02.html

Is it me or did Trump look like his diaper was full while standing in front of the church….plus the Bible was upside-down…..if you cannot see any of this then you should not call yourself an American.

There is one problem with his lame ass threat……think 1878……

The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act places strong guardrails against a president using active duty military troops to uphold civil laws on US soil. Congress can waive the law, but it is not likely Democrats would cede such authority to Mr Trump given the politically and racially sensitive nature of the protests.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-george-floyd-protests-army-general-mark-milley-a9543496.html

What a douche bag…he still thinks that he was elected to have unlimited power with NO one to answer to…..and he surrounded himself with milquetoast sycophants that would rather spend time on their knees than tell the dumb ass the truth.

Look at this photo of Donald the Orange…..

Appears he is not sure what a book is used for….

(AP photo by Patrick Semansky)

Any Christian that supports this fool after this display is no more a Christian than I am…..enuff said!

One last question…what did they think would happen?

Did they really think that putting a man bereft of character, decency, and empathy in charge of the country wouldn’t make a difference?

Did they really think that dismissing each instance of his racism, bullying, fecklessness, megalomania, corruption, lies, and stupidity it wouldn’t have a cumulative effect?

What Did They Think Would Happen?

Here I want to throw a favorite Jefferson quote of those mentally challenged slugs in the Tea Party….”when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”.

I’ll bet your thought I was going to use the “Tree of Liberty” quote right?

Oh Hell I cannot disappoint…..”the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.“

Happy now?

We are witnessing a petty dictator trying to look like he is in control….being bully is not a strong leader…..it is nothing but a petty fascist struggling to appear to be in control.

Time to stand up or spend more time on your knees.

“lego ergo scribo”