Tag: US Constitution

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”

What About That Third Term?

There has been way too much to do about Trump’s insistence that he is good for a third term as president…..recently in an interview on one of those propaganda sites that pretend to bring us the news he, Donny, said that he was not joking about a third term….or possibly longer.

President Trump told NBC News over the weekend he was “not joking” about considering a third term because a lot of people want him to do it. And when asked about the issue later aboard Air Force One, Trump added, “We have a long way to go before we even think about that, but I’ve had a lot of people (asking me).” So how serious is all this? A few takes:

  • “When Trump entertained questions on his plane about a third term, he had a faint smirk on his face, indicating that the idea hasn’t fully progressed from the joke phase into a plan of action,” writes Jonathan Chait at the Atlantic. “Trump has always understood questions about his abuses of power as a kind of compliment,” he adds. “The prospect of smashing imagined limits on his power gives him an obvious thrill. He is probing, exploring. And when he finds softness, as he so often does when he presses against a supposed boundary, he presses on.”
  • The right-wing site Twitchy is reveling in all this because of the widespread coverage of Trump’s comments in the mainstream media. These outlets “clearly cannot see when President Trump is having fun at their expense,” reads the post. “Because they are just that dumb.”
  • Pretty much every story takes note of the 22nd Amendment, which stipulates that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” But Trump told NBC there might be ways around that, and entertained Meet the Press host Kristen Welker’s idea of running as JD Vance’s vice president, then having Vance resign. For the record, constitutional scholars say that’s a no-go, per the BBC. “I don’t think there’s any ‘one weird trick’ to getting around presidential term limits,” says Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame, referencing the 22nd Amendment as well.
  • As the debate continues on how serious Trump is about all this, his allies are busy. GOP Rep. Andy Ogles has proposed a change to the Constitution to make Trump eligible because of his non-consecutive terms, notes the New York Times, and Steve Bannon continues to trumpet the idea. Asked by NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo last month how they could get around the Constitution, Bannon said, “We’re working on it,” per Axios.

Personally I believe he is dead serious on his claim…..but for those that relish the idea here is a bit of facts for you….

Lets Look at the Constitution (remember that document?)

On the face of it, the US Constitution seems to rule out anyone having a third term. The 22nd Amendment states:

“No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once.”

Changing the constitution would require a two-thirds approval from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as approval from three-quarters of the country’s state-level governments.

Trump’s Republican Party controls both chambers of Congress but does not have the majorities needed. Additionally, the Democratic Party controls 18 of the 50 state legislatures.

But with all this constitutional law stuff just how could Donny pull this off?

With all this constitutional law stuff just how could Donny pull this off?

Trump supporters say there is a loophole in the constitution, untested in court.

They argue that the 22nd Amendment only explicitly bans someone being “elected” to more than two presidential terms – and says nothing of “succession”.

Under this theory, Trump could be the vice-presidential running-mate to another candidate – perhaps his own vice-president, JD Vance – in the 2028 election.

If they win, the candidate could be sworn into the White House and then immediately resign – letting Trump take over by succession.

Steve Bannon, the podcaster and prominent former Trump adviser, said he believed Trump would “run and win again”, adding there were “a couple of alternatives” in determining how.

Andy Ogles, a Tennessee Republican in the House of Representatives, introduced a resolution in January calling for a constitutional amendment to allow a president to serve up to three terms – as long as they were not consecutive.

This would mean that only Trump of all living presidents would be eligible – Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W Bush all served consecutive terms, whereas Trump won in 2016, lost in 2020, and won again in 2024.

However, the high bar for constitutional amendments makes Ogles’ proposal a pipe dream – although it got people talking.

Legal scholars (I know how much most MAGA dolts hate those guys) have to say about the very idea.

Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame, said the Constitution’s 12th Amendment says “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States”.

That means serving two terms in office disqualifies anyone from running as a vice-presidential candidate, in his view.

“I don’t think there’s any ‘one weird trick’ to getting around presidential term limits,” he said.

Jeremy Paul, a constitutional law professor at Boston’s Northeastern University, told CBS New there were “no credible legal arguments” for a third term.

It was the Congress that was so against the multiple terms of FDR that they added an amendment but now that some half-wit is their guy they have changed their tune.

All that said is there a loophole Donny can exploit?

The path for Trump to serve a third and potential fourth term as president until January 2037, at 90 years old, is a very real possibility.

It hinges solely on the interpretation of “election” in the 22nd Amendment and the loyalty of Vice President J.D. Vance.

The VP could choose to have Trump as his vice president in the 2028 election and, after winning the election, announce he resigns as soon as he’s sworn in.

This loophole also requires Trump to remain popular enough to win another two election cycles.  (probably not going to happen)

The text of the full 22nd Amendment reads: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

It was ratified into the Constitution in 1951 and was a direct response to Franklin D. Roosevelt winning four consecutive elections during World War 2.

https://knewz.com/how-a-simple-constitution-loophole-could-doom-u-s-to-a-trump-presidency-until-2037/

I do not think that Donny will prevail in this pipe dream….but under his boot anything could be possible.

Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Trump And The Constitution

Yes my friends it is that time again….time for a short history lesson from our founding days.

Let’s go back to Trump’s speech on 04 March….

If there are any limits to a president’s power, it wasn’t evident from Donald Trump’s speech before a joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025.

In that speech, the first before lawmakers of Trump’s second term, the president declared vast accomplishments during the brief six weeks of his presidency. He claimed to have “brought back free speech” to the country. He declared that there were only two sexes, “male and female.” He reminded the audience that he had unilaterally renamed an international body of water as well as the country’s tallest mountain.

“Our country is on the verge of a comeback the likes of which the world has never witnessed, and perhaps will never witness again,” Trump asserted.

The extravagant claims appear to match Trump’s view of the presidency – one virtually kinglike in its unilateral power.

It’s true that the U.S. Constitution’s crucial section about the executive branch, Article 2, does not grant the president unlimited power. But it does make this figure the sole “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”

This monopoly on the use of force is one way Trump could support his 2019 claim that he can do “whatever I want as President.”

…

When the Constitution was written, many people – from those who drafted the document to those who read it – believed that endowing the president with such powers was dangerous.

Ratified after a lot of huffing and puffing, on May 29, 1790, by rather nervous citizens, the text of the Constitution had stirred many controversies.

It wasn’t just the oftentimes vague language, which includes head-scratchers such as the very preamble, “We the People of the United States.” Nor was the discomfort due solely to the document’s jarring brevity – at 4,543 words, the U.S. Constitution is the shortest written Constitution of any major nation in the world.

No, what made that document especially problematic, to borrow from John Adams, was that it provided for “a monarchical Republick, or if you will a limited Monarchy.”

Trump is the kinglike president many feared when arguing over the US Constitution in 1789 — and his address to Congress showed it

In essence the Constitution was put together to avoid the US from having to answer to yet another king….the actions of our dearly clueless leader is trying to circumvent the Constitutional powers that the office has and make it all about what he wants.

Sorry I do not see any constitutional priority that allows Donny these unlimited powers.

If he wants this to be the law of the land then maybe it is time for constitutional upgrade.

There are, of course, opportunities to amend the constitution without completely scrapping it. Article V states that Congress itself can propose an amendment “whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,” and once the amendment is “ratified by three-fourths of the several states” it becomes “Part of this Constitution.” This process (simpler than the other option, a convention of states) has been successfully used 27 previous times. The convention of states method, on the other hand, may not be restricted to a specific subject and could be used as a vehicle to overturn the entire Constitution.

This will not happen.

Today’s political climate makes it impossible to find an intellectual giant like the founders…there is no one to ‘lead’ the way to saving this country and its laws.

Any thoughts?

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”

Elmo And The Constitution

I think most Americans are familiar with the Constitution….that document that established this country’s laws by which we are all so proud.

Then along came Elmo and his band of mini thugs in DOGE….somewhere along the way to his ascension the Constitution became a thing to destroy….

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is moving fast and breaking the law — lots of laws.

The scope of Trump and Musk’s sweeping effort to purge the federal workforce and slash government spending has shocked the political world — in part for its ambition, but also in part because of its disregard for the law.

David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School, recently told the Washington Post that so many of Musk’s moves were “so wildly illegal” that he seemed to be “playing a quantity game, and assuming the system can’t react to all this illegality at once.”

I reached out to Super so he could walk through this quantity game — so he could take me on a tour of all of the apparent lawbreaking in Musk’s effort so far. A transcript of our conversation, condensed and edited for clarity, follows.

https://www.vox.com/politics/398618/elon-musk-doge-illegal-lawbreaking-analysis

Some have strong opinions on the Constitutional aspect of DOGE and what it is attempting….

Some warn that a constitutional crisis is under way, as Mr. Musk and his DOGE team ride roughshod over various statutes governing how the executive branch operates, such as the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, as well as protections for career civil servants. Mr. Trump’s advisers view some of these laws as unconstitutional constraints on the executive, setting up a fight in the courts. 

“This vision of executive power is extremely dangerous,” says Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush. 

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2025/0204/musk-doge-treasury-usaid-congress

My thought is while this group is suppose to save the government money it will be much less so in the near future and this smells of retaliation disguised as cost cutting….an attempt to keep his majesty in the seat of power for as long as possible.

Elmo is nothing more than a tool Trump needs to strip all protections from the way government does things….and the people will pay the hefty price for all this silliness.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

New Constitutional Amendments?

There is a movement under consideration after the 2024 election to draw up some new Constitutional amendments to be considered for ratification and added to the existing document.

The next wave of constitutional amendments is more than a few years out, but it will arrive sooner than we think (we are late in the gap between such waves, when no or only extraordinary amendments occur). We can anticipate this wave because today’s thought leaders are moving past the late-gap conventional wisdom that amendments can’t happen; they are now proposing amendments, a potentially significant milestone.

So which proposals might prevail? The factors that will determine the survivor amendments are numerous and ever-changing. However, for any amendment to reach the ratification goal line, it must address a genuinely constitutional issue while garnering wide public support and overcoming partisan divisions, a high bar under the best of circumstances.

The most obvious amendment candidates are those involving existing constitutional features, such as the Electoral College or the lack of congressional term limits. While proposals to abandon both are popular, they also generate strong partisan opposition, which reduces their prospects, at least in the short term.

Newer amendment proposals also aim to correct existing provisions. Recently, the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project produced five recommendations that united teams of conservative, libertarian and progressive scholars. Among them are replacing the “natural born” requirement for presidents with both citizenship and residency for at least 14 years; creating staggered, single, 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices; and reducing but retaining the supermajorities required for Congress to pass and then states to ratify amendments.

Vetting of and building public support for these amendment proposals are mostly nascent, perhaps excepting the Supreme Court proposal. But it is starting. For example, the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University hosted a Model Constitutional Convention over the Memorial Day weekend. More than 100 student delegates from over 70 universities and law schools devoted half of their deliberations to the CDP recommendations. (Disclosure #1: I participated, and will report on the complete convention in my next writing.)

And then there are proposals, some long-standing as well as some comparatively new, for additions to the Constitution. Among them are an Equal Rights Amendment, an affirmative voting rights amendment and the For Our Freedom Amendment, which calls for reasonable limits on campaign spending. Today, FOFA would seem the most likely to reach ratification, as it also benefits from having popular support and a growing grassroots network.

https://thefulcrum.us/electoral-reforms/amendments-to-the-constitution-2668391664

I will agree that the Constitution needs to be amended…..most of the ones mentioned here are needed and needed badly….the money thing…..the term limit thing…. the ERA…..etc.

These should be already under consideration….I look for some hard charging opposition to most of these especially in Red States….keep in mind the ratification process.

The traditional constitutional amendment process is described in Article V of the Constitution. Congress must pass a proposed amendment by a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and send it to the states for ratification by a vote of the state legislatures. The amendment becomes part of the Constitution when it has been ratified by three-fourths (currently 38) of the states. This process has been used for ratification of every amendment to the Constitution thus far.

Article V also provides for an alternative process, which has never been utilized. If requested by two-thirds of the state legislatures, Congress shall call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments. To become part of the Constitution, any amendment proposed by that convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states through a vote of either the state legislature or a state convention convened for that purpose. 

Any thoughts on these ideas?

Just a little something to think about on this Friday as we close in on November.

I sincerely hope that everyone has a lovely and safe weekend.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Does It Again!

It is not bad enough that these political hacks are swimming in special interest money they also crap on the Constitution whenever GOP policies are involved.

The nightmare from K Street has happened….Trump gets immunity….

The Supreme Court delivered its historic ruling on presidential immunity Monday—and it was welcomed by Donald Trump, who is now immune from prosecution for “official acts” during his presidency. “Big win for our constitution and democracy,” he wrote in an all-caps post on Truth Social. “Proud to be an American!” Other Republicans also praised the 6-3 ruling, while leading Democrats shared the dismay of the dissenting liberal justices.

  • Dissents: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. She said the ruling sends the message: “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends,” NBC News reports. “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” she wrote. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground,” creating immunity “applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government.”
  • House leaders: House Speaker Mike Johnson praised the ruling as a “victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith,” the Guardian reports. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader, released what he called a statement “in connection with the Supreme Court decision to bend the knee to the Insurrectionist-in-Chief.” He warned that the ruling “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation.”
  • A ‘dramatic expansion of presidential power’: “As Justice Sotomayor’s appalled dissent makes clear, this ruling is a dramatic expansion of presidential power—not just for Trump but for all presidents,” Charlie Savage writes at the New York Times. “She cites the notorious World War II ruling that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast.”
  • A ‘license for authoritarianism’: Sen. Richard Blumenthal was among many Democratic lawmakers to condemn the decision—and members of the court—in strong terms. In posts on X, he called the ruling a “license for authoritarianism.” Members of the court’s conservative majority, he wrote, “will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme & nakedly partisan hacks—politicians in robes,” he wrote.
  • Ruling rebukes ‘attempts to weaponize our legal system’ against Trump: Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee praised the ruling, Politico reports. Its chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, said the committee will “continue to oversee dangerous lawfare tactics in our judicial system.” Another member, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, said the ruling “rebukes Democrats’ blatant attempts to weaponize our legal system against Donald Trump.”
  • ‘Absurd and dangerous’: Eric Holder, the attorney general in Barack Obama’s administration, slammed the “absurd and dangerous” ruling in a post on X. He wrote: “The Trump immunity decision says: a president CAN VIOLATE THE CRIMINAL LAW if he acts within his broadly defined “constitutional authority.”
  • Decision will be seen in context of Trump’s connections: “No case to date has put Trump’s personal interests so directly in the hands of the justices he appointed—and from whom he has expected a sympathetic hearing,” Jess Bravin writes at the Wall Street Journal, noting that two other members of the court, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, “have familial ties to Trump’s cause.” “However ironclad the legal rationales behind their votes, the justices’ actions cannot avoid being viewed in the context of such connections,” Bravin writes.

Weaponized DoJ?

If Trump wins the election then you have not seen anything yet.

This whole fiasco proves just how corrupt the political hacks are , those people we trust to stand by the Constitution….they not only do not stand by the Constitution they crap on it yearly.

I am behind AOC 100%…..

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday said she will file unspecified articles of impeachment U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority ruled that former President Donald Trump is entitled to “absolute immunity” for “official acts” performed while he was in office, a decision that prompted dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor to declare her “fear for our democracy.”

Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said on social media that “the Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.”

“Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture,” she added. “I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/supreme-court-justice-impeachment

This may go nowhere in a GOP controlled House but at least someone is standing up to the fat cat slugs on the Court.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Will You Let The Constitution Die?

In the past few years there have been many assaults and damages to our beloved Constitution…..but there is more to come and in the ashes of our society the Constitution will not be there to help us move forward.

The Constitution has been weakened when we lose our free choice and that is happening almost daily.

I read a good explanation of why this upcoming election is so damn important……

It seems almost inconsequential with all that has transpired since.

A quick search demonstrates follow-up reporting, This month CNN published “Trump’s Avalanche of Dishonesty: Fact checking 102 False Claims from This Fall.”

I don’t consider myself a political writer. In fact, until Donald Trump’s first run for President, virtually everything I published dealt with introspection and making changes in one’s life. Then I listened to the Republican primary debates in 2016.

In what seems like a life time ago, I taught sixth grade. If you recall the Republican Primary and Donald Trump’s outrageous behavior you’ll understand. He reminded me of a sixth grade student who I watched break a window, and when he turned around and saw me, he said, “I didn’t do it.”

Thus began five years of publishing articles. I advocated for political candidates, encouraged everyone to vote even if they weren’t thrilled with the Democratic party’s choice for President. Futilely I explained that not voting is the same as supporting the candidate you don’t want elected.

Now it’s happening again. I fear many citizens are tired of politics and the two presumptive candidates don’t excite them. Many will not vote. That’s unfortunate… no I take that back… It Will Be a Disaster.

Are You Ready to Let Our Constitution Crash and Burn?

I agree with the article…..Every time SCOTUS makes a ruling we seem to lose a little more of the Constitution.

Many Americans who worship at the cult of personality are doing more damage to this country than any imaginary Russian fifth column could ever do…..and they do it with no thought beyond their hatred and stupidity.

Now would be a good time to take a hard look at what you want for this country before you make your decision on who to vote for in November.

Just Saying

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Good That Was Trump

This post ought to get those hostility juices flowing…..but I would like to state here that this post is NOT what the title implies….as the reader will see upon completion of the link included.

Irony being inherently ironic, it would be easy to dismiss as delusional or harebrained any argument to the effect that Donald Trump’s totalistically execrable behavior over time may have had positive effects on the American public. But let us not blind ourselves to the validity of this counterintuitive notion. By the same token, let us concede that Trump speaks and acts in many ways like other segments of the larger political class – only more extremely, dogmatically and unceasingly. While his hard-wired true believers may see him as a political and ideological Man on Horseback, to those outside his insular, tribal cohort, he is an apocalyptic horseman worthy only of scorn. 

Here are 20 examples of how Trump may have benefited America, or at least where Trumpian maleficence, malfeasance and malpractice have alerted us anew or reawakened us to ideas and practices we once cherished but perhaps have grown complacent about. (In some instances, we may find upon reflection that America’s founders left us holding the bag in the face of the regnant tyranny Trump represents today.) In this newfound “knowing,” the reasoned and reasonable among us may have unwittingly benefited in this Era of Trump.

1. Voting. The late Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, longtime president of the University of Notre Dame, characterized voting as a “civic sacrament,” a rite conferring divine grace on those who fulfill their obligation as citizens to register their choices for public office. Too many of us, let us admit, have come to take voting for granted as a free good that costs nothing, whether we exercise it or not. Thus do we account for America’s consistently low voter turnout rates over time. Trump has weaponized votes, voting and the electoral process in every conceivable way: by manipulating and attempting to negate vote counts; suppressing and disenfranchising voters; shamelessly perpetuating the Big Lie that his 2020 election loss was rigged and stolen; and, most recently, threatening blood in the streets if he loses in 2024. If this hasn’t reminded us of the sanctity of the vote, nothing will.

https://www.salon.com/2024/04/21/20-reasons-why-donald-has-been-good-for-america-no-seriously/

Anything anyone would like to add?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

To Save Democracy

It is election time and both sides seem to think that they are the savior of our beloved Constitution…..both are silly in my world….but I read a blog post the other day that I feel needs to be shared.

The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederation)’s Law of Peace and Seventh Generation Principle Can Save our Democracy and Climate

An interesting read and very well thought out…

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”