Balkinization  

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Will the United States survive the 2016 election (II)

Sandy Levinson

People may think I'm being my usual hyperbolic self in asking this question, but I suggest they may be somewhat myopic and overly addicted to a strange form of American exceptionalism.  As to the latter, one cannot overestimate the extent to which secession is as American as apple pie.  Our "revolution" was in fact a secession from the British Empire.  Our second largest state seceded from Mexico (and then, of course, with ten other states, attempted to secede from the United States in a struggle that ultimately cost 750,000 lives (for starters)).

And, finally, there is the phenomenon of secession all over the world, the most dramatic example of which is surely Brexit, to be followed, one suspects, in relatively short order by Scotland's repudiation of the Treaty of Union and its own declaration of independence,.  This may or not be accompanied by recognition of some kind of mystical sovereignty of HRH Queen Elizabeth, but, most certainly, not a scintilla of sovereignty in the London Parliament.  (That deal, incidentally, was on offer to King George by Benjamin Franklin and others, but he and his ministers were too stupid to accept it.)  So what is it that convinces all "thoughtful" people that secession could never happen here?

Consider, for starters, the following statement by Alexis deTocqueville:



“….what keeps large numbers of citizens subject to the same government is much less the rational determination to remain united than the instinctive and in some sense involuntary accord that results from similarity of feeling and likeness of opinion.”  Alexis de Tocqueville, 1 Democracy in America, part 2 2, chapter 10, pp. 430-431 (Library of America ed., trans. by Arthur Goldhammer, 2004).

This view can easily be linked to the insistence in Federalist #2 that divine Providence has blessed America with a population of similar manners, religion, anguage, and political views.  This was, of course, utterly preposterous.  However, as I argue in my book An Argument Open to All:  Reading the Federalist in the 21st Century, Publius (in this case Jay) thought it necessary to make such an assertion in order to persuade people that what was in fact a "consolidationist Constitution" made sense as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation.  I think that one can say with confidence that we have become ever-more multi-cultural, in all senses, since 1787, and it's ever-harder to find "similarity of feeling and likeness of opinion."

It is clear that Donald Trump's critics, the most eloquent of whom are Republican, as a matter of fact, see him basically as a dangerous sociopath (which is why they are publicly opposing him and , unlike the despicable Paul Ryan, maintaining their honor for 2020, when Hillary Clinton will be the most vulnerable incumbent since Herbert Hoover).  They are, of course, wholly correct.  And, in addition, he is receiving all-too-much support from out-and-out racists like Iowa Rep. Steven King (no relation, I assume, to the author) and the out-and-out fascistic Rudy Giuliani, who, had he only been wearing a suitable black shirt, could have been a solid ringer for Mussolini in his call for a strong-man who would do whatever it takes to save the country from the Schmittian "enemy."  So, if one tries to imagine Hillary conceding the election to Trump, I confess I can't come up with a plausible speech.  I would be truly outraged if she gave a typical "let's rally around the choice of the people" speech.  Instead, she should refer to Lockean rights of resistance to tyranny and perhaps even suggest that we remind ourselves of classical theories of tyrannicide.  Were I a resident of Pacifica or New England (as in fact I am during the fall), I would certainly wonder why in the world we should remain within a Union that would elect a dangerous sociopath as President and give him access to nuclear codes and rely on courageous members of the armed forces basically to rebel against their commander-in-chief.

No one watching the evening of hate at last night's Republican Convention could possibly believe that those people who honestly support Donald Trump and admire Rudy Giuliani will regard Hillary as a legitimate president should she win.  And given Trump's narcissism, it's impossible to imagine what his concession speech would look like.  Will he accept his status as a  LOSER to someone he regards, at least while performing his most recent role as "Donald Trump, candidate of the angry," as totally unfit to serve as President?  Isn't he likely to say that she won by a "rigged election," which by definition denies legitimacy to the result? (See, at least for a while, Bernie on this score.)

I take it that no one believes that the national vote, whatever it is, will be mirrored in each of the states.  There are the classic "battlegrounds" where perhaps the margin will be only 3-4 points.  I suspect that most of the states will have margins closer to 10 and perhaps even 15 points.  So why should the majorities who voted for the loser in those states really wish to stay in a Union that would elect someone they view as patently unfit to serve and a menace besides?  

My good friend and casebook co-editor Akhil Amar will no doubt remind me that secession is "unconstitutional."  Two quick responses:  He and I have quite different readings of the Constitution on this point.  I think the Constitution was and is silent on secession.  I don't view Lincoln's arguments as dispositive, which is different, incidentally, from simply saying that all things considered, on balance, they are more persuasive than those of the Southerners.  Nor do I share the view of my friends Paul Finkelman and Laurence Tribe that the issue was settled in the case of "Grant v. Lee" or by the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v White.  But let's stipulate that they're right on the law.  So what?  As Tocqueville suggests, it's ultimately not a legal question at all.  Perhaps this is why the Supreme Court, in In re Debs, suggested that it would have been foolish for Lincoln to have sought an injunction against Davis and his fellow secessionists.

As Scot Peterson informed us last week in his post on the aftermath of Brexit, Parliamentary power in England is ultimately a question of what the public will accept.  "Sovereignty" is ultimately a matter of social fact, not of abstract legal argument.  Recall Holmes's statement in The Path of the Law, which remains the most important single essay in the history of American constitutionalism:  " I once heard the late Professor Agassiz say that a German population would rise if you added two cents to the price of a glass of beer. A statute in such a case would be empty words, not because it was wrong, but because it could not be enforced." What is true of statutes is no less true of constitutions.  So the ultimate question is whether the rest of the United States would be willing to support killing the secessionists who were attempting to leave.  Legal arguments would be near irrelevant.

But, one might say, optimistically or not, that surely there is no serious secessionist sentiment in the United States today.  If that's true, then we are surely exceptional!  But consider a 2014 poll taken by Reuters, at the time of the secession vote in Scotland, that showed that 25% of the U.S. respondents favored their state's seceding from the U.S.  And, most interestingly, although only 16% of people my age seemed to think secession might be a good idea, 40% of those between 18-29 were receptive to the idea.  What might this say about the American future?  Will they grow out of it, or does this suggest that Millennials may simply not feel much of the tug of what Lincoln called the "mystic chords of memory"?  And, by the way, in the aftermath of Brexit, 37% of millennials supported Texas secession., which I think should be labeled "Texodus."   Doug Bandow, of the Cato Institute, who applauded Brexit, had earlier suggested that Brexit should set the stage for the breakup of what he regards as a far too large U.S.

No doubt there were some in 1860 who believed that the US would survive the election.  After all, he initially relied on the "mystic chords" before emulating King George by sending in the troops to "kill friends and family," in the words of Hamilton's version of King George.  Lincoln at least had the motivation, at least after 1863, of trying to end slavery.  What grand cause justifies the use of force against Pacifica or New England (including, presumably, New York)?  Should those chords really lead us to accept living in a country that would accept a dangerous sociopath like Donald Trump as its commander-in-chief?  Or should we look forward simply to demonstrating, marching on Washington, and perhaps even suggesting use of our Second Amendment rights to rebel against an oppressive government?

No doubt many people will talk about "individual secession," what our friend Ilya Somin calls "foot voting," whereby we could join Ruth Ginsburg in moving to New Zealand or the like.  But
why stop with individuals foot voting, which by definition requires a willingness to uproot one's life and perhaps go into exile?  What really and truly prevents Pacifica (or Dixie, or Texas) from saying, collectively, "we've had enough, and we want out.  Here's our 2017 version of the Declaration of Independence!"?

I'm opening this for comments, but let me make one thing clear:  I'm not in the least interested in what anyone actually thinks of Donald J. Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton.  What I'm interested in is the analysis that is offered about the potential difficulty of their opponents treating their election as truly legitimate and meriting respectful obedience until the next election at which they would try to throw the rascals out.  Bernie, we know, is willing to live under a Clinton presidency, however unhappy that makes him.  And Paul Ryan is apparently willing to do the same with regard to a Trump presidency.  Do they really speak for America in general on this point?  (Of course, it is hard to get good data, since few American pollsters seem to be taking seriously the possibility of a genuine secessionist movement arising in the country.  Perhaps they would view asking such questions as the equivalent of trying to measure public support for a violent response to the election.)


Comments:

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

There are various people at the convention with different ranges of true believer to them. There will be some segment of the population that will not deem Hillary Clinton "legitimate," just as some didn't take Obama as legitimate.

Most probably will find it de facto true that she's the legitimate President -- they aren't going secede or not accept the legitimacy of the Hillary Justice Department, e.g., but in a thin sort of way. Thus, no felt need to do much of anything such as work with Clinton Administration in even trivial ways unless they really have to do so. Cf. how a small percentage of the population in 2000 didn't think Bush was illegitimate but once the Supreme Court decided, people from Gore on down basically accepted "it was over."

I think the same would happen if Trump won, something that I dare say I would find not only distasteful but dangerous. But, our system leaves open the chance the people will vote for horrible incompetents. It provides various checks to cushion the blow. I dare hope this will not be pressed and Trump will win & do something horrible. Some sort of Turkey in America. Of course, and we have two of them here, people think Obama and Clinton will be like that.

As to secession being "unconstitutional," at least given the results of the Civil War, that basically sounds originalist to me -- nothing was "settled" by events there. I think it is possible to argue that there is a level of tyranny so horrible that secession is legitimate to be as a means of self-help. It's probably a thought experiment -- it probably would amount to a sort of rebellion, which the Declaration of Independence deemed "right" but by design it is extra-Constitution related.
 

It's hard to discuss "legitimacy" without a more complete hypothetical. Victories by the Democrats in SC, MS, and LA in 1876 were not "legitimate" because they were possible only with murder and terrorism. If one party were to stoop to that level between now and November, that would not make a "legitimate" outcome.

Assuming, though, that the election proceeds in the standard way, then Democrats would certainly accept the result as legitimate even if the hated Trump were to win. I say that as a resident of CA, which is probably the state which would most benefit from secession.

On the R side, I think a substantial minority of R voters would not accept Hillary as legitimate. However, those voters would be scattered among the several states and therefore don't seem likely to pose a risk of secession.

I disagree pretty strongly with your historical review and with the premises that led to your question, but I'll leave those alone in order to keep strictly on topic.
 

Of course she'll be legitimate if she's elected without massive fraud. She'll be a legitimately elected criminal, but she'll still be President.

And legitimately elected Republicans will be under no obligation to work with her horribleness.

Seriously, you've just admitted that, unlike Republicans, there is no significant faction of Democrats who have a limit to what they'll stomach.
 

"Seriously, you've just admitted that, unlike Republicans, there is no significant faction of Democrats who have a limit to what they'll stomach."

I don't think he did.
 

"And legitimately elected Republicans will be under no obligation to work with her horribleness."

They have an obligation to govern & this will include working with the POTUS to do so. Guess it would be best for the Dems to regain control of both houses if they don't want to.

"Of course she'll be legitimate if she's elected without massive fraud."

"Legitimate" has various meanings.

[The "criminal" part is dealt with in past threads by Mr. W. et. al.]
 

Dismissed, not dealt with. His belief that, commit any number of crimes, you're not a criminal until convicted, is not widely accepted. A corrupt legal system can keep her out of prison, it can't make her an honest woman.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

He did not simply "dismiss" you. Mr. W. spent lots and lots of verbiage to show how you and BP didn't know what you were talking about & in no way merely rested on "not a criminal until convicted." She was "kept out of prison" because a reasonable prosecutor would not indict.

You toss in "honest woman," whatever that is supposed to mean. In your view, I'm not sure who the heck is "honest" that has any chance to win (or even runs) for office.
 

Sandy's extensive essay of a couple of years back on nullification and secession at an Arkansas Law School Symposium provides background to his post. I don't have the URL handy but I have a printout some where in my many piles. Sandy had a section in the essay on a possible secession by TX by agreement with the federal government with some dark humor (I thought) involvng nuclear weapons in TX. There was at least one thread at this Blog with discussion on this point. But what if there were secession without agreement on the part of the federal government? Would the latter be challenged by the federal government? Might a President Trump's wall separate a seceded TX that would be paid for by TX? As to secession being a right, if not successful those revolting might be guilty of treason. Imagine, in a variation of Brexit, a national referendum involving all 50 states on whether each state might secede and what the results might. ]Time to pause for the GOP Convention and the Late Show critique by Stephen Colbert. I'll be back tomorrow.]

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], I thought Trump could fill the Convention seats but then Trump University came to mind. Why did the CO delegation walk out? And can it be said that it's not plagiarism to use someone else's words in a public speech in a heavy foreign accent?
 

"The Twenty-First Century Rediscovery of Nullification and Secession in American Political Rhetoric: Frivolousness Incarnate or Serious Arguments to Be Wrestled With?"

http://media.law.uark.edu/arklawreview/2014/06/13/the-twenty-first-century-rediscovery-of-nullification-and-secession-in-american-political-rhetoric-frivolousness-incarnate-or-serious-arguments-to-be-wrestled-with/
 

Sandy: What I'm interested in is the analysis that is offered about the potential difficulty of their opponents treating their election as truly legitimate and meriting respectful obedience until the next election at which they would try to throw the rascals out.

I think you are confusing electoral legitimacy with individual integrity and competence. When a plurality elects either Trump or Clinton in November, the president-elect will be legitimate, even if he or she is a corrupt, lying incompetent.

No doubt many people will talk about "individual secession," what our friend Ilya Somin calls "foot voting," whereby we could join Ruth Ginsburg in moving to New Zealand or the like. But why stop with individuals foot voting, which by definition requires a willingness to uproot one's life and perhaps go into exile? What really and truly prevents Pacifica (or Dixie, or Texas) from saying, collectively, "we've had enough, and we want out. Here's our 2017 version of the Declaration of Independence!"?

Geographical secession is anarchy. Some minority will always be unhappy with the status quo. If geographical secession is a permissible remedy for that unhappiness, then the nation will atomize, one secession after another.

Individual secession can actually strengthen the union. America was founded on the idea that we are all free to live our lives as we please so long as we do not harm one another. Anyone who cannot abide by this principle and stay out of their neighbors' lives is only an American by accident of birth and is welcome to leave for less free lands where they would feel more at home. Such an outmigration leaving those of us who share a love for freedom and a willingness to assume its responsibilities would increase unity.
 

"I think the Constitution was and is silent on secession."

I don't see why this is an argument for the legality of secession. Suppose I borrow a bunch of money from the bank, and notice that the loan agreement is silent on the question of secession. So I notify the bank that I'm seceding from our contractual relationship and won't pay the money back. When the bank sues me, is any court in the land going to treat my position as a serious argument?

But suppose, miracle of miracles, I win the case and don't have to pay the money back. Can the bank avoid a repeat by inserting a "no secession" clause in future loan contracts? I don't think so. Why should a contractual provision saying that I cannot secede be any more binding than the contractual provision saying that I have to pay the money back?

The Constitution states that, "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, ... enter into any agreement or compact with another state." That is just one of the violations of the Constitution committed by the states who joined the Confederacy. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that we don't actually know whether this provision was violated because the Consitution doesn't explicitly address the question of whether this prohibition applies to a state that has passed a secession resolution. But if the writers of the Constitution had, for each Constitutional provision, listed all the situations they could think of where that provision might be applicable, and assured the reader that yes, they really meant the Constitutional provision to apply in all of these circumstances, then the Consitution would be much longer. Instead, the writers of the Constitution apparently assumed if they said something only once, the readers would still do them the courtesy of assuming they really meant it.



Since we are talking about future possibilities, I should note that the Constitution can be amended, but it seems to me that an amendment designed to facilitate negotiated separation would make more sense than an amendment allowing secession. Could Congress pass a law saying that all debts were now property of the United States government, and directing debtors to make all future debt payments to the Unites States treasury? Perhaps, under the tax power, but we will never find out because no Congressman who valued his political future would vote for such a law. On the other hand, the Confederate Congress could, and did, pass a law taking possession of all debts owned by Southerners to Northerners. They didn't have to worry about political fallout because the Northerners didn't get a vote in the Confederate Congress. Talk about "taxation without representation."

So even if you think it might be a good idea to allow the United States to break apart, you don't want to give the folks who are leaving the power to unilaterally dictate the terms of separation.


 

Is constitutional silence golden? Let's hear from originalists on this, not only regarding secession but other silent constitutional provisions addressed by SCOTUS.

That aside, here's SPAM I AM!'s narcissistic version of libertarianism:

"Individual secession can actually strengthen the union. America was founded on the idea that we are all free to live our lives as we please so long as we do not harm one another. Anyone who cannot abide by this principle and stay out of their neighbors' lives is only an American by accident of birth and is welcome to leave for less free lands where they would feel more at home. Such an outmigration leaving those of us who share a love for freedom and a willingness to assume its responsibilities would increase unity."

SPAM I AM! is saying, in effect, "Love America as a libertarian or leave it." Of course, libertarians, who constitute a very small minority, could also leave America. "Individual secession." "Individual sovereignty." Will these resolve political dysfunction? Will it provide the "quality of life" for which SPAM I AM! took a pay cut for rural CO? This is just more of SPAM I AM!'s cockamamie concepts. Imagine the unity that a nation of libertarians of the ilk of SPAM I AM! would have with SPAM I AM!'s outmigration proposal.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], after two days of the 2016 GOP Convention, I deem it:

"THE TRUMP FAMILY VALUES CONvention!"

Disgruntled Republicans might consider (if they had any) a class action lawsuit along the lines of the pending class action suit against Trump University.

And Joe, thanks for the link to Sandy's essay. It is long and readable and a worthwhile exposition on its topics, even if there may be some questions or disagreements on what might happen. As Brexit demonstrates, there is a lot of flux of late and we have to consider getting the flux out of here.

Further By the Bybee [ ... ], I'm pleased Sandy will be here in New England this Fall instead of exposed to TX campus carry, so that he can safely continue on his quest for a second constitutional convention failing which nullification and/or secession mode.

 

"I don't see why this is an argument for the legality of secession. "

Because the 10th amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If the Constitution is silent on the matter of whether the states have a power, they have it. If it is silent on the matter of whether the federal government has a power, it lacks it. Between the 9th and 10th amendments, any ambiguity in the Constitution is supposed to be resolved in favor of the states and people, not the federal government.
 

Brett attempts, as an engineer, to build a bridge to nowhere between the 9th and 10th As. Keep in mind that if the federal government puts down an effort by either a state or individuals for secession, charges of treason may follow. The Constitution read as a whole does not include a suicide pact. Perhaps SPAM I AM! will now chime in with his alternative "armed revolution" again.
 

"any ambiguity"

The word "expressly" was advisedly not added to the 10A and the result was that certain "ambiguity" involving federal powers arose, certain power given by implication that otherwise would not be present. Like Sandy Levinson, maybe you don't like certain things in the Constitution, but supposedly I thought words and nonuse of words had consequences.

Anyway, yes, the Constitution doesn't crystal clearly answer various things, so we have to interpret it. The agreement/compact provision presumes the Constitution was still binding. The whole argument was that there was an implicit power to secede and no longer be bound by such things. The "agreement" occurred after that happened here.
 

By the Bybee {expletives deleted], is it obvious that Christie's support of Trump may be for a Bridgegate pardon from a President Trump? This is a call for: "Guilty or not guilty?" David Samson may provide Christie's "Samson" weakness.
 

Sandy & Brett:

The Constitution is not silent as to the union of states.

The first purpose of the Constitution laid out in its preamble was to form a more perfect union of states.

By signing onto the Constitution, the original thirteen states agreed to surrender part of their sovereignty and submit to a limited national government under the terms of that compact. The Tenth Amendment confirms that arrangement.

Congress created all the other states from federal land through the Art. IV, Sec. 3 grant of power. They are all creatures of the constitutional union.

The Constitution does not grant the states any power to secede (or Congress any power to remove states) from the union. Once in, never out.

 

BD: "Individual secession can actually strengthen the union. America was founded on the idea that we are all free to live our lives as we please so long as we do not harm one another. Anyone who cannot abide by this principle and stay out of their neighbors' lives is only an American by accident of birth and is welcome to leave for less free lands where they would feel more at home. Such an outmigration leaving those of us who share a love for freedom and a willingness to assume its responsibilities would increase unity."

Shag: SPAM I AM! is saying, in effect, "Love America as a libertarian or leave it."


More like "Respect the freedom of your neighbors or leave the neighborhood."

Of course, libertarians, who constitute a very small minority, could also leave America. "Individual secession." "Individual sovereignty."

Americans have paid too high of a blood price to establish and maintain their freedom to surrender to tyrants now.
 

Let's examine SPAM I AM!'s rewrite of my rewrite of his earlier commen:


"Respect the freedom of your neighbors or leave the neighborhood."

So if I do not respect neighbors who are 2nd A absolutists who have exercised their freedom, as they perceive it, to assemble arsenals of arms to thwart some enemy that might include minorities and even state or federal government, then I should leave my neighborhood?

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], SPAM I AM! seems to recognize the "blood price" paid by African Americans under Jim Crow laws post the Civil War Amendments for many decades to surrender to concerned tyrants now in fear of the changing demographics. So perhaps SPAM I AM! might favor addressing the 2nd A inequality of people of color to level the playing field in their neighborhoods rather than leaving.

 

It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood,
A beautiful day for a neighbor.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?...

It's a neighborly day in this beauty wood,
A neighborly day for a beauty.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?...

I've always wanted to have a neighbor just like you.
I've always wanted to live in a neighborhood with you.

So, let's make the most of this beautiful day.
Since we're together we might as well say:
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?
Won't you be my neighbor?
Won't you please,
Won't you please?
Please won't you be my neighbor?

[takes out gun]

Um. Okay. Nice tomatoes. Bye!
 

BD: "Respect the freedom of your neighbors or leave the neighborhood."

Shag: So if I do not respect neighbors who are 2nd A absolutists who have exercised their freedom, as they perceive it, to assemble arsenals of arms to thwart some enemy that might include minorities and even state or federal government, then I should leave my neighborhood?


As noted in our Declaration of Independence, any government which abridges our freedom is illegitimate.

Democracies can and often become illegitimate, which is why our Constitution limited the power our democratically elected government can exercise.

If you elect governments which disarm your neighbors in violation of their natural right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment, then you are complicit in that illegitimacy.

If you insist on electing governments to abridge your neighbors' freedom, then most definitely move out of the neighborhood.
 

Note that SPAM I AM! in his 12:07 PM comment ignores this from my 11:43 AM comment:

***

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], SPAM I AM! seems to recognize the "blood price" paid by African Americans under Jim Crow laws post the Civil War Amendments for many decades to surrender to concerned tyrants now in fear of the changing demographics. So perhaps SPAM I AM! might favor addressing the 2nd A inequality of people of color to level the playing field in their neighborhoods rather than leaving.

***

An armed challenge by those claiming a democracy has become illegitimate which fails to succeed in it challenge just might demonstrate that the challenge was illegitimate, with the failed challengers being treated as criminals.

Perhaps SPAM I AM! might list how the federal government abridges the freedom of Americans that would trigger the DOI rule/principle he referred to.

Regarding SPAM I AM!'s claim of a natural right to keep and bear arms, does that justify a person assembling an arsenal of arms that might feel threatening to a neighbor who can't afford such an arsenal in his self defense? After all, the former may be a bad guy with an arsenal of arms without some semblance of reasonable regulation. I guess SPAM I AM! feels more manly with his glock in his jock.
 

Some weeks ago I coined, as is my wont per the 1st A, a word to describe Donald J. Trump. That word is better applied to the first day of the GOP Convention with the fog-bound entrance by The Donald to introduce his wife and her speech in praise of The Donald: "MEGALOMELANIA!" (Stephen, feel free to use.)

By the Bybee {expletives deleted], The Revengelicals who turned against the Cruz Canadacy to support Trump with the "TRUMP FAMILY VALUES CONvention" probably are not upset that Ivana and Marla, wives #1 and #2, will not be speaking at the "CONvention." Donald doesn't like "Losers." Wait a second, what about Christie, Cruz, Carson, Rubio, all "Losers" who have or will be speaking at the "CONvention"?
 

I just checked the Legal History Blog and it has a post on a new book: "Maltz's 'Coming of the Nixon Court'" with an interesting description by the publisher and blurbs including by Mark Tushnet and Mark Graber.

Keep in mind that Nixon also gave us Watergate.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Donald J. Trump now seems to be molding his campaign after that of Nixon, apparently his new hero, by proclaiming he is the Law and Order candidate. Query: Is this political plagiary? In the future might The Donald channel Nixon further with "I am not a crook."?
 

Disappointed some with the other recent book on the Nixon Court. Will see if the library gets that in. Mark Graber wrote a forward to Maltz's book "Slavery and the Supreme Court."
 

Shag: Note that SPAM I AM! in his 12:07 PM comment ignores this from my 11:43 AM comment: By the Bybee [expletives deleted], SPAM I AM! seems to recognize the "blood price" paid by African Americans under Jim Crow laws post the Civil War Amendments for many decades to surrender to concerned tyrants now in fear of the changing demographics.

The analogy is nonsense.

Perhaps SPAM I AM! might list how the federal government abridges the freedom of Americans that would trigger the DOI rule/principle he referred to.

That is all I do here. Refer to several hundred prior posts.

Regarding SPAM I AM!'s claim of a natural right to keep and bear arms, does that justify a person assembling an arsenal of arms that might feel threatening to a neighbor who can't afford such an arsenal in his self defense?

Threatening someone with a firearm except in self defense is a crime. Your neighbor harboring irrational fears about your firearms is a mental illness.




 

Like "irrational fears" at Columbine and other schools attended of young children familiar with Mr. Rogers' lyrics in Joe's comment. When white men march with open carry armament in an African American neighborhood that is not threatening, merely an irrational fear on the part of the residents who might have heard of the KKK? Yes, one can "refer to several hundredprior posts" of SPAM I AM! to understand his hatred, vile and venom spewed at this Blog.
 

The theme of the second day of the TRUMP FAMILY VALUES CONvention was:

"Make America Safe Again"

A cynic has suggested that this is actually an infomercial for a pre-production product that will bear the TRUMP logo: Prophylactics, not only for safe but also the best sex ever. Guess who will provide the testimonials. There are plans for special dimensions for men with small hands.

Ah yes, there's always a cynic, or two, or ....
 

Shag:

Your children are several times more likely to die from a lightning strike than at school in a mass murder like Columbine.

White, black and brown men openly carry in my town and I am not huddled in a corner of my home paralyzed with fear.

Once again, the mental illnesses and immaturities of you geldings on the left are not my problem.

The KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. GOP government in the South has all but eliminated the group.
 

Speaking of geldings, I'm reminded that just about the only redeeming feature of SPAM I AM! is that he won't pass on his hatred, vile and venom genes so SPAM I AM! need not concern himself with his children dying as a result lighning or mass murder by means of arms.

The current version of the KKK is part of the base of the current Republican Party and heartily endorses Trump's dog whistles.

Like the NRA, SPAM I AM! is not concerned with mental illnesses and immaturities of alleged good guys with guns.
 

Bart,

The data does not support the lightning strike versus mass killing of schoolchildren risk assessment. NOAA collects data on lightning deaths; you can find it online at http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/victims.shtml Note that the number of school aged children killed by lightning in the relevant time frame falls far short of the number of school aged children killed in mass school shootings.
 

Headline from Day 3 of the TRUMP FAMILY VALUES CONvention:

CRUZ CANADACY CRUSADER URGES VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!

Those delegates booing took that as an endorsement for Hillary Clinton. That was like a lightning strike.

Time out for the Late Show critique by Stephen Colbert.
 

Trump eulogy: "IN FOR A PENCE, IN FOR A POUNDING."

Remember, Pence was a strong supporter of the Cruz Canadacy for the Indiana primary and said some nasty things about The Donald. While defeaTED in Indiana, Cruz did not forget The Donald's accusation of his dad made by the Donald and even took revenge at the Revengelicals who had earlier abandoned him for the glitz of The Donald by reminding the TRUMP FAMILY VALUES CONvention" delegates to vote their conscience, something the Revengelicals had abandoned for the glitz of The Donald. Can we expect a "Hear, Hear" from SPAM I AM!?

In honor of the Late Show critique of Day 3 of the TRUMP FAMILY VALUES CONvention, I plan to have a Cuban [no, not the cigar] at the liberal lunch, some progressives, today, not in honor of Ted Cruz, but the real billionaire/rapper Mark Cuban.
 

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Ted Cruz gave a shout-out to Lebron James during his speech at the TRUMP FAMILY VALUES CONvention that is a reminder to Lebron's fans why they should vote for Hillary Clinton. SLAM DUNK!
 

Unknown:

Lightning does not distinguish between people on the basis of age. You have to use the entire population to calculate odds of any one person being killed by a lightning strike.

Shag brought up K-12 mass shootings like Columbine. There have been three K-12 mass shootings like Columbine - Columbine (13 in 1999), Santana (2 in 2001) and Sandy Hook (20 in 2012). If you consider such incidents to be an ongoing problem as opposed to less than a handful of freak occurrences, less than two school children a year died in K-12 mass shootings from 1999 to 2016. If you spread out the time period over the past generation, the risk becomes vanishingly small.
 

Shag:

Cruz called on delegates to vote for the candidate who is most likely to protect our freedom. Pretty much rules out Hillary Clinton.

Cruz is positioning himself as the anti-Trump in 2012.
 

SPAM I AM! is suggesting that Ted Cruz is " ... positioning himself as the anti-Trump in 2012"? Apparently SPAM I AM! doesn't have 2020 vision when Cruz might be the anti-Clinton candidate. Or is SPAM I AM! not so secretly rooting and tooting for a win by The Donald, whom SPAM I AM! has branded over and over again as a fascist. If so, may lightning strike SPAM I AM! for wanting a fascist President.

 

Shag: SPAM I AM! is suggesting that Ted Cruz is " ... positioning himself as the anti-Trump in 2012"? Apparently SPAM I AM! doesn't have 2020 vision when Cruz might be the anti-Clinton candidate.

All sane Republicans are anti-Clinton.

I am discussing Cruz positioning himself within the Republican party for a run in 2012.
 

My concern was that Cruz's v.p. wasn't by his side.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/cruzs-non-endorsement/

The fact he is being political/opportunist here is duly noted; it's what politicians do. Other politicians, including John Kasich, are staying away from the convention. They are doing this at least partially for strategic reasons. Still, I appreciate him not endorsing Trump. Still not a big fan of the guy. But, like arguing that he is a natural born citizen, it's only fair to give him his due when it's warranted.

There was some concern that he was wrong to go to the convention and not endorse Trump. Well, from what I can tell, he didn't say he would. The embargoed speech text, going by media reports, didn't endorse Trump. And, he did come in second. It isn't just the "Trump Convention."

Anyway, the party is supposed to be for religious liberty. Vote your conscience" sounds like something they would find copacetic. Meanwhile:

Donald J. TrumpVerified account‏@realDonaldTrump

Ted Cruz talks about the Constitution but doesn't say that if the Dems win the Presidency, the new JUSTICES appointed will destroy us all!


Sounds like a job for the Suicide Squad!
 

SPAM I AM! says:

"All sane Republicans are anti-Clinton. "

Those involved in the 2016 Clown Limo debates were obviously insane as they could not beat The Donald. Query: Are all Republicans sane who would vote for the "fascist" Donald J. Trump or help elect him by voting Libertarian?

Was Cruz in 2012 aware that The Donald would be a candidate in 2016 in his positioning mission claimed by SPAM I AM! Discussing? All SPAM I AM! said was:

"Cruz is positioning himself as the anti-Trump in 2012."

Note the verb "is" rather than "was", present tense. Maybe Mr. W can explain this to SPAM I AM! as I am getting ready for the liberal lunch, some progressives.

 

Shag, we seem to have evidence of time travel technology.

Rev up the DeLorean. We are going Back to the Future! 2012.


 

All sane Republicans are anti-Clinton.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:26 AM


Evidence for sane Republicans is very much lacking.

 

BB:

Those who plan to vote for serial lying, felon, multi-millionaire influence peddlers have a very different concept of sanity and morality than do the rest of us.
 


Those who plan to vote for serial lying, felon, multi-millionaire influence peddlers have a very different concept of sanity and morality than do the rest of us.


How is that search for Iraq's WMD coming along, you fuckwit?
 

BB:

You mean the WMD your dowager queen in waiting gave as a reason for her vote to go to war?

I can do this all day with Clinton. Your wannabe queen has taken both sides of nearly every issue. The Party of Arses has never run a more target rich candidate.
 

Blogger Bart DePalma said...
BB:

You mean the WMD your dowager queen in waiting gave as a reason for her vote to go to war?



The WMD that did not exist. At least Clinton admitted she was wrong about the Iraq disaster. I'm pretty sure you're too batshit crazy to ever admit you were wrong about that disaster.


 

SPAM I AM! for some reason has abandoned his simpletonian claim that:

"Cruz is positioning himself as the anti-Trump in 2012."

SPAM I AM! might have reviewed some principles of grammar. As Joe suggests, SPAM I AM! seems to be a spaced-out time traveler - a "Star Dreker."
 

I'm not one to call out typos, but "rule of funny" applies.
 

Perhaps "Star Drecker" in the manner of Mel Brooks' "Spaceballs" would have satisfied the rule for the goyim?
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home