Balkinization  

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

The problematics of impeachment (I): The specific problems of Charles Black's take on the presidency

Sandy Levinson

It will presumably surprise no one that one of my major responses to the present debacle going on in Washington is further distaste for what I believe, more than ever, is a deeply flawed and dysfunctional Constitutional that might quite literally contribute to destroying the country (and even the world)  as we know it.  I will undoubtedly be posting a number of entries elaborating my arguments.  But for now I want to focus on a fairly peripheral matter, which is the remarkable authority granted to Charles Black's 1974 Handbook on impeachment. Black was clearly a major presence at the Yale Law School during the 1970s (and in the legal academy for a much longer period).  People speak of him with reverence. I have no reason to challenge the veneration directed at him.  I met him once, for approximately fifteen seconds, but I of course have read some of his major work, including two unforgettable essays on Brown and on the "state action" doctrine, which he accurately described as a "conceptual disaster area."  There is also, of course, his classic book on structural constitutional interpretation.  But his principal fame now is as the author of the slender book recently republished by the Yale Press with much new material added by my friend and colleague Philip Bobbitt.  Indeed, we are co-teaching a reading course on the book this semester.  Mark Tushnet alludes to the book in his excellent comment on the role, if any, that legal academics have to play in the public debate about impeachment.

I want to focus, for now, on why I find the Handbook to be remarkably problematic and in significant ways anachronistic, coming both literally and metaphorically from another era.  It is an excellent primary source about how a gifted and important law professor, much venerated by his students, was thinking at the time of  Richard Nixon's impeachment in 1974.  But that does not speak to its genuine relevance today. I find it somewhat similar to running across a Victorian etiquette book on how to respond if the Queen invites you to tea.

Let me, for now, focus only on the four-page introduction to the book.  Paragraph two begins as follows:  "The presidency is a prime symbol of our national unity...."  Given this ostensible reality, "everyone must shrink from this most drastic of measures," i.e., impeachment.  To the extent that one agrees with Black, these are, I believe, among the true pathologies of the American constitutional order..  One of its worst features, perhaps traceable to the Constitution , is the joinder of head of state with the head of government.  The British are lucky enough to have a Queen to whom they direct their emotional attachment re the United Kingdom; otherwise, they treat their prime ministers exactly as Ross Perot correctly suggested in his own presidential campaign in 1992 should be the case:  as our chief employee. Among other things, this means we should display, as the British in fact do, an unsentimental willingness to sack presidents when they are disserving the country. 

What Black is in fact suggesting, without quite saying so, is that we have substituted the "chief executive" for the British Monarch, not only in terms of certain powers (such as pardoning) , but also, as already suggested, as the proper recipient for emotional cathexis.  Thus the playing by the Marine Band of "Hail to Chief," which suggests to most people not only the technical reality that he (or in the future she) is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (whatever exactly that means) and not in any sense whatsoever our Chief beyond that.  George Washington might well have been a symbol of national unity.  At least since the election of 1800 (and, as a matter of fact, in 1796, that has been an altogether dubious proposition.  Perhaps Black, who I gather was famous for his civility, believed that we ought to treat presidents as unusual individuals who united the country. but one certainly wonder why we should aspire to that in a non-fascist country. 

The most fundamental issue, of course, is what it should take to fire a terrible president. I will write later elaborating my view that the capture of the Impeachment Clause by lawyers has been an utter disaster, and, of course, Black in fact contributed to that because of his heightened belief (adopted, incidentally, by Bobbitt), that impeachment is most fundamentally a matter of law and not of politics.  But I begin with these introductory comments (by Black) because they capture so well the unfortunately heightened rhetoric we adopt with regard both to whoever occupies the Oval Office and then to the ostensible consequences of displacing that person.  Black doesn't explain why it would be so terrible to fire a president.  The implicit reason, of course, is that it would be the equivalent of parricide (and not simply, as Josh Chafetz suggested some years ago in an excellent article, a useful substitute for tyrannicide).  A more rational political system, I suggest, would not find Professor Black's language so acceptable.  Ross Perot was absolutely correct in his unsentimental description of the president.  And, as we have seen with regard, say, to the Boeing Corporation, a variety of athletic programs, movie studios, etc., the boards of directors re notably willing to sack ostensible leaders when they are thought to have behaved in one or another dicey way.  Even if one believes that immediate firing may be too drastic, very few object to the suspension (perhaps with pay) of the alleged miscreant.  Only at the highest level, with regard to the individual who has power over nuclear weapons, do we believe that demonstrably unfit persons must be left in office unless they can be shown, satisfactory to their literally thoughtless partisan supporters, to have committed criminal acts. 

Black, to his great credit, rejected the nonsense being purveyed by Alan Dershowitz, who believes that we're talking not about firing an unfit employee, but instead jailing him (or perhaps even committing the equivalent of regiicide, as in 1649).  One does not have to demonstrate that a president committed a "criminal" offense, whatever the language of the text.  The fact is that the Impeachment Clause, like several other parts of the Constitution, was dreadfully drafted, in part because, contrary to Black's assurance in the introduction, it was not "very carefully considered." The convention was flailing around at that point trying to figure out for once and for all first how to elect a president--and we got the truly terrible electoral college--and then how to displace one.  (They were not offended by the possibility that an elected president would be displaced; the only question was what it should take.)     But Black still believed, as does Bobbitt, that lawyers have some special insight into what it should take to displace a president.  Like Mark Tushnet (I think), I'm really skeptical. My own concerns are those of a concerned a frightened citizen.  I genuinely don't know what the various testimony including that by good friends whom I truly like and admire, has added to our common life as citizens.

A final comment for now about Black (and his anachoronism).  He emphasizes that theHouse and the Senate, as "responsible tribunals," are "duty bound to act as their own views of the law and the facts, as free as may be of partisan political motives and pressure...."  We ought to expect "principled political neutrality." This may be a noble hope, but it is almost literally a fantasy with regard to the world we live in today.   Our task is not to utter anachronistic and pious hopes, but to address the awful world we live in (including the very epitome of what Jack accurately calls "constitutional rot," Mitch McConnell, who in a proper system would never have been allowed to perjure himself by taking his oath to be "impartial" in presenting and listening to the evidence).  A modern handbook should listen to Donald Rumsfeld:  We conduct politics with the political culture (and  Constitution) we have, not the one we wish we had.  To pretend that Donald Trump is Washington or that Mitch McConnell is entitled to even an iota of respect as a Publian legislator is the equivalent of accepting as true the ravings of huckster. 

How can anyone who teaches constitutional law, especially to younger students, possibly pretend that this is really a republic that they should mindlessly pledge allegiance to?

Comments:

Generally speaking, the president was elected by the people (the system of selection is flawed and that should be kept in mind), so it is a weighty matter for Congress to remove. I don't know how our system is different there as compared to some other system with a presidential system. It would be an easier call if we had a parliamentary system though even there it takes something before a vote of no confidence occurs.

Black's respect for the "nobility" surely was known by him -- consider the segregationists -- to be limited by human weakness. Note the "as free as may be." Or, possibly be, I gather. But, the concern is noted. Still, how does one replace this? The likely system will still rely on partisan actors.

This would be true even if we have some national recall vote option. At some point, this is more than a constitutional problem, but a problem with the political society we have. There is a connection -- gerrymandering, e.g., is aided and abetted by the constitutional system we have without clearer means to address that. Just an example.
 

The British are usually right on issues of government where they diverge from the US, going all the way back to the 19th Century where they banned slavery while we made it the central organizing principle of the American government, and certainly the divergence on head of state/head of government is another one of those areas. Making the head of government the head of state creates all sorts of problems for the US.

But one of the rare things the framers got right was the impeachment clause. I mean, you COULD have a recall. We don't have great experience with it in California, but at least, one can say that Schwarzenegger had a popular mandate after he took office, and there wasn't a lot of bitterness from Davis supporters because the public spoke.

But if you aren't going to have a recall, the impeachment clause, especially its 2/3 Senate majority requirement, is the next best thing. You can't have the Supreme Court decide this- you'll get Bush v. Gore every time. You can't have a majority vote unless we were to switch to a parliamentary system (which would be a great idea, but isn't happening). You can't have a jury do it- those jurors would have their lives threatened, be bribed, and could never be impartial. (And by the way, despite the Senators' oath, literally NO Americans can be impartial about impeachments in the sense that some commenters here want them to be.)

What the impeachment clause does is basically make it possible to remove the President, but only when you get a significant chunk of both parties on board. That respects the results of elections, prevents using impeachment to undo elections, and requires Democrats to actually persuade Republicans that Trump is unfit, or Republicans to persuade Democrats that Clinton is unfit.

Yes, that means there will seldom be successful impeachments. But note- in Britain, there are seldom successful no confidence votes either.
 

Sandy: One does not have to demonstrate that a president committed a "criminal" offense, whatever the language of the text...The fact is that the Impeachment Clause, like several other parts of the Constitution, was dreadfully drafted...Black still believed, as does Bobbitt, that lawyers have some special insight into what it should take to displace a president. Like Mark Tushnet (I think), I'm really skeptical. My own concerns are those of a concerned a frightened citizen.

You are one of the few Democrats who are at least honest about trashing the Constitution's standard for impeachment in your quest to overthrow Donald Trump.

Applying basic tenets of legal interpretation, rather than unreasoning loathing and fear, are indeed useful for determining the standard for impeachment and removal.

The standard for impeachment is written in a common form: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." When a law offers two or more specific items followed by a general catchall provision, the items included in the general provision are limited to the same class as the proceeding items. Eiusdem generis.

The intent of the drafters confirms the text. According to Madison's notes, the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected including "maladministration" (abuse of lawful power) as a ground for impeachment because the term is meaningless and would allow the Senate to set presidential terms.

Thus, the text as confirmed by the intent of the drafters limited "high crimes and misdemeanors" to violations of the law on the same level as treason and bribery.
 

Important, and impressive. Yet, too vague with all due respect. Dynamic has role here to play. Practicality and dynamic:

First, the constitution dictates clearly, I quote relevant part ( Article II):

" The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America....."

Some argue even, that the president, can't even obstruct justice. Simply, because he is in charge of all investigations whatever. So, one may respect him or not, but, he is in charge. By all means so.

Second, The " putsch doctrine ". That is to say, that in every regime, there is ongoing constant tension, between current holder of power, and rivals, political rivals. In order, not to let them to interfere with the sovereign choice ( the people) one should avoid, or, establish precautionary measures, in order, not to let, opposition forces, to carry out coup d'etat, and overthrow the ruler, just for their own political sake or greed.

Third, presumption of innocence. The president, is like every other person, presumed innocent, until actually proven guilty. That is to say, that one needs to investigate, and prove clearly, that he is guilty, yet, until then, well " many fishes will be eaten " and meanwhile, he is the president, sitting one, and in charge all over.

Fourth, suppose, that one may harass the acting president, every Monday and maniac day, accusing him of such or such wrongdoing, or criminal conduct, well, he will have to spend hell amount of time, in defending his cases in litigation. This is problematic, for such heavy burden he bears, and huge responsibility.


Thanks
 

One other point, which I think is key.

"The impeachment clause is terrible because it is too hard to remove Trump", and its cousin, "the Republicans are terrible because they don't agree with Democrats that Trump should be removed" are simply bad arguments.

As Rawls might say, you have to design governmental structures behind a veil of ignorance. Things like partisanship- the desires of Democrats to defend Clinton and Johnson and Republicans to defend Trump and Nixon- have to be taken as a given. You don't know what the specific alleged impeachable offenses will be.

What you want to do is design a system that can remove a President in that rare situation where the public just decides he or she has got to go, without designing a system that results in frequent partisan removals of Presidents.

The fact is, such a system will mean that Bill Clinton and Donald Trump stay in office, because they did not lose the support of members of their own parties. But you have to do it that way, because once you override the judgment of the President's own party to keep the President in office, you are going to get frequent partisan impeachments.

"But", you might say, "that means that partisans who want to defend their President at all costs can keep a corrupt criminal President in office". Yes, but: (1) they can only do it for a limited period of time; (2) they may pay an electoral cost by doing it if the public wants the President gone; and (3) there are other checks and balances in the government that prevent the President from having absolute power.

In other words, you can't view the impeachment clause as separate from the rest of the Constitution, which provides all sorts of other mechanisms to prevent tyranny.
 

Following my comment above, the respectable author of the post, can read here for example:

" A sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution "

" Memorandum opinion for the Attorney General"

https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download

I shall leave more later maybe......
 

"going all the way back to the 19th Century where they banned slavery while we made it the central organizing principle of the American government,"

Whoa. Project 1619 much?

""But", you might say, "that means that partisans who want to defend their President at all costs can keep a corrupt criminal President in office". Yes, but:"

But it also means that partisans who merely want to remove the opposing party's President at all costs, can't. How do you distinguish between a President who's corrupt and criminal, and a President who's merely alleged to be corrupt and criminal as a pretext for removing him?

You look at whether the case persuades people who wouldn't otherwise want him removed...
 

Abha Transport Company شركة نقل اثاث بابها
would like to deal with Abha Transport company feel with her reassurance on your furniture and your luggage and ensure that you transport your luggage safely and peacefully,Introduction of Hafr Al-Batin Cleaning Company: Cleanliness of the faith, and recommended us Almighty cleanliness in ... Hafr Al-Batin Cleaning Company offers service in Hafr Al-Batin and all surrounding areas, .... Transport company transfer Dawadmi شركة تنظيف بحفر الباطن
We come to the best furniture transport company with the lowest prices, which areWant the best furniture move her door Hahi شركة نقل اثاث بابها

cleaning and cleaning services of air conditioning and sewage and insect control on all household services that we doشركة تنظيف بحفر الباطن


 

Whoa. Project 1619 much?

I wasn't talking about the 1619. I was talking about the first half of the 19th Century, when most of the rest of the world was banning slavery and the US was enacting gag rules in the House, passing fugitive slave acts, passing compromise after compromise to ensure new slave states got admitted and the South didn't lose its electoral power to maintain slavery, and deciding cases that held that slaves/ex-slaves had no rights that white people had to respect. It seems to me that you don't have to go full on 1619 project to understand that the US government was consumed with perpetuating slavery during the 19th Century.

You look at whether the case persuades people who wouldn't otherwise want him removed...
 

You look at whether the case persuades people who wouldn't otherwise want him removed...

Right.

And really, that's the only workable standard.
 

I think it can be fairly said that the US federal government was too accommodating with slavery. "The central organizing principle of American government"? That goes a bit too far.
 

Slavery determined what could be debated in Congress, and what states were admitted, had a large role in creating the two party system, dominated every Presidential election and many congressional elections, etc. It was the issue that everything else took a back seat to. It defined the structure of the federal government until 1865. It eclipsed everything else- there's no other single issue that had such a major impact during that era.
 

" According to Madison's notes, the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected including "maladministration" (abuse of lawful power) as a ground for impeachment because the term is meaningless and would allow the Senate to set presidential terms."

They passed on maladministration because it was so broad it not only included corrupt rule but also merely inefficient rule, and yes they reasonably didn't see that as grounds for impeachment. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/maladministration

"the items included in the general provision are limited to the same class as the proceeding items"

And that class is captured in the term 'high,' that is they wanted impeachment for offenses by those in office over the public trust. They were quite clear that this was not limited to criminal code violations (and indeed, would probably not include many actual criminal code felonies-the example given about vandalizing a post office box) but rather to political offenses.

"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." Hamilton, Federalist 65
 

I actually have to agree with Bircher Brett. Slavery was but one of many factors that *some* of the states wanted to defend (and then yet some wanted to limit/extinguish). Against that background compromises, many sordid, were reached. I think it's hard to argue that slavery was the central organizing principle of American government when, for example, you have things like Article 1, Sec. 9, Clause 1.
 

I think Sandy is correct that this involves a failing of the Founders. They didn't foresee the rise and nature of modern party politics. They thought Congresscritters like Cruz or Graham would actually have more spine than a banana and feel a fealty to their branch more than a party. They also didn't foresee the rise and extent of modern mass media and how that would lead to something like focus on national party figures with cults of personality such that state reps and senators would, as a political matter, have to debase themselves in displays of fealty to such figures as the cost for holding their position. Thus all it takes is for a party to lose its moral compass because they either buy into the cult of national figures and/or they fear losing the power the national figure gives them, then impeachment becomes a useless tool. Of course this is only accentuated by the countermajoritarian components of our republic.
 

Mista:

Slavery was the one non-negotiable aspect of the Constitution.

The framers discussed monarchy. They discussed a parliament. They discussed various breadths of federal and state power. They discussed having or not having a Bill of Rights. All of those were in play.

Only one thing was untouchable, non-negotiable. It was going to be protected in the Constitution, and the framers were so racist, so dishonest, and knew what they were doing was so evil, that they didn't even mention the word "slavery" even as they added multiple provisions to protect it.

And Article I Section 9 Clause 1 is a key example of their complete obsession with protecting Thomas Jefferson's right to rape Sally Hemings whenever he wanted to. You see, allowing the banning of importation of slaves after 20 years was not some humanitarian gesture. It was about allowing Jefferson and the other rapists to accumulate slaves cheaply, and then get a huge return on their investment as the value of slaves would go up after importation was prohibited.

The entire government was founded on slavery. They didn't believe in equality for black people, they didn't believe in establishing justice for black people or promoting the welfare of black people, they didn't believe in the rights of accused black people, they didn't believe in due process for black people, and they didn't believe that black people had any rights to life liberty or the pursuit of happiness. They founded this government on one, single, non-negotiable principle, which was that states that wished to enslave black people would be able to do so.

That's the United States of America.

The reason why so many people are duped about this is the framers absolutely knew that they were evil criminals who enjoyed raping their slaves more than they cared about liberty. So they created a cover story, that it was really about liberty and justice and freedom and all those other things. It wasn't, except for a few favored classes of white male property owners.

There was only one thing that they cared about to the point that it wasn't even considered that they might prohibit it, and that was slavery. You cannot claim that about any other issue. Yes, it was the principle this great republic was founded on.
 

""But", you might say, "that means that partisans who want to defend their President at all costs can keep a corrupt criminal President in office". Yes, but: (1) they can only do it for a limited period of time; (2) they may pay an electoral cost by doing it if the public wants the President gone; and (3) there are other checks and balances in the government that prevent the President from having absolute power."

This strikes me as saying I can't complain my umbrella is defective because I also own a rain coat and rain boots.
 

Dilan, I'll cop to not being an expert in this history of the Convention on this matter, but it certainly strikes me as odd that the document that supposedly gave no play to limiting X had a provision banning the importation of more X. Also, why would there have been a 3/5ths 'compromise' if it wasn't 'in play'?
 

I think Sandy is correct that this involves a failing of the Founders. They didn't foresee the rise and nature of modern party politics. They thought Congresscritters like Cruz or Graham would actually have more spine than a banana and feel a fealty to their branch more than a party. They also didn't foresee the rise and extent of modern mass media and how that would lead to something like focus on national party figures with cults of personality such that state reps and senators would, as a political matter, have to debase themselves in displays of fealty to such figures as the cost for holding their position.

I actually assume they understood that there would be party politics (they called them "factions", and they existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution).

But let's assume you are right. the problem with your argument is "would you write the impeachment clause any differently if you knew this?". And the answer is, "no, you wouldn't". Because any impeachment clause that allows Democrats to remove Trump over Republican objection also allows Republicans to remove Clinton and Obama over Democrats' objection.

Or maybe it would allow the Supreme Court to remove Democrats whenever there is a 5 justice Republican majority. Would you like that?

At the end of the day, hyper-partisanship makes the case for the impeachment clause, rather than against it.
 

Dilan, I'll cop to not being an expert in this history of the Convention on this matter, but it certainly strikes me as odd that the document that supposedly gave no play to limiting X had a provision banning the importation of more X. Also, why would there have been a 3/5ths 'compromise' if it wasn't 'in play'?

As I said, banning the importation of slaves after 20 years benefitted the slave owners. That's not a controversial claim, by the way; just about everyone says this.

As for the 3/5ths compromise, it wasn't put in because slavery was in play, but because slavery was a given. Having decided to form a government for the non-negotiable purpose of perpetuating slavery, they needed to make sure states with a lot of slaves would not get outvoted, because then slavery might be endanger. The 3/5ths compromise was the solution to that problem, because it counted slaves sufficiently in state populations to give the white slaveowners disproportionate power to vote to preserve the institution. The 3/5ths compromise is proof that perpetuating slavery was precisely the point of the Constitution.
 

This strikes me as saying I can't complain my umbrella is defective because I also own a rain coat and rain boots.

It's closer to saying it isn't a big deal if your umbrella has 3 different buttons that will open it and one doesn't work all the time.
 

There does not appear to be four GOP votes for hearing witnesses.

Three have suggested support for witnesses, but Romney wants both Bolton and Hunter Biden, which will not fly with the Democrats protecting Old Joe.

Gardner just came out against and Toomey appears to be heading that way.

The Democrat impeachment circus will likely wrap up on Friday with no new witnesses and an acquittal vote, including all the Republicans and perhaps three Dems from WV, AL and AZ.
 

This morning they were saying McConnell didn't have the votes to prevent witnesses, now they are saying he does.

I think it's worth saying, though, in response to Bart, that Republicans could clearly get both Bidens if they decided to call witnesses. Their caucus has veto power over Chief Justice Roberts, which means that even if Roberts ruled his testimony irrelevant (and he wouldn't), they could overrule him. There really isn't anything the Democrats could do to stop this. There are historical precedents- the Senate has the power in impeachment trials even to overrule lawyer-client privilege claims, which happened in the 19th Century. So they could certainly overrule any objection and force the Bidens in.

So the issue isn't that they can't get the Bidens due to Democratic objections; it's that the consensus on the politics among Republicans is that it isn't worth it to try.
 

There does not appear to be four GOP votes for hearing witnesses. Three have suggested support for witnesses, but Romney wants both Bolton and Hunter Biden, which will not fly with the Democrats protecting Old Joe. Gardner just came out against and Toomey appears to be heading that way.

The Democrat impeachment circus will likely wrap up on Friday with an acquittal vote, including all the Republicans and perhaps three Dems from WV, AL and AZ. The RINOs and Republicans in tough races are echoing Dershowitz's argument that nothing the Democrats alleged amounts a high crime and misdemeanor.
 

"I'll cop to not being an expert in this history of the Convention on this matter"

There are plenty of people, including here, who can give you an accurate summary on this.
 

"perpetuating slavery was precisely the point of the Constitution."

If perpetuating slavery was precisely the point of the Constitution then why would their be a 3/5ths 'compromise?' Surely the slave power would have been better served with a full count. So it seems obvious that there were forces pushing back against the slave power, and the fact that many of the states didn't have slavery certainly makes it odd for the Constitution *they* were adopting to have as precisely its point the perpetuating of this institution they didn't practice...
 

Do you know the history Mark? Did the slave states just walk in and say 'hey we want a slave trade importation ban' and the other states just went 'oh, of course, fine with us?' and a unanimous vote absent any brokering followed?
 

Mista:

Large population states without a lot of slaves didn't like the "count all slaves" demand. Not because they wanted to putlaw slavery, but because it diluted their power.

Hence the compromise. It protects slavery while not completely swamping the other states.
 

I'm not sure that 'factions' as the Founders thought of them are equatable to modern national parties like what, from what I understand, Van Buren helped create much later. Having said that, no I don't think there's much of a re-write of the impeachment clause that could fix the problem with a party committed to being derelict in their duty out of fealty to or political fear of an impeached party leader. Sandy's not wrong to explore structural fixes, but sometimes there is none. Rather the problem is often more cultural (of course this cuts both ways-Republicans certainly thought the Democrats refusal to join in the Clinton impeachment was a sign of the general moral decay of the Democratic party regarding values [of course, their subsequent flip flop re Trump makes that position harder to defend today]).
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"Do you know the history Mark? Did the slave states just walk in and say 'hey we want a slave trade importation ban' and the other states just went 'oh, of course, fine with us?' and a unanimous vote absent any brokering followed?"

Yes, very well. There was a great deal of bargaining back and forth between the states which included slavery and other issues, especially equal representation in the Senate. Lots of it was done "out of doors" as they said back then, so we have to reconstruct it. But there are clues in the Notes.

Roughly speaking, the sequence went like this. Under the Articles of Confederation, the nation had treated slaves as 3/5 of a “person” for a very particular purpose. The Articles required that each state have taxes apportioned to it. As a method of estimating wealth, the Confederation Congress agreed in April 1783 to apportion wealth using population as a proxy for wealth, with slaves treated as 3/5 of a “person”. Putting aside our distaste for the very idea of “owning” property in another human being, this was a rational compromise way to treat the distribution of wealth among the colonies.

On June 11, 1787, the Convention decided that slaves would be counted at the ratio of 3/5 for the entirely different purpose of determining the number of Representatives in Congress. Slaves wouldn’t get to vote for these Representatives, of course. Instead, the owners of slaves would have their political power increased in Congress because the slaveholding states would be treated as having more voters than they actually had: each slave would give 3/5 extra “person”, and those “persons” would be counted in deciding how many Representatives each state would get.

The Northern states understood the impact of the 3/5 clause in this new context, and the smaller Northern states of New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and New Hampshire were concerned that Congress would ignore their interests because they wouldn’t have enough representation to be heard effectively. In addition, they worried that future slave states would make the problem worse, especially if those future slave states were geographically larger and therefore able to hold more people. Thus, these smaller Northern states insisted, that in the Senate each state must have equal representation. The vote on equal representation taken a bit later on the same day (June 11) failed 5-6, with North Carolina and South Carolina, among others, voting against it.

The issue came up for a vote again on July 2. This time it failed on a 5-5 vote. The missing vote against was that of NY due to the fact that Hamilton had left the Convention. The small states didn’t give up, though, and sometime between July 2 and July 16 a deal was finalized. On July 16 the Convention approved equal representation in the Senate. North Carolina and South Carolina switched their votes, allowing the provision to pass. Thus, we know the deal – or perhaps it was a series of deals – was made with those two states, we just don’t know the exact terms because the deal was made off the floor of the Convention and we don’t have a transcript or other notes.


 

Puzzling out the terms requires some reading between the lines. Key points seem to include further approval of the 3/5 clause, which occurred in the Convention on July 23, and approval of the Northwest Ordinance by the Confederation Congress. That approval took place on July 13, after the Ordinance had been in limbo for 3 years since Jefferson introduced it in 1784. The Northwest Ordinance was important. Under it, the North gained a law prohibiting slavery in the area which later became 5 states (OH, IN, IL, MI, and WI). The South gained a fugitive slave clause essentially identical to the one later inserted in the Constitution itself as Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl. 3, and, implicitly, the right to bring slaves into the area south of the Ohio River. Three members of the Convention left the Convention and traveled from Philadelphia up to New York in order to vote in favor of the Northwest Ordinance, where it passed unanimously, even the Southern states all voting in favor.

The deal probably also included the power of Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce by a majority vote, subject to the qualification that it could not prohibit the importation of slaves for a period of 20 years and could not tax the importation of slaves more than $10 each. Some members of the Convention from the South had wanted trade regulated by a 2/3 vote only, but they consented to majority vote. These provisions were added at the end of August, so consider the following comments from August 22 and August 29:

Gouverneur Morris: “These things may form a bargain among the Northern & Southern States.”

Roger Sherman (CT): “[I]t was better to let the S. States import slaves than to part with [those states], if they made that a sine qua non.”

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC): “[I]t was the true interest of the S. States to have no regulation of commerce; but considering the loss brought on the commerce of the Eastern States by the revolution, their liberal [meaning “generous”] conduct towards the views of South Carolina, and the interest the weak Southn. States had in being united with the strong Eastern States, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the power of making commercial regulations; and that his constituents though prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled to this liberality--He had himself, he said, prejudices agst the Eastern States before he came here, but would acknowledge that he had found them as liberal and candid as any men whatever.”

Taking all this into account, including much that I’ve omitted here for the sake of brevity, there’s a good inference that a deal was made in which equal representation in the Senate was one bargaining point and concessions regarding slavery another.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Thanks Mark!
 

Well, perpetuating slavery wouldn't be precisely the point of the Constitution if other states, even for totally non-slave related reasons, successfully pushed back against what the slave power ideally would want in parts of it like the 3/5ths compromise.

Again, given lots of the states had little to no slave power and the Constitution only refers to it a handful of times (and even then not explicitly) it's passing strange to see it the 'precise point' of the pact. It's easy to imagine a pact that much more clearly has as its 'precise point' the perpetration of slavery. In fact, you don't have to imagine the Confederate Constitution comes to mind. If the precise point of the US Constitution is the perpetration of slavery then how do you describe the Confederate Constitution? Does it have a pointy-er precise point?
 

Looking at it in total, it's certain that the Southern states, including VA, considered it in their interest to maintain slavery (for more on VA, see below). It's highly doubtful that they would have agreed to a Constitution which didn't give them the ability to protect slavery politically (since the Constitution itself does not do so). They made a good bargain with the North because the smaller states wanted equal representation in the Senate so badly. That turned out to favor the South, against expectations at the time. Everyone back then thought the Southern states would, in general, become more populous because they were larger and agriculture would provide more opportunity. Thus, they expected the South to control the House and the Senate to provide the North with balance.

The ban on importation came about because VA separated from the other Southern states on this issue. They had realized that they could make money selling their excess slaves further south. They didn't want importation to provide competition for that. Unfortunately for everyone, the 20 year window allowed enough importation of new slaves to make the slave population self-sustaining everywhere.

The Industrial Revolution changed the calculus which led to the bargain at the Convention. It made the Northern states more populous. Thus, the North ended up controlling the House and the South ended up controlling the Senate. It was control of the Senate and the presidency (thanks to the dual advantage of the 3/5 clause and the structure of the Senate), along with the Court, which allowed the South to set a pro-slavery policy until the Civil War.

There's been a debate for a long time now on whether the Constitution is textually pro-slavery. Most abolitionists took the position that it was. Frederick Douglass famously changed his mind, first agreeing with Garrison (who burned the Constitution at a rally), then later arguing that the Constitution granted ample power to regulate or even abolish slavery if only the government would use that power. In modern days that debate continues. Don Fehrenbacher is the most notable proponent of the position that the Constitution does not require slavery and Mark Graber, who used to post here, argues that the Southerners were more right about the Constitution being pro-slavery. I can recommend books if you're interested.


 

I read Don Fehrenbacher's last book (finished after his death) where he argued that the Constitution was not as pro-slavery as it became in practice. But, the truth there to me is mixed. There was enough in the Constitution to advance slavery and those with special interest in protecting it had more interest in doing so than those with at best mixed motives against it. Mark provides some historical details of 1787 horse trading.

Slavery was a major aspect of society in 1787 and it was going to factor into the Constitution somehow. Given the power of slavery, it is somewhat impressive the Constitution had enough room to get past it over time. The final nail however was the Civil War. It was conceivable though it would die out in another way as was the case in other nations. Things like presidential elections? Only advanced by the specific words of the Constitution to a degree.

I think Sandy is correct that this involves a failing of the Founders.

The Founders dealt with their time. It was up to their descendants, including us, to deal with ours. We too have our failings.
 

I should note, of course, slavery lingered on in another form.
 

"Having said that, no I don't think there's much of a re-write of the impeachment clause that could fix the problem with a party committed to being derelict in their duty out of fealty to or political fear of an impeached party leader."

Why do you assume that either party or its voters or politicians has an obligation to adopt the other party's theory of the Constitution?

This whole thing that Republicans are required to agree as to what is or isn't impeachable is an argument with absolutely no support. And by the way, Republicans did the same thing in 1999.

ANY time you make a "the only right position is mine and the other side must surrender" argument in a pluralistic democracy, you are being anti-democratic. The GOP does not owe a duty to you. They disagree with you.
 

No Mista. Mark is being a bit dishonest by underplaying the fact that slavery was NEVER a point of negotiation. The issue was HOW slavery would be entrenched. The reason for the 3/5ths compromise was to make sure the South could never be outvoted on slavery.

A polity that did not want to entrench slavery would never do that.

And there is not one shred of historical evidence that a single delegate argued for any prohibition on slavery in the Convention. Literally not one word. Slavery was the entire purpose. Our country was founded to perpetrate a Holocaust.
 

One other thing. Mark's statement that the Constitution does not protect slavery is a huge lie- and racist.

As Barbara Jordan, a great black congresswoman, noted in the Nixon impeachment, the Constitution very clearly and explicitly protected the enslavement of her people. Through the 3/5ths clause, and the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the Senate, and the Electoral College.
 

The Constitution gave no room to "get past slavery". The Union Army got past slavery, through means that had nothing to do with constitutional interpretation, and amendments had to be passed WHILE THE SOUTH WAS DISENFRANCHISED to end it. In other words, the Constitution was absolutely an impediment, and we had to just go around it.
 

The Constitution gave no room to "get past slavery".

[1] Northern states ended slavery ... even Maryland and Missouri did during the Civil War w/o the 13A. In time, even Brazil found slavery unproductive & the Constitution did not block states from abolition. The federal government could have encouraged abolition by tax policy and so forth.

[2] There was power to block slavery in the territories. Dred Scott v. Sandford, as the Republicans and the dissents argued, was far from compelling. Cf. The Confederate Constitution: "negro slavery ... shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."

Slavery could have been limited to the Eastern seaboard with states above the Mason-Dixon line have gradual emancipation.

[3] Slavery could have been ended in the nation's capital and for any federal officers, including the military.

[4] The Fugitive Slave Clause could have been treated like the fugitives from justice provision as weak matter of interstate comity for which the federal government had no special role to actively involve itself in. See, e.g., how during the Civil War, soldiers was denied the power to return fugitive slaves.

[5] Slaves were always listed in the Constitution as "persons" and as such could have had any number of due process rights and protections.

[6] Federal power over commerce could have blocked intrastate slave trade

Yes, the Constitution was an "impediment" (I did not say otherwise) but little directly compelled protection of slavery. The 3/5 Clause required slaves to be in place. The Fugitive Slave Clause did what even a place like Massachusetts already did at the time & there was no compelling need to give it as much teeth as it was. Prigg v. PA was not compelled by the text alone. The Senate did not protect slave states as such. It favored thinly populated states which was why as Mark notes multiple Northern states supported it.

But, it did not guarantee slavery in territories. It didn't in its own terms compel blacks to be treated differently even in free states. It even called slaves "persons," persons have rights. For instance, Missouri gave slaves in freedom suits the right to representation. A range of states banned slavery, in part as a result of the federal government's own control over territories.

The threat of more limits on slavery, even without amendment, was a major reason the South rebelled. The last chapter of Don Fehrenbacher's book spells out the various ways slavery would be threatened more such as sending abolition literature in the mails, better limits on the international slave trade and so forth.

The Civil War accelerated the end of slavery, obviously, including by constitutional amendment though even there the war itself harmed slavery within the existing Constitution. Likewise, the Constitution left open more equal treatment of women, but things like the Nineteenth Amendment was necessary to speed up a slow process.
 

Again, in 1787, slavery was a basic part of society here and other countries.

The Constitution was going to factor it in. It wasn't going to suddenly radically change society any more than it was going to give women the vote or end coverture.

So, yes, it aided and abetted slavery. As it aided and abetted sexism. It could have more blatantly did both much more than it did.

As it carried out a range of things, yes, it factored in societal racism, sexism etc. As we still do in a variety of ways more than two hundred years later.
 

Herbal Penis Enlargement product is 100% guarantee to Enlarge and get a better ERECTION ,the reason why most people are finding it difficultto enlarge Penis is because they bedlieve on medicalreport, drugs and medical treatment which is nothelpful for Penis Enlargement . Natural roots/herbs are the best remedy which can easily Enlarge your Penis permanently Contact Dr Olu via Email : Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com or via WhatsApp : +2348140654426 for Natural root and herbal remedies put together to help you get Enlarge and Erect healthy. Thank you.























Herbal Penis Enlargement product is 100% guarantee to Enlarge and get a better ERECTION ,the reason why most people are finding it difficultto enlarge Penis is because they bedlieve on medicalreport, drugs and medical treatment which is nothelpful for Penis Enlargement . Natural roots/herbs are the best remedy which can easily Enlarge your Penis permanently Contact Dr Olu via Email : Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com or via WhatsApp : +2348140654426 for Natural root and herbal remedies put together to help you get Enlarge and Erect healthy. Thank you.
 

Dilan, I don't think GOP Senators owe a duty to me, they owe a duty as Americans, as Senators and as moral agents wanting to make morally and politically correct decisions for the good of their polity and notions of fair play.

I mean, you have a curious argument here. Do you, for example, never hold that any Supreme Court decision was 'wrongly decided?' Because it seems given the way you argue about impeachment your answer has to be 'no, we have a process that allows for the choosing of Justices and which allows the Justices to decide cases and as long as the process was followed who am I to say that the majority Justices were wrong? They don't owe me my view of the Constitution over theirs!' This is just nihilistic relativism, it crumbles into incoherence (for one thing, future Justices may well overrule earlier decisions, they can't both have been correct unless, again, you're embracing the most relativistic nihilism). And I think the Big Lebowski said what's needed to be said about that: "say what you want about the tenets of national socialism but at least it's an ethos"

So, yes, I acknowledge that as a political matter the GOP will likely have the votes to acquit in the Senate. And I acknowledge as a legal matter that's that as the process goes. But of course I can argue and find that as a moral/political/legal matter the GOP was *wrong to do so.* In other words, I wouldn't find that outcome to be 'illegitimate,' but I would find it to be wrong/incorrect.
 

Mark, for me I don't think the argument is so much whether the text of the Constitution is pro-slavery or not. It definitely has provisions that protected slavery. I'm only arguing that one can't argue perpetuating slavery was central organizing principle or that it was precisely the point of the Constitution. The point of the Constitution was the coming together 'in a more perfect' or better Union of many polities, some of which were intent on, among other things protecting slavery and others that, among other things had little interest in protecting slavery, held positions that indirectly were anti-protecting slavery, and perhaps some that were for restraining the slave power (though unwilling to prevent a better overall Union from happening over a fight over it).
 

I think that's a fair way to put it. Joe's comments show the multiple ways that the Constitution *could* have allowed a national majority to limit or even practically abolish slavery. The key is that such a national majority never existed (insert nihilism here); once it seemed as if one would, the slave states rebelled.

As I said, the Constitution does not provide much textual support for slavery. That's partly because some delegates opposed slavery entirely. Here, for example, is Gouverneur Morris:

He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven in the States where it prevailed.

Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd & the other States having slaves. Travel thro' the whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave the E. Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible, passing thro' the Jerseys & entering Pa. every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed southwdly & every step you take thro' the great region of slaves presents a desert increasing, with the increasing proportion of these wretched beings.

Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included? The houses in this city (Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the rice swamps of South Carolina.

The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S.C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. and N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice. …

He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all such negroes in the U. States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution."

Lincoln, Douglass, and others made full use of the absence of textual support in arguing for *political* solutions to slavery.
 

At the time the Constitution was adopted, it was thought that slavery was on its way out, and would die a natural death if they could just kick the can down the road. Ensuring a federation that would prevent the states from being gobbled up one at a time by foreign powers seemed the higher priority. Slavery they could deal with later when its power had declined a bit.

Then the cotton gin comes along, and makes slavery economical. They did not see that coming.

Still, the confederate states would not have seceded, if it weren't evident their political power was declining, and it would soon be feasible to suppress slavery. Even the cotton gin wasn't going to save it forever, it just bought them a few decades.

Simply preventing slavery from spreading would have eventually made the 13th amendment feasible, even absent the dubious means that were actually used to ratify it. And a few nominations from Lincoln or his successor would have reversed the Dred Scot decision. (Which had no real constitutional grounding!)

Even absent the amendment, you can see the slave states' real fears in the Dred Scot decision: If the slaves' federal constitutional rights (Such as the right to keep and bear arms.) were enforced, keeping them enslaved would have become utterly infeasible.

There were obvious routes to accomplishing this, which is why Taney had to perpetrate that ruling declaring that blacks were not, constitutionally, people, with any rights to be respected. For instance, look at the Militia Act of 1862, which declared all adult males to be members of the militia without regard to their race.

Sure, it was adopted during the Civil war, but had the South not seceded, it could have been adopted anyway, and would have rendered the slave states' position untenable.
 

"That's partly because some delegates opposed slavery entirely. Here, for example, is Gouverneur Morris:"

It's a real shame we have not the intellectual integrity or moral courage to re-evaluate who we hold up as the most revered Founders taking their positions on slavery into account. Founders like Jay or Morris should have their stock rise, those like Jefferson should plummet.
 

"At the time the Constitution was adopted, it was thought that slavery was on its way out, and would die a natural death if they could just kick the can down the road."

This is certainly a nice story, but contradicted by Dilan's pointing out that the slave power actually was ok with things like slave importation bans. It's just a way of lazy absolution of the Founders because one thinks they like what the Founders set up over modern day understandings.

"If the slaves' federal constitutional rights (Such as the right to keep and bear arms.) were enforced, keeping them enslaved would have become utterly infeasible."

This is so, so silly. It's part and parcel with the weird re-imaging of how blacks would have been the real beneficiaries of broad 2nd Amendment understandings. It's kind of how like the long anti-Semitic tainted Right now tries to absolve itself with uncritical Israel boosting.

Black slaves in the South were incredibly disadvantaged in ways that, even if their '2nd Amendment rights' were honored (as slaves this is hard to imagine how possible btw), they could never procure enough arms, training and organization to do anything other than be wiped out by white Southerners.
 

Well, Jefferson's stock is mixed these days & there's no musical on his life though he was a character in "1776." There are many John Adams supporters. Benjamin Franklin would be another person against slavery.

Jefferson was the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence, a key force in the creation of the first opposition party & became president. So, it is not surprising he gets more attention than Morris. Plus, it does reflect our shame too since we do handwave racism too much in this country. So, him not be a pariah is more acceptable especially in a land that some still honor Confederate generals.

Jay perhaps lost some of his chance to get more attention by becoming unwell (see Chief Justice Roberts' end of the year report for details) & only playing a minor role in the Federalist Papers & then resigning early from the Supreme Court & rejecting Adams' option to return.
 

"by Dilan's pointing out that the slave power actually was ok with things like slave importation bans."

"Pointing out" is a nice way of pretending conclusions are facts. The slave states won some fights, they lost others. Like the free states, they viewed preserving an effective defensive alliance as important enough that they didn't have to win on everything.
 

This is certainly a nice story, but contradicted by Dilan's pointing out that the slave power actually was ok with things like slave importation bans. It's just a way of lazy absolution of the Founders because one thinks they like what the Founders set up over modern day understandings.

Slave importation bans were acceptable even to many slave states like Virginia since there was a glut of slaves. Plus, at some point, the slave trade was so horrible that even some slave holders drew the line. A few states like South Carolina thought they needed to extend importation at least for a limited time because they had more need.

There really was some idea that slavery would eventually die out. The cotton gin did make slavery more profitable and helping to ensure its expansion as did getting more territory and not banning slavery from entering. But, that doesn't take them off the hook or anything. Some Jeffersonian lazy "I rather not do this and maybe some day we will get past this" sentiment only goes so far. Still, the Constitution was written in such a way to leave room to maneuver.

The potential for things -- like the potential now for states to have independent districting commissions to address gerrymandering -- doesn't mean it happens. That's major issue with the U.S. Constitution. Even if various things are possible -- such as Congress restraining executive military power -- there are so many ways for them not to happen given how things are set up.
 

"Founders like Jay or Morris should have their stock rise, those like Jefferson should plummet."

You can add Hamilton to this list. But all of them had their own defects, which aren't well known simply because *they* aren't very well known. They're all a mix of good deeds and bad, good ideas and bad.
 

"But, that doesn't take them off the hook or anything."

I fully expect that we won't be taken off the hook by future generations for something or other, likely something some significant number of people are already advocating against.

Abortion, conscription, burying or cremating the 'dead' instead of cryonically suspending them. I don't know what it will be, but it will be SOMETHING. The past always looks bad to the present, the present always looks bad to the future.

The Constitution is a framework for government, not a legal code. It's meant to set up the mechanism for deciding these things, not itself decide them.
 

Mark providing context of how certain compromises that in part helped slavery came about is helpful to fully understand how things work.

The 3/5 Compromise is a case in point. Some simplistically take this as blacks being 3/5 of a person. Not the case. Free blacks were counted as full persons, for one thing. The compromise settled a long dispute, first raised under the Articles of Confederation, to deal with the tax burden for each state. And, the provision applies both to representation and direct taxes (which never really became much of a thing). There were various debates over exactly how representation (previously each state had one vote) should be addressed, things like the value of labor factoring in here.

We were not starting from a modern day system of representation here. This came up in the past so I searched and found how various states apportioned their state legislatures. They did so in a range of ways and it wasn't some "one person, one vote" deal. Women and children were counted even though neither voted & married women in particular were "covered" by their husbands making them second class citizens.

These complicated questions led to the 3/5 Compromise where slaves were counted but fractionally. This advanced the cause of slavery but so allowing South Carolina to greatly restrict suffrage so a planter aristocracy could govern while those without a vote were counted to apportion their delegation in Congress and the Electoral College. The latter would also advancing wealth interests in general.

===

To toss it in, talk of public will is being discussed. There is great support for witnesses so if that is our concern, we should have witnesses. Brett says he supports witnesses though I doubt he will find it TOO horrible if they aren't called. It will be one of those philosophical debates provided with little passion.
 

""Pointing out" is a nice way of pretending conclusions are facts."

Good grief, Bircher Brett forgets that I've been arguing against Dilan on this most of the thread. But what's indisputable is that there's a plausible case that parts of the slave power were fine with the importation ban (the act enforcing it was signed by Jefferson while he was thriving as a slave owner).
 

"I fully expect that we won't be taken off the hook by future generations..."

And we shouldn't. If we can't see that something is clearly wrong the way a future generation with more facts, agitation, etc., does, especially when people here and know were telling us that, then while we might have an excuse we shouldn't be held up as paramounts.
 

"These complicated questions led to the 3/5 Compromise where slaves were counted but fractionally. This advanced the cause of slavery"

What was the default, if there had been no clause? 5/5ths, which would have been even better for the slave states.

That's why it's called the 3/5ths "compromise"; The slave states wanted no clause, and thus 5/5ths, the free states 0/5ths, they compromised on 3/5ths. Neither side got everything they wanted.
 

"What was the default, if there had been no clause? 5/5ths, which would have been even better for the slave states."

There was no "default". As your own comment indicates the free states wanted slaves to count 0/5. The Southern states argued for 5/5 (or no clause, which would have had the same effect), meaning that was a bargaining chip, not a "default".
 

Oh, I'm sorry, was there a constitutional clause setting representation for women and children at 5/5ths? No, I find this: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers"

If they had stopped there, the default would have been 5/5ths.
 

That still wouldn't make it the default. It would mean the slaveholders won. A default rule is one which everyone agrees will take effect absent some other choice. The North didn't agree, ergo it wasn't a default.
 

Yes, the slaveholders would win by default, if the topic weren't addressed, for the same reason that women, children, males without property, and everybody else who couldn't vote counted for apportionment, without being specifically called out.

The topic was specifically addressed to reduce the degree of their winning.
 

There would have been no Constitution if the slaveholders had insisted on that. That's not a "default" rule.
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home