Author: MDBROWN

New presidents should be well-qualified, assuming office with a smooth transition, and serving with excellence and experience.

Our current system has some big flaws. An elected president may have little or no experience before assuming office. The transition from one administration to another can be jarring.

Serving as Vice President provides an important advantage on becoming president, but under our current system, VP’s are not selected for that purpose. Most VP candidates are selected to “balance the ticket” to help elect the president, not to actually serve as president.

John Kennedy selected Lyndon Johnson as VP, yet the two despised each other. Richard Nixon selected a VP who was in jail before the end of his second term.

Presidents and Vice-Presidents are often motivated by a desire to win re-election, which can compromise their need to “do the right thing” while serving in office.

These problems can be reduced or eliminated by a constitutional amendment that provides that we elect a Vice President, who then becomes president. Every President first serves one term as Vice President, before serving one term as President.

The Vice President is elected with one qualification in mind, to serve as president. The president comes to the office with four years of experience as Vice President.

Transitions are more smooth, because everyone knows, for four years, who will be the next president. No President or Vice-President holds office while running for office. They serve with the pure motivation to do the best job while holding office, with no worry about re-election.

Finally, to assure presidential candidates who are qualified on their own, family members of presidents should be barred from holding office. No parent/child dynasties. No president/spouse tag-teams. Let each candidate seek the office on their own qualifications, rather than family connections. There is no shortage of qualified candidates.

Proposed text below:

JOINT RESOLUTION.Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding Qualifications and Terms of Office of the President/Vice-President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of each House concurring therein,

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

ARTICLE I

SECTION 1. The President shall be selected by first being elected and serving as Vice President. The Vice President shall become elevated to the position of president at the end of the term of the President, or earlier if the office of President becomes vacant. 

SECTION 2.  The President shall serve one term of four years.  No person shall serve as President more than one full term. 

SECTION 3. No member of the family of the President shall ever serve as President or Vice President, or be permitted to hold or work in any position in the administration of the President or Vice President. A family member shall include spouse, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, siblings, mothers and fathers-in-law, sons and daughters-in-law, brothers and sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces and any person living in the same domicile with the President or Vice President.

SECTION 4. An elected Vice President, who is elevated to President prior to the end of the four-year term of the prior serving President, shall serve the balance of the four-year term of the prior serving President.  The elected Vice President shall then complete the full four-year term as President for which the Vice President was originally elected.

SECTION 5. Any person, who becomes appointed Vice President pursuant to §2 pf the 25th Amendment, shall serve in that position only until an election may be held, in the ordinary course, for an elected Vice President.  An appointed Vice President may not seek election as elected Vice President.

SECTION 6.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The federal government is paralyzed from dysfunctional partisanship. The Supreme Court, Congress, and the President seem unable to function.

The partisan gang wars show up in two ways: (1) Inability to act, because of inability to agree, and (2) Serving to preserve and protect partisan political interests, instead of Country and Constitution.

Present since the beginning of the Republic, partisanship has grown like cancer, raging out of control now, infecting all three branches of government. Witness the growing number of votes/decisions made upon party lines, and the long shut-down in government, resulting from partisan politics and made worse by partisan discord.

The solution is simple.  Require office holders to abandon partisan politics before holding office.  Politicians, judges, and presidents may engage in partisan politics before election, but not after.

President, members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices take an oath to serve “we the people” by preserving and protecting Country and Constitution, not a political party.

Baring partisanship service will not eliminate disagreement, nor should it. Elected officials should not change their beliefs upon holding office.  They change their loyalty. Upon taking office, they serve everyone.

This can only change through the amendment of the US Constitution.  The operative language is clean, just one sentence:

The President, Vice President, members of the Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court, shall not act as a leader, member, or supporter of any partisan political organization, during their term of office.

Voila! It is finished!  No party caucuses.  No party line votes.  Just ideas discussed, decisions made, by Presidents, members of Congress and the Supreme Court, who serve, and answer to, all the people.

This is how we save a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” from perishing, as Abraham Lincoln warned.

The process can happen quickly if the motivation is sufficient and the cause is just.  The recent 26th amendment to the US Constitution was completed within four months, start to finish. (Commenced March 10, 1971, and ratified by a sufficient number of states less than four months later, July 1, 1971.)

The motivation comes from the existential threat to our Republic and the world.  The Cause is to restore this Nation of Promise.  Here is a sample text:

JOINT RESOLUTION.  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring non-partisan service of President, Vice-President, all members of the Senator, House of Representative and the Supreme Court.

      Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of each House concurring therein,

      That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

ARTICLE I

SECTION 1.  The President, Vice President, members of the Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court, and all appointees and advisors who are subject to confirmation by the Senate, shall not act as leader, member, or supporter of any partisan political organization, during their term of office.

 

SECTION 2.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Lie
Trump said Mexico would pay for a big, beautiful wall along the Mexican border that he would build, if elected. It was his biggest campaign promise, falsely repeated over and over and over.

The Broken Promise
Trump sought to pay for the Trump wall with US taxpayer funds.

The Fig Leaf
Trump shut down the US government to pressure Congress into funding the Trump wall to cover up the lie and broken promise

Opponents of the Trump Wall may focus on the lies within the presentation, and there were many. My point is the entire presentation was a lie, and here’s the proof.

Every reason Trump cited for the Trump Shut Down existed at the end of 2018. Instead of threatening a shut down, Trump agreed to a proposal that that did NOT include funding for the Trump Wall, which passed the Republican controlled House and the Republican controlled Senate, with bi-partisan support.

Then, as members of congress were leaving town for Christmas break, Trump backed out of the deal. Only one thing changed between the time Trump agreed to the deal and the time Trump backed out. It had nothing to do with anything Trump cited and everything to do with something Trump never mentioned: conservative commentators, important to Trump’s political support, criticized Trump’s willingness to sign the proposal without funding for the Trump Wall.

The Truth
The only reason for the Trump Shut Down is Trump Politics.

I was impressed when President Trump introduced his nominee to the Supreme Court.  Judge Kavanaugh seemed highly qualified to serve.  He was not the person President Obama would have appointed, but he seemed a likable fellow with a solid resume… an admirable husband/father/citizen.

The testimony in the confirmation hearings convinced me that I was wrong.  Judge Kavanaugh is not Supreme Court material… still an admirable husband/father with a solid resume.  But, no longer a likable fellow… no longer deserving of confirmation.

The Senate Judicial Committee has heard from two witnesses.  Judge Kavanaugh, the exemplary adult, appeared before the committee at the first hearing.  He told the committee about Judge Kavanaugh, the exemplary youth, and all the reasons Judge Kavanaugh deserved approval to serve on the US Supreme Court… he led an exemplary life, the son of exemplary parents, attended exemplary schools, as an exemplary student, working in important, exemplary positions, as an exemplary employee, and served as US Circuit Court of Appeals Judge. 

Exemplary was the operative adjective, including as a husband/father/citizen.

In the second hearing, the committee heard from Dr. Christine Blasi-Ford, the adult, in a compelling and truthful description of what happened to her as a youth.  She was shy, likable, admirable, and honest.  Blasi-Ford, the adult, was able to speak Truth that Blasi-Ford, the youth, was not able to speak:  Kavanaugh, in high school, had drunkenly sexually assaulted Blasi-Ford, in high school, and then laughed at what a good time he was having… perhaps, in his drunken state, not remembering what he had done to Blasi-Ford… but in any case, not caring.

Then, we heard from Kavanaugh, the adult nominee to the US Supreme Court accused of drunken, sexual abuse of Blasi-Ford, the youth.  This accused Kavanaugh was not like the earlier exemplary Kavanaugh, and much more like young Kavanaugh, that drunken, sexually assaulting youth, described under oath by Blasi-Ford.  This accused Kavanaugh was “entitled,” and he demonized anyone who did not agree.  This Kavanaugh was the victim, and he was mad as Hell… lashing out at those who stood in his way to the US Supreme Court.

As a former prosecutor, with some journalistic background, and the father of five, I have  experience in determining when someone is telling the truth, and when they are not.  Kavanaugh, the accused adult, was not truthful.  He dismissed Blasi-Ford as “mistaken.” He was defensive.  He deflected, instead of answering questions fully and honestly and in good faith.  He attacked his questioners and the process that challenged his entitlement to serve on the Supreme Court.

The issue was whether Kavanaugh was truthful in denying an alleged drunken sexual assault in his youth.  Thus, excessive drinking, abusive or aggressive sexual behavior, and truthfulness were all relevant.  Kavanaugh, the accused adult, did not, and often would not, talk about those issues.  Instead, he kept referring to other matters that were not in issue, the positive, exemplary things. 

When questioned about excessive drinking and abusive or aggressive sexual behavior, he attacked and deflected, deflected and attacked, as someone who clearly had something to hide.  As Shakespeare wrote about Macbeth’s mother, “Methinks (he) doth protesteth too much.”

Those pushing for confirmation, including Kavanaugh, argued that this was just a “he said; she said,” situation, and Kavanaugh deserved a “presumption of innocence,” using phrases like “innocent until proven guilty.” 

They are wrong on every level.  (They would see that more clearly and easily if President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, were the nominee undergoing the confirmation process and denying accusations of drunken sexual assault as a youth.)

Blasi-Ford’s testimony was about as compelling and truthful as anyone, anywhere, anytime has ever testified about anything. 

“He said; she said,” is an argument someone uses when they are trying to defend him, and dismiss her.  It has nothing to do with truth.  It is not effective to support Kavanaugh, because she was compelling and truthful; he was not.

The confirmation hearing is not a trial to prove Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence.  It is a job interview.  It is a process to decide whether to confirm Kavanaugh.  There is no “presumption of innocence.”  There is no “presumption of confirmation.”  Kavanaugh must show he deserves the appointment.  Anyone seeking that appointment has that burden… always.

As a trial lawyer, I understand “burden of proof” and how it operates.  Whoever has the burden of proof, loses, when the proof is insufficient or even equally balanced.  In the trial law, it’s called a “failure of proof” by the party with the “burden of proof.”  It is a way of deciding, when the evidence is not otherwise  decisive.

It is not “guilty, until proven innocent.” It is not “innocent until proven guilty.”  The nominee is “confirmed if, when, and not until, proven worthy.”  If she convincingly accuses, and he convincingly denies, and the committee is left not knowing who to believe, then he has not shown himself worthy of confirmation.

If you don’t know, you don’t confirm.  Instead, you move on to another candidate, and repeat as often and long as necessary, until you find one that you know is worthy of confirmation.

In baseball, in a close play at first base, when the umpire does not know whether the ball or the runner arrived first, the rules say “a tie goes to the runner.”  The runner is “safe.” The team on the field has failed to show the runner is “out,” so the runner is “safe,” even if it’s close, so close that the umpire cannot tell whether the ball or the runner arrived first.

In this confirmation hearing, a tie does not “go to” the nominee; it “goes against” the nominee.  Kavanaugh, as nominee, has to show that he is worthy of confirmation, like the team on the field in a close play at first base has to show the ball was there before the runner.  If the showing is inconclusive or “merely” balanced, the Senate Judiciary Committee, like the umpire, must declare the nominee “out” of the running.  

Finally, even through the eyes of a non-lawyer, ignoring any burden of proof analysis, Kavanaugh, as the nominee, conducted himself in a way unworthy of confirmation.  He was defensive and aggressive with those who challenged or disagreed with him.  He was partisan and attacking.  He was not collegial.  He showed bad temperament and judgment.  To continue the baseball analogy one more time –– three strikes and Kavanaugh is “out.” 

This is true no matter what Kavanaugh did as a youth, and even if you completely disregard the compelling testimony of Blasi-Ford.

Although the issues: whether, who and how to appoint anyone to the US Supreme Court, are hugely important issues, the thing which I cannot “let go,” is how Blasi-Ford’s life was so painfully altered, so unfairly damaged. 

I can still see and hear Blasi-Ford, the youth, in the face and voice of Blasi-Ford, the adult.  As painful as that is, we must see and hear it, because it matters.  Indeed, it matters most.  God help us, it matters more than anything else in this sad reflection of State of the Union.

The process for filling vacancies on the US Supreme Court reflects our pathetically partisan dysfunction.  It’s clear that the Republicans only want to “win” the fight to put “their” judge on the Court, so they can get “their” results in Supreme Court decisions.  The Democrats take the opposite view for the same reason.

Neither party seems to care about the truth of questions swirling around Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford.  Both political parties would take opposite positions, if the nominee were a Democratic nominee. 

Lost in the fight are two people involved, and the decades leading up to their adult lives.  This is so much more than the misconduct of youth. 

If Kavanaugh did what his accuser says, and he confessed it then, or even years later, that would be bad, but nothing like what the accusations mean now that he is an adult. 

Every year, every decade since his misconduct, he showed the moral failure to step up and do the right thing.  Much worse would be his conduct in the current nomination process, lying about the past misconduct.  Clearly, that current moral failure would be disqualifying for the highest court, no matter what your opinion on the past misconduct.

As disgusting as Kavanaugh’s conduct might be, the conduct of Republican leadership, and their efforts to throw Ford under the bus, is worse.  Their condemnation of Ford, even before they have heard her testimony, speaks volumes about the character of her critics.

I don’t need to hear Ford, to know there is good reason to believe her.  Why would she lie?  I don’t need to know Kavanaugh to know there is good reason to doubt him.  It’s obvious why he would lie.

Before this accusation, I found Kavanaugh qualified for the Supreme Court, no matter how awful the partisan circumstances involved in the appointment process.  Now, everything has changed… except the partisan dysfunction that has plagued the process.

Decades ago Anita Hill reluctantly brought her accusations against nominee Clarence Thomas.  There is no doubt in my mind that Thomas was lying, and he is on the Supreme Court.  Kavanaugh’s conduct is worse, and if he ends up on the court… the Republicans win again.  But, at what price to “Truth and Justice for all.”

I love faith and politics.  Both are being challenged by the fight over our next Supreme Court Justice.

The only thing “wrong” with nominee Brett Kavanaugh is that he is not Merrick Garland.  The same was true of Neil Gorsuch, the last nominee. 

Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are conservative Justices, which is appropriate and expected from the current president.  Nothing wrong with that.  It’s the Senate that frustrates me.

Presidents are to nominate qualified persons to serve on the Supreme Court, and the Senate is constitutionally directed to give or withhold their advice and consent.

Upon the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, then President Obama named Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy.  Before that, and before the nation could finish grieving Scalia’s passing, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would not give advice or consent to any nominee of President Obama.  There was nearly a year left in Obama’s term as president.

To add insult/hypocrisy to injury, McConnell claimed that Obama, who was following the Constitution, was being improperly “political,” while McConnell, who was not following the Constitution, was guilty of improper partisan politics.

Merrick Garland was clearly qualified for the Supreme Court, as are Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.  What’s a democrat to do now?  As Annie Oakley said, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”  Given the current “wrong” circumstances, the Senate democrats should do the “right” thing and consent to Kavanaugh’s appointment.  He is qualified.

How do we avoid these awful, toxic circumstances of partisan dysfunction in the future?

Firstly, elect only Presidents and Senators with character, honor and integrity, who will do what is right for the country and constitution, over partisan politics.

Secondly, amend the US Constitution as follows:

Require president and congress to serve as non-partisan officials, elected by partisan political elections, but serving all the voters after election, in a non-partisan capacity.  They do not need to change any of their beliefs, but they need to serve/represent everyone, not just their partisan supporters.

Require two-thirds, of the Senate members present, for advice and consent, which shall be deemed waived, if the Senate does not provide one or the other.

Set 12-year term limits on all federal justices and judges. 

Each of these amendments is guaranteed to eliminate or reduce the partisan political abuse of constitutional responsibilities by President or Senate.  Any or all them will help restore my faith, and make our politics better. 

Did I mention that I love faith and politics?

“(Jesus said), Pharisees… everything they do is for show.” 

Matthew 23:5. NLT

The Nunes memo is out.  I have read it, 3.5 pages, 1,332 words.  Republicans should not have written, much less published, this partisan memo.  Now that it’s out, I hope everyone will read it, and not rely on Trump Republican Defenders’ interpretation.  I hope folks ask themselves these questions:

Who wrote it?

The memo is from unnamed staff at the House Committee on Intelligence, but is obviously written for political purposes.  Committee chair Republican Nunes is responsible for every word allowed in, or kept out.  Who is Nunes?  He is a Trump loyalist, former Trump Transition Team Chair, who has already been caught last year inappropriately colluding with the White House to protect them from the very committee which is investigating Trump White House in a fair and bi-partisan way.  There is nothing fair or bipartisan about the conduct of Nunes.

For whom was it written?

Nunes sent it to Committee Majority Members.  In other words, Republicans wrote it for Republicans.  They wrote it for public release, as a “secret” “classified” “explosive” “blockbuster” “shocking” document, with a carefully preplanned and executed publicity campaign.

Why was it written for public release?

The text of the document says it is an “update on significant facts.”  But, there is nothing new in the memo, nothing unknown by the committee last year.  Nor, is there anything in the memo that should be released to the public, especially before the FBI has completed their investigation and Mueller has submitted his report to the Department of Justice.  Republicans wrote and published the memo to discredit the FBI investigation and help Trump defend himself from the investigation, who claims the memo “totally vindicates” him.  That is not true, but this Republican action has nothing to do with truth.  Everything they do is for show.

Why was the memo written/published?

The committee allegedly prepared the memo to provide “oversight” of organizations like FBI.  Is that what happened here?  Instead of calling in the FBI and providing oversight, in a bipartisan way, the republicans drafted memo without any democratic comment, and released to the public their version of why no one should believe the investigation, even before the FBI completes their investigation.  The only reason to release this memo now is to influence the public against the investigation.  That’s not oversight.  That’s an effort to sway public opinion, at best; obstruction of the investigation, at worst.

Was the memo published for “transparency,” as claimed by House Speaker Paul Ryan?

There is nothing transparent about publishing the republican version, while withholding the democrat version.  This is, what Anderson Cooper has correctly termed, “a crock.”  It is partisan politics from a committee that should consider  neutrality to be sacred.

What are the “significant facts” explosively revealed? 

The memo claims bias and misrepresentations by the FBI and some folks they interviewed, which allegedly resulted in a misleading application for the court ordered wire tap of Carter Paige, former foreign policy advisor to Trump in the 2016 campaign.  The Republican concern for due process for Carter Paige would be touching if sincere, but that is clearly not the issue here.  If there was any impropriety in the legal processes, those are properly for the courts or legitimate oversight activity by the committee, not a public relations campaign by Republicans against an investigation that is still in process.  Curiously, the memo does not dispute anything revealed in the court ordered wire tap. 

Steele dossier not new and not materially inaccurate.

Similarly, there is much made of the “Steele dossier,” a report gathering negative information about Trump.  The memo says that democrats paid for the report, so it is fraudulent in some unexplained way.  Since the FBI read the document, and referred to the document, they are biased and fraudulent, as well, goes the argument.  The Steele dossier was published last year and is not new.  Christopher Steele is a respected former employee for British Intelligence.  Upon retirement, he lawfully worked another company, hired first by republicans, not democrats, for negative research on Trump.  Ultimately, democrats paid for a similar completed research.  That is lawful.   The republicans claim the report is “tainted” because democrats paid for it, ignoring the fact that republicans originally paid for it. Curiously, the memo does not dispute anything revealed in the Steele memo.

So what’s the issue?

The memo released by the republicans shows nothing material misstated or inaccurate in the Steele dossier or the information recovered in the court ordered wire tap.  If the document were inaccurate, the oversight committee could address that issue.  That’s not what happened here.  Since the republicans cannot discredit the information in the Steele Dossier or the wiretaps of Carter Page, they claim the “process” is flawed.  It’s a like the criminal who confessed to the crime, but alleges he was not given Miranda rights warnings.  Even if the confession is correct, there is a legal argument against allowing the confession into evidence.  The problem with that argument is that the FBI investigation is not yet completed, there is no criminal prosecution pending, and no evidence is offered.  Even if everything in the Republican memo is true, it is premature, and there is no legitimate reason to make it public now, especially when the memo itself is so clearly partisan and biased.  Nunes complains about alleged FBI bias against Trump, while he acts in a clearly biased and improper way against the FBI.

Why was it written and published?

If the memo has little or nothing that is new or explosive, what’s the big deal?  Here’s the big deal…  It’s like those rare and outrageous cases where a police officer shoots an unarmed suspect, and then secretly plants a gun on the suspect.  The police officer says he saw a gun and gets away with it.  The memo has Nunes’ distorted and bias opinions about the FBI investigation, and the republicans are counting on the fact that most of Trump supporters  will believe Trump Republican Defenders’ assessments that the secret memo has shocking confidential information of FBI misconduct. 

If and when the truth comes out, the Trump Republican Defenders will continue to cite the memo as their basis to discredit the investigation.  It won’t matter to them that the memo is not true; what matters is whether Trump Republican Defenders can sell it, like planting a gun.  Republicans are acting now to discredit the investigation, or worse.  Truth has nothing to do with this memo.  That’s why the Trump Republican Defenders were in such a hurry, with a Public Relations campaign before, during and after the republican majority publication of their memo, while withholding the democratic response.  When the rest of the information comes out, if it ever comes out, Trump Republican Defenders will dismiss it as partisan “fake news,” and continue to refer to the Nunes’ memo, as if it were truth.

We are watching the Trump Republican Defenders attempt to get away with the murder of justice, fairness and due process of law.  They are doing it the name of “transparency” and to allegedly show “bias” on the part of the FBI.  The republican actions clearly lack transparency and are overflowing with their own partisan bias. 

God help us.

There is a big fuss about a “secret” memorandum on alleged improprieties in the FBI investigation of the Trump White House.  Trump Republican Defenders want the public to see the memorandum in the interests of “transparency” and to “shed light” on FBI abuses and “let all Americans decide for themselves.”

Really?  Is it transparent to release the Republican version, while withholding the Democrat response and ignoring strong FBI objections?  Sounds more like shady partisan politics to sway public opinion, than shedding light.

Let’s look at the source of the memo.  The chairman of the House committee, investigating alleged Trump White House improprieties, is long-time Trump supporter Devin Nunes.  He admitted, after first denying, that he improperly colluding with the Trump White House in a strikingly similar incident last year.

Nunes stepped down from chairing the committee.  But now, as the investigation reveals more and more improprieties by the Trump White House, Nunes has drafted this “secret memo.”  Seems like déjà vu, except now, instead of chastising Nunes, the Trump Republican Defenders are joining Nunes under the guise of “transparency.”

There is a technical name for this, per CNN journalist Anderson Cooper… it’s “a crock.”

Let’s look at both sides.  The head of the FBI is a republican, hand-picked by Pres Trump.  The special investigator, appointed by a republican acting head of the Dept of Justice, is a well-respected, former head of the FBI and long-time republican.

In one corner you have respected republican career law enforcement officials.  In the other corner, you have a partisan politician, who has already been caught improperly abusing his responsibilities as head of the congressional committee.  Hmm…

What about the timing?  The special counsel has not completed his investigation or submitted reports to anyone.  Why not wait until he completes his investigation, and let the Department of Justice review it, and then decide what is proper?

There are legitimate means to discuss any alleged improprieties.  Why release a clearly partisan document to the public now?  Could it be that the Trump Republican Defenders are more interested in avoiding the truth, than promoting it?  Could that really happen… again?

After President Trump threw Steve Bannon under the bus, some asked who would be spokesperson of “Trumpism”?   What is Trumpism?

Trumpism is not so much a philosophy.  It’s more like an instinct.  For example, a shark has no philosophy, no world view.  A shark has an instinct to survive, to feed.  A shark will eat you, if it’s hungry.   It has no interest in you, except as a potential meal.

We don’t ask sharks, who is the spokesperson for Sharkism?  But, if a shark were president, we might.

Trumpism is simply the instinct to feed the ego of Donald Trump.  Supporters or detractors make the mistake of debating the merits or evils of some “philosophy” they assign to Trump.  But, he has no philosophy, merely the instinct to feed his ego.

The issue is not whether Trump is racist.  He is worse than racist.  He is amoral.  He acts like a racist when that brings him glory.  On the other hand, he claims to be “the least racist person” when that brings him glory.

Trump has no Republican or Democratic ideals.  Trump has no ideals at all.  Jesus described people like Trump as neither hot nor cold, but “lukewarm” water, which Jesus will spit out.  Revelation 3:16.  Amen!

Bannon remained in Trump’s favor as long as he fed Trump’s ego, until he was fired and vilified, when he did not.  Trump eventually throws everyone under the bus.  The list is long, and getting longer.

This explains Trump.  It reconciles his apparent inconsistencies.  He demands blind loyalty, but gives none.  He criticizes others as liars, while abusing the truth.  He condemns lack of integrity in others, but lacks character himself.

All this comes together when Trump insists that others lie for him.  E.g. Sen. Perdue and Cotton were first silent in response to news that Trump opposed immigration from “shithole” countries.  Then, they unconvincingly said they did not “hear” or “remember” the President’s comments.  Finally, they became positive that Trump did not make the statements, and attacked as misrepresentations the statements to the contrary by another senator.  Trump did not deny his comments after he made them; he denied them only after he confirmed that Sen. Perdue and Cotton would back up his denial.

The bigger issue for me is not Trump.  I understand Trump.  He will not change.  My question is, “What about the Trump Republican Defenders?”  How far, how low, will they go to support/defend Trump?

The only way you can believe Trump is a good president, or good person, is to ignore the mountain of evidence that he is neither.

The favorable opinion of Trump Republican Defenders is not based on facts, but on “motivated belief.”  They belief Trump is wonderful, because they want to.  Trying to convince Trump Republican Defenders of the errors of their beliefs is like trying to convince someone their favorite color choice is wrong.

This does not bode well for the Republican Party or our country.   Remember the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “Hate cannot drive out hate.  Only love can do that.”

Our Founding Fathers established checks and balances that seemed reasonable enough when they drafted our Constitution.  The need to limit the power of the President to pardon has become apparent.  The only fix is to amend the US Constitution.

Below is a proposed amendment that restricts pardons to extraordinary circumstances, prohibits any president from issuing a pardon for himself, or while the president is temporarily disabled, or in certain stated circumstances where abuse is likely:

JOINT RESOLUTION.  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding presidential pardons.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of each House concurring therein,

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

ARTICLE I

SECTION 1.  The power of the President to pardon is intended for extraordinary circumstances of mercy for individuals and in the interest of  justice for the nation.  It is not intended for corrupt purposes to obstruct justice, obscure truth, or offend the Constitution.

SECTION 2.  No pardon may issue by the President for the President, or for any president temporarily disabled under Amendment XXV.

SECTION 3.  In the following circumstances, no pardon is effective, without the prior consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur:

A)  The person to receive the pardon has any connection with the President that gives rise to the appearance of impropriety or undue self-interest, such as a family member or friend, or person who has supported or substantially and materially acted on behalf of the President or the President’s family or friend.

B) Before there is a judicial finding, that the person has committed the crime or action, which is the subject of the pardon.

C) The term of the presidency ends, for any reason, within sixty days of the pardon.

SECTION 4.  Any pardon may be rescinded upon vote of the Senate, after the pardon has been granted, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present.  To be effective, the Senate rescission must occur within 180 days after this amendment is ratified by the sufficient number of states or the pardon is issued, whichever event occurs later.

SECTION 5.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The purpose to the amendment is to make clear that the President may not issue their own pardon.  Also, the President may not abuse the constitutional power of Presidential pardon by inappropriately pardoning family, friends or those working on behalf of the president.

If there exists extraordinary circumstances where it is approrpriate to pardon of a friend, family or person working for the president, Senate approval is necessary in those situations.

Presidential pardons shall not thwart the due process of law, before a determination that a law has been violated.  For example, when President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, he did so before there had been a judicial determination of what laws, if any, had been violated.  President Jimmy Carter pardoned those who illegally evaded the Vietnam Conflict , before many/most had been convicted.

Such pardons can obscure the truth and unnecessarily divide a nation.  However, in extraordinary situations, such pardons might be appropriate.  To protect against abuse, the Senate approval is necessary.

The process of amending the US Constitution is appropriately deliberate, but it can happen relatively quickly.  A recent amendment was completed, from start to finish, in just four months.  There is great value in starting the process, which can occur easily  with a Joint Resolution in Congress.  Starting the process helps drive the narrative and shows the Supreme Court how to rule, if any president abuses presidential pardon power before the amendment can be completed.  

This amendment can have retroactive effect, so that the Senate may rescind a pardon issued before the effective date of the pardon, so long as the rescission occurs within 180 days after the amendment is fully and finally effective by ratification by a sufficient number of states.

May God bless and protect America