WILBERT WILLIAMS on LinkedIn: Republican group cites Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be… (2024)

The Origins of American Democracy, or How the People Became Judges in Their Own Causes - PDF: https://lnkd.in/gAiKD7HTThe awesome power of this democratic polity, with people becoming judges in their own causes, was such that our political leaders over the past two centuries have struggled to constrain and mitigate its effects.In fact, that is what our current concern with campaign financing is all about.From the very beginning of our national history we Americans have used a variety of devices and institutions to immunize ourselves from the harmful consequences of too much democracy, too much factious promotion of private interests in the name of the people.No doubt the most important of these devices has been the judiciary, the institution most removed from the people and most resistant to the pressure of private interests.Indeed, by playing the role that Madison had wanted the legislatures to play—impartially adjudicating among contending parties and interests—the judiciary suddenly emerged out of its colonial insignificance to become the principal means of protecting minority rights and individual liberties against interest-mongering popular legislatures.By the early nineteenth century some Americans were arguing that popularly elected legislatures could no longer solve many of the problems of their lives.“For the varying exigencies of social life, for the complicated interests of an enterprising nation, the positive acts of the legislature,” said Alexander Dallas in 1805, “can provide little.”26Only judges interpreting the common law could sort out the competing interests.Many, including Madison in his later years, eventually concluded that the judiciary was the only governmental institution in America that came close to resembling the disinterested and impartial umpires that the revolutionaries had earlier yearned for.27 Today we have come to accept democracy, that is, popular legislative politics where the people are judges in their own causes, only because we have a presumably disinterested judiciary, among other institutions like the Federal Reserve Board, that limits and constrains that democracy.In time we Americans have come to emphasize the judicial constraints on popular government and the judicial protection of individual rights and liberties to the point where such constraints and such protections often seem more important to the meaning of our democracy than does the expression of popular majorities.Limiting popular government and protecting individual and minority rights without at the same time denying the sovereign public power of the people was the great dilemma of political leaders at the founding of the nation.And, indeed, it remains today still the great dilemma of all liberal democracies.

9-0. That's my prediction for how overwhelmingly the U.S. Supreme Court is going to deny Colorado the right to kick Donald Trump off their State's ballot. The Court NEVER wanted to kick Trump off the ballot, and the terrible lawyering of Colorado's attorneys, gave them an easy way out. They NEVER made their case, NEVER told the High Court how and why the Colorado Supreme Court found that Trump HAD participated in the January 6 attempt to overthrow the US Government; NEVER seriously advanced the premise of a State's right to conduct its own system of elections, and NEVER, EVER, EVEN ONCE challenged the Supreme Court justices on their previous State's Rights decisions on Abortion, Voting Rights, and Gun Regulation. Not even Judge Gorsuch, who, 12 years ago wrote an opinion that a State's right to run its own elections was sacrosanct, was confronted with how THIS case differed.Why didn't Colorado hire former federal Judge J. Michael Luttig to argue the case before the Supreme Court, the way he, and Larry Tribe brilliantly argued it in print, many times? Why did Colorado throw two attorneys, with zero Supreme Court experience, up in front of the 9 justices and millions of Americans, only to have them fall flat on their faces, and fail to scratch the surface on such major issues? The question of what constituted insurrection under the U.S.Constitution and whether Trump committed it was never weighed, nor decided, yet we know that Trump will twist the outcome to say he was "exonerated from being an insurrectionist." Nothing could be further from the truth, but the Colorado attorneys failed to even raise that possibility. All the Trump Court will decide, when they hand down their overwhelming verdict, is that the State of Colorado--from an administrative and ministerial standpoint--has no right to kick Trump off the ballot. Then, we'll have to watch--and throw it back at them--when the Texas v. US case concerning Border Control comes to the Supreme Court, and the Right Wing justices jump through hoops to find that Texas has the authority to defy the US Government on the matter of immigration security.Will the Supreme Court give this Colorado decision to Trump on a technicality, to avoid the determination of his guilt of insurrection, and then rule against Trump on blanket immunity to balance the scale? Perhaps, to save face, and reduce the degree of public distrust which they have methodically cultivated. But until then, the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment's Article 3, forbids "insurrectionists" from holding public office--and whether Trump's directing of his followers to attack the Capitol Building qualifies under the definition of insurrection--remains unanswered. It's not quite Bush v. Gore; it's Truth v. Gorsuch.

The Florida Effecthttps://lnkd.in/ef3VijcrAs a follow up to my previous post about the California Effect, and the way European lawmakers search for avenues to collaborate with California lawmakers, it needs to be mentioned that Governor Ron Desantis of Florida meanwhile is said to be the driving force behind the establishment of the conservative equivalent to the California Effect, dubbed the Florida Effect (not to be confused with the Florida Effect in psychology), which is predominantly centered around the governor’s preferred culture wars, as well as his state- (and self-) centered gubernatorial executive authority, or whatever works for Florida, for the next red state to replicate and emulate. Unlike the Californian legislator’s role as a forerunner, the Florida template is not as much about substance, on the contrary even, but all about method: how to most effectively set the political and moral agenda, curb any manifestations in society of the things that we personally do not condone, and be a blueprint for conservatives all over the USA. This is, in all respects, antithetical to California adopting (very strict environmental) topical standards, and its use of economic clout as the 5th largest economy worldwide, to forcefully incentivize any standards’ adaptation outside its own geographical borders. In combination then with at least the propensity for encouraging grassroots legislative initiatives, the state of California may at times well be (see previous post) the baseline example for a sometimes overly autocratic European Union, in terms of what could and perhaps should, first as a means in itself, encourage such participation in the EU as well.Besides California, Florida and 22 other states have similar constitutional provisions as well. However, where California citizens may propose laws, Floridians cannot. Florida allows only for constitutional amendments and for calling constitutional conventions. Moreover, Florida's threshold for having an initiative placed on the ballot (8%) is much higher than in California (5%). Attempts are being made to even raise that bar higher. The ballot initiatives process in Florida might well exemplify public participation serving as a disguise for “authoritarian” notions of what democracy means, questioning the authenticity of liberal notions when both are endorsed conjointly, for that is exactly what legislation in Florida has been all about lately.In the article in pen.org many examples are given of the way individual rights (drag shows, i.e. LGTBQ+, the right to protest, freedom of press, content moderation on social platforms, etc) are being attacked by the Florida executive, legislative and judicial powers, all in unison, in a joint effort to force upon others their peculiar ideas about how to regulate society in what is supposed to be the land of the free.We should carefully monitor these developments, and make sure none of this gets a foot in the door in our societies.

1

This is another recent training class video I thought you might enjoy. It also reminds me of some posts I’ve seen recently about America as a constitutional republic vs a democracy. This is like a discussion we’re having simultaneously with ourselves both silently and out loud.A Constitutional Republic is traditionally defined as a system of government where people select some of their own as temporry public officeholders. Citizens and the public officeholders are bound to follow the laws and rules established in a Constitution. A democracy is traditionally defined as a system of government where power is vested in the people and exercised directly or indirectly through a system of representation. So, which one are we? The short answer is a mix of both. We’re a hybrid, a mutt. Regarding the former, all public officeholders swear an oath to abide by the Constitution. The President and Congress select SCOTUS. The Electoral College selects the President. Originally, the Senate was selected by state legislatures. Regarding the latter, the people select the House and now, the Senate. Women and ethnic minorities can now vote.We’ve become somewhat more democratic over time. The people select the Senate. Women and ethnic minorities can vote.We could be called a democratic republic: a union of sovereign states and people govern themselves and choose elected officials by free and secret ballots.It still means that all eligible votes must be counted and no election is decided until all eligible votes are counted. It’s majority rules with minority rights, not minority rules with no majority rights.

15

The Cycle of Delegitimization: Lessons From Dred Scott on the Relationship Between the Supreme Court and the Nation https://lnkd.in/g5r3ydW4This Article examines how Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford sparked a cycle of delegitimization that parallels contemporary debates about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy crisis. Part I explicates how one family’s fight for freedom in Missouri reached the Supreme Court, the resulting radical decision, and the nation’s reaction to show the initial stages of this cycle. Part II examines the impact of Dred Scott on politics and law during the James Buchanan administration (1857–1861). The opinion and its implementation horrified Northerners and inspired their efforts to resist Dred Scott, including by passing legislation to expand Black rights and repudiating Dred Scott in judicial opinions such as Lemmon v. People of New York. The widespread Northern belief that Dred Scott was illegitimate propelled Republicans, who promised to defy its holdings, into national power. Part III explores how Republicans during the Lincoln and Andrew Johnson administrations (1861–1868) flouted and systematically dismantled Dred Scott by passing laws and implementing executive policies to contradict its holdings. These efforts culminated in the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, superseding Dred Scott and completing the cycle of delegitimization. Finally, Part IV uses the lessons of this nineteenth century cycle of delegitimization to scrutinize the Supreme Court’s current legitimacy crisis. It argues that recent decisions including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could inspire a similar cycle of delegitimization. Whether the history of the delegitimization of Dred Scott serves as a blueprint or a warning depends on one’s political position. But it demonstrates that the Court’s legitimacy is more tenuous than it appears. The elected branches have always had the capacity to defy the Supreme Court and force the federal judiciary to reckon with public opinion. Indeed, this is exactly what happened before. The balance of political power will determine the results of such a conflict. In the 1850s, the Dred Scott decision helped to push many Northern Whigs and Democrats into the Republican Party. Today, critics of the Court are primarily Democrats, so the question is whether Democratic constituencies can maintain a united front against the Court’s power and use its unpopularity to increase their own political power. The history of Dred Scott shows that it is politics, not law, that will determine whether the name of Justice Alito will be “hooted down the page of history” as Sumner predicted Chief Justice Taney’s would be.370#AmericanStudies #AmericanGoverment #governance #USHouse #USSenate #USConstitution #USConstitution #USCongress #USHistory #Democracy #democraticErosion #USSupremeCourt #LawandOrder

Kamala momentum. "Marquette University Law School national survey finds Vice President Kamala Harris is the choice for president of 52% of registered voters and former President Donald Trump is the choice of 48%. Among likely voters, Harris receives 53% and Trump 47%. These results include voters who initially did not choose Harris or Trump but who were then asked whom they would vote for if they had to choose."POLITICO: "And the Cook Political Report just moved three states in Harris’ direction: Arizona, Nevada and Georgia are now back in Toss Up after moving to Lean Republican last month." Related. Katelyn Caralle Daily Mail News: "Kamala Harris has taken a five-point lead in a head-to-head matchup with Donald Trump, according to a new nationwide poll. The Marquette University survey also found that when third party candidates including Robert F. Kennedy and Cornel West are added, Harris has an eight-point advantage." https://mol.im/a/13723403 Drill down poll:#kamala #kamalaharris #trump #trumpvance #harriswalz #walz

12

11 Comments

Americans can end the Democrats' and Republicans' control of power and move from a two-party system to a multi-party system, and they can even abolish the party system entirely if they want. The American party system has no basis in the Constitution, but was created by the American people at a specific moment in response to the need and reality at that moment, and therefore the American people can amend or abolish it in accordance with developments in contemporary reality. The party system is one of the democratic methods, but it is not the only method or even the best in some cases. The party system also has different forms, one of which may be better than others in a particular political reality. There is a one-party system in which a number of its members are nominated and the people elect one of them. There is a two-party system that today actually dominates political life in some countries such as America and Britain. There is a multi-party system where many parties struggle in the arena with the aim of winning power, either alone or in alliance. This is the case in Italy.While countries stipulate in their constitutions the form of their party system, the American Constitution stipulates democracy but does not stipulate the method for achieving it. Thus, it was more ideal and more realistic, as it distinguished between the goal, which is achieving democracy and the appropriate means for every people and every era. If the American people have chosen the party system as an appropriate method for achieving democracy at a certain moment, then they themselves are able to change, modify or abolish this system if it deviates or is unable to achieve democracy and ensure the well-being of the people or deviates from the principles of justice, the values of humanity and the laws of common sense, as is the case nowadays, without any violation of the Constitution or violation of American political traditions, which are based on democracy, justice, equality, and freedom, regardless of the existence of a party system or not, or the dominance of a particular form of the party system over another.In reality, it only requires political awareness and education, then interest and complete immersion in political life and participation in every voting or election process. Only then will America be great again in accordance with its democratic constitution and its people's aspiration for common sense, humanity, justice, freedom, and equality for Americans, and for all other peoples alike.The only way to change is every individual’s interest in political life and his actual participation in it through the voting process that brings the most fit to rule and casts away everyone who betrays his people, deviates from their values and traditions, harms their history and reputation, opposes their nature and nature, and destroys their money and wealth in wars of extermination and destruction launched by foreign countries!

Heather explains how the last 4 republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, Dubya and Trump) decimated working families in favor of the morbidly wealthy with their failed policies and pipe-dream of trickle down economics. Gerrymandering has given rise to GOP state control in many states that do not represent the electorate. Republican policies have failed miserably for the country and the majority of Americans, (their insistence in using archaic legislation from 1864 and the opinions of a witch burning 16the century British judge tells you how desperate and evil they truly are) and thrived for the 1%. To undo the unjust legislation, voter suppression, and attack on individual rights-most notably women's reproductive rights-we MUST VOTE BLUE in EACH and EVERY election until these failed policies are repealed for the benefit of the majority. With the rise of fascism within the republican party and their blatant support of Putin instead of standing with Democratic allies like Ukraine, it's imperative to return to the rule of law, and the basic tenets of the Constitution. VOTE BLUE to defeat the Putin puppet Trump, and the other Moscow Agents Governing America that are hell bent on destroying Democracy!

3

As the Supreme Court moves toward the end of its decision cycle, Americans hold their breath for the outcome of still-to-be-decided major rulings. And there are some big ones.Among them is the question of whether Donald Trump, as a former president, isimmunefrom prosecution for actions related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. So too is a case that could throw out hundreds of convictions forrioterswho stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to prevent the election’s certification.But even as the Supreme Court is weighing those questions, there has been some disconcerting … other news. Last week it was revealed that Justice Samuel Alito had, at two of his homes, flown flags associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement. The movement falsely asserts that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump in favor of Joe Biden.The first flag, flownat his homein Alexandria, Virginia, and originally reported by The New York Times, Alito blamed on his wife, saying it was part of a feud with a neighbor. The second, an“Appeal to Heaven” flagat his beach home in New Jersey, Alito has not yet commented on publicly.Barring other explanations, it would seem to be a clear conflict to the justice’s mandate to be — or at least appear —impartial and unbiased. Justices have certainlyrecused themselvesfrom cases for less. But Alito has made no moves to suggest that he would bow out of the ruling on either relevant case.And of course, this follows last year’s spate of stories suggesting that some justices had acted unethically, acceptinglavish giftsand vacations from conservative influencers. Alito and Clarence Thomas, in particular, admitted to attendingluxury vacationson billionaires’ dimes, which they defended by citing court disclosure guidelines that say personal hospitality from friends is permitted. Public disapproval prompted the high court to adopt new and clearer ethics guidelines — though they still lack an enforcement mechanism.When put all together, it’s hard to shake the feeling that the justices are now just doing what they please, secure in the knowledge that no one has the power, or the will, to enforce any consequences for them.Indeed, one of the most recent rulings by the Supreme Court, Thursday’s decision in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, drives that home. In the majority opinion, Alito confidently asserted that the plaintiff’s arguments of racial bias and gerrymandering couldn’t be proved, largely because in an area where the majority of Black voters swing Democrat, there was no way to prove that district lines had been drawn according to race (which is illegal) and not according to party affiliation (legal).But as Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in herdissentingopinion, the Alito-authored majority was also an opportunity for conservatives on the court to undermine a previous ruling, adding new burdens to proving racial bias.

8

1 Comment

Chief Justice John Roberts' legacy will be to have sat at the head of the United States Supreme Court, while that far-right, business over individual citizens, imposition of religious beliefs on citizens, false originalism and generally, threats to our constitutional rights, etc. define his legacy. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch especially, have our founders rolling in their graves. Ironically, the human rights that defined the Scottish Enlightenment and which significantly informed our constitution and other founding values, are being crushed under the weight of their far-right interpretations of our constitution. This was precisely the paradigm that Mitch McConnell orchestrated. More than any other single person, I point the finger at Mitch, the architect of oligarchy.Our founders knew that for our laws to be of value, they must be made to be understood by all ordinary citizens. The obtuse perspectives of these Associate Justices are redefining our constitution to portray, our republic not as it was intended, but as one the benefits oligarchy, Christain Nationalism and the diminishment of every citizen's constitutional rights. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."James Madison, father of our Constitution spoke with wisdom on this topic."It will be of little avail [help] to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous [wany] that they cannot be read, or so incoherent [unclear] that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated [put into effect], or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to - day, can guess what it will be tomorrow." - James Madison- The Federalist, No. 62- 1788

7

4 Comments