Get Me Out of the Doldrums!

Waiting, waiting, waiting. Activity occurs, but nothing is resolved. I have this wretched feeling of impending doom, but doom is never finalized. I could be a sailboat near the equator waiting for a wind strong enough to get me out of the doldrums in one direction or the other. Please, can we just move somewhere, anywhere, let’s get this settled. Either the US is finished or we can salvage our Constitution and use it to make some needed changes. 

Our Constitution has been amended and, theoretically, could be amended again. Some simple tweaks are being proposed, and I’m of the opinion that only very simple tweaks could possibly survive the ratification process. One tweak that I support has been proposed by David French. He’s a conservative NYT columnist. He’s also a graduate of Harvard Law and host with Sarah Isgur of the popular “Advisory Opinion” legal podcast sponsored by The Dispatch, a libertarian media organization. Despite my reservations about the NYT, I often learn things by reading and listening to French. 

Please read French’s column here (NYT) or this Daily KOS article here explaining his reasoning for this proposal. Essentially he wants to reinforce the original expectation that Congress should be the pre-eminent brach of government. He suggests replacing the first sentence of Article II in order to accomplish this. “Instead of declaring, ‘The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America,’ it should read, ‘A president of the United States of America shall execute laws passed by Congress.’” There. That’s it. 

No more would a president be able to declare that he “can do anything he wants.” Yes, it’s hard to imagine that any tweak of the Constitution could address the myriad issues of our day, but I have to agree with French that clarifying the supremacy of Congress over the Executive Branch would be a welcome attempt to rebalance things. “No Kings!” No, I don’t love the current Congress, but perhaps if there was more clarity about the importance of their role in the great scheme of things, a few of them might get a spine. 

I think such an amendment could shake things up enough to generate some activity in Congress which is moribund currently. And despite the many attempts to secure a permanent majority, it might some day be possible to elect people willing to think and act – as opposed to just grandstanding – once they get to DC. In any event we wouldn’t have a king. 

Your thoughts?

Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein

Wait, what? I’m supposed to forget about Jeffrey Epstein and start thinking about locking up Barack Obama? That’s how Trump is going to dodge the news about his close ties to a creepy pedophile? Well, Donald, it’s not working with me.

Whatever you and I might think about Barack Obama’s policies, and there is room for disagreement about some of them, I just don’t think even Donalds’ incompetent batch of legal advisers can find reason to lock up Obama. If I were The Donald, I wouldn’t invite any sort of comparison to Obama. Just my humble opinion.

Humpty Trumpty Sat on a Wall. Humpty Trumpty . . .

Of all the craziness emanating from the White House this year, the one thing that has truly surprised me is the executive orders relating to big law firms. Trump has stripped security clearances from several firms, restricted their access to federal buildings, and ordered that no federal agency can do business with them. All of this because these targeted firms have worked on behalf of Democrats or others who have challenged Trump’s actions. 

Surely this is illegal? Isn’t it? I guess we will find out. Some of the firms have buckled under the pressure and made deals, generally involving a lot of pro bono work for clients Trump cares about. Frankly, I’m shocked that any law firm would hesitate to sue Trump. But I guess that if competitive firms and circling your partners and employees like vultures checking to see if they can pick off some of your best and brightest, if your treasured clients are hesitant to do business with you in the Trump era, then the illegality may not be your top concern.

Or maybe this isn’t illegal. Surely, everyone deserves a lawyer if you find yourself in court, but perhaps you’re not entitled to very high priced lawyers. And, honestly, how could I feel sorry for the most expensive lawyers in the country? Actually, I don’t. It’s just that if Trump can target these big, pricy law firms and get away with it, then why would any lawyer defend clients on any issue that might offend Trump? 

Many of Trump’s actions have prompted legal challenges; some challenges have merited restraining orders; some are on appeal. But it will take a while (months? years?) before we get final words of wisdom. Meanwhile, we live in a waiting game, just as we do with tariffs. Yes, tariffs have been announced, but not all have gone into effect. For many items, the impact will only be felt when new shipments of whatever arrive on our shores. Again with the waiting game. 

Trump’s decisive actions have not led to immediate changes except with regard to layoffs of federal employees. The people losing their jobs will feel the effect immediately. But again, when research contracts are terminated, only those in the midst of clinical trials will feel anything. I can’t imagine being part of a clinical trial and having it terminated just because The Doge said so! The rest of us will never know which research was never completed. 

My question: Will the effects of Trump 2.0 be felt convincingly by 2026 and 2028 so that we can vote our way out of this chaos?