Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

(...) President Joe Biden has hit the ground running, establishing a momentum that looks much like that of Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. Roosevelt had behind him stronger majorities than Biden’s, but both took office facing economic crises—and, in Biden’s case, a pandemic as well, along with the climate crisis--and set out immediately to address them.

Like FDR, Biden has established the direction of his administration through executive actions: he is just behind FDR’s cracking pace. Biden arrived in the Oval Office with a sheaf of carefully crafted executive actions that put in place policies that voters wanted: spurring job creation, feeding children, rejoining the World Health Organization, pursuing tax cheats, ending the transgender ban in the military, and reestablishing ties to the nation’s traditional allies. Once Biden had a Democratic Senate as well as a House—those two Georgia Senate seats were huge—he was free to ask for a big relief package for those suffering in the pandemic, and now even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who had expressed concern about the package, seems to be on board.

FDR’s momentum increased in part because the Republicans were discredited after the collapse of the economy and as Republican leaders turned up as corrupt. Biden’s momentum, too, is likely gathering steam as the Republicans are increasingly tainted by their association with the January 6 insurrection and the attack on the Capitol, along with the behavior of those who continue to support the former president.

The former president’s own behavior is not helping to polish his image. In their response to the House impeachment brief, Trump’s lawyers made the mistake of focusing not on whether the Senate can try a former president but on what Trump did and did not do. That, of course, makes Trump a witness, and today Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the lead impeachment manager, asked him to testify.

Trumps’ lawyers promptly refused but, evidently anticipating his refusal, Raskin had noted in the invitation that “if you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.” In other words: “Despite his lawyers’ rhetoric, any official accused of inciting armed violence against the government of the United States should welcome the chance to testify openly and honestly—that is, if the official had a defense."

The lack of defense seems to be mounting. This morning, Jason Stanley of Just Security called attention to the film shown at the January 6 rally just after Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani spoke. Stanley explained how it was an explicitly fascist film, designed to show the former president as a strong fascist leader promising to protect Americans against those who are undermining the country: the Jews. Stanley also pointed out that, according to the New York Times, the rally was “a White House production” and that Trump was deeply involved with the details.

Trump’s supporters are not cutting a good figure, either. Today, by a vote of 230-199, the House of Representatives voted to strip new Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) of her assignments to the Budget Committee and the Education and Labor Committee. It did so after reviewing social media posts in which she embraced political violence and conspiracy theories. This leaves Greene with little to do but to continue to try to gin up media attention and to raise money.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) had declined to take action against Greene—although in 2019 he stripped assignments from Steve King (R-IA) for racist comments-- and only eleven Republicans joined the majority. The Republican Party is increasingly associated with the Trump wing, and that association will undoubtedly grow as Democrats press it in advertisements, as they have already begun to do.

McConnell has called for the party’s extremists to be purged out of concern that voters are turning away from the party. Still, the struggle between the two factions might be hard to keep out of the news as the Senate turns to confirmation hearings for Biden’s nominee to head the Department of Justice, Merrick Garland.

Going forward, the attorney general will be responsible for overseeing any prosecutions that come from the attempt to overturn the election, and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will question Garland, has on it three Republican senators involved in that attempt. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been accused by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of calling before Trump did to get him to alter the state’s vote count. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) both joined in challenging the counting of the electoral votes.

It is hard to imagine the other senators at the hearing will not bring the three compromised senators into the discussion. The Republicans have so far refused to schedule Garland’s hearing, although now that the Senate is organized under the Democrats, it will happen soon.

Trump Republicans are betting the former president’s endorsement will win them office in the future. But with social media platforms cracking down on his disinformation, his ability to reach voters is not at all what it used to be, making it easier for members of the other faction to jump ship.

In addition, those echoing Trump’s lies are getting hit in their wallets. Today, the voting systems company Smartmatic sued the Fox News Channel and its personalities Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, and Jeanine Pirro, along with Giuliani and Trump’s legal advisor Sidney Powell, for at least $2.7 billion in damages for lying about Smartmatic machines in their attempt to overturn the election results.

Republicans rejecting the Trump takeover of the party are increasingly outspoken. Not only has Romney called for a measure that echoes Biden’s emphasis on supporting children and families, but also Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) today released a video attacking the leaders of his state’s Republican Party after hearing that they planned to censure him for speaking out against the former president.

“If that president were a Democrat, we both know how you’d respond. But, because he had ‘Republican’ behind his name, you’re defending him,” Sasse said. “Something has definitely changed over the last four years … but it’s not me.”

In his first foreign policy speech, President Biden proclaimed a return to old values. But after four years of Trump, the question remains: has the world long since come to terms without the USA?

President Joe Biden has hit the ground running, establishing a momentum that looks much like that of Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933.

Talk about delusion.

Reconciliation can only be used a limited number of times. And only on issues that impact the budget.

On impeachment, Republican senators are misinterpreting the Constitution

Forty-five Republican senators recently ignored the original meaning of the impeachment clauses of the Constitution to avoid offending a former but still powerful president. Their fig leaf is the weak claim that impeachment trials of former presidents are unconstitutional. As self-proclaimed constitutionalists, they should know better.

The constitutional text is simple and straightforward: “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” (Art. I, § 3, cl. 7). In short, the harshest punishment the Senate may impose on an impeached and convicted president is removal from office and disqualification from any future office. Disqualification alone obviously does not “extend further than” the punishment limit set by the Constitution, because it is only one punishment when the Constitution authorizes the imposition of two at once.

Suppose you tell your child, “You may not play with anyone except John and Jane.” It would be silly to read this instruction to mean, “You must play with both John and Jane,” and even sillier, “If John can’t play, you can’t play with Jane, either.” Yet, this is the interpretation most Senate Republicans are forcing onto the Constitution, insisting that it requires the Senate to remove a president before it may disqualify him from future office.

This is not what the framers wrote. The text plainly states that the harshest punishment the Senate may impose is the combination of removal and disqualification. This leaves the Senate free to impose the lesser punishment of one or the other.

This commonsense understanding of removal and disqualification was held by the framers and others when the Constitution was adopted in the late 1780s. Alexander Hamilton declared in The Federalist that the Constitution’s model for impeachment was the impeachment procedure followed by the British Parliament in Great Britain (no. 65). Keith Whittington, professor of politics at Princeton and one of the leading original-meaning scholars in the U.S., recently pointed out that “Parliament impeached only two men during the 18th century, both former officers.” What’s more, “no U.S. state constitution limited impeachments to sitting officers, and some allowed impeachment only of former officers.”

The Senate applied this understanding in the impeachment trials of two former federal officers. In 1797 — less than a decade after the Constitution was ratified — the Senate held an impeachment trial for former Sen. William Blount despite having already expelled him from the Senate. (He was acquitted because a majority thought impeachment the wrong remedy.) In 1876, the Senate held an impeachment trial for former Secretary of War William Belknap despite his having resigned before the process even began. (A majority of the Senate voted to convict but fell short of the required two-thirds.)

The former president is accused of violating his constitutional oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art. II, § 1, cl. 8), by subverting a lawful election with baseless claims of fraud, and then inciting an insurrection that interrupted the counting of electoral votes and threatened Congress and his own vice president.

Senators also swear an oath, to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution.” Oaths of office remain sacred, which is why presidents, vice presidents and members of Congress swear them on holy scriptures and vow to fulfill them, “So help me God.”

The problem for Republican senators is that the former president remains a power within their party and is already plotting the demise of those who have crossed him. This problem is not a challenge to the Constitution, but to Republican courage and integrity. Republican senators are acting out of political self-interest, not constitutional commitment, when they hide behind a weak interpretation of the Constitution that contradicts its original meaning.

If Republican senators are to truly honor their oaths of office, they will set their reelection prospects aside and adhere to the Constitution’s plain meaning, by honestly judging whether the former president deserves to be disqualified from future office.

On impeachment, Republican senators are misinterpreting the Constitution