A Short Note On Protest

At the No Kings Day protests it was very clear that Trump wasn't the only target. Congress came in for its fair share of abuse, and rightly so. As we have pointed out in earlier posts, the Founders gave Congress the lion's share of authority among the three branches of government with the intention of preventing the rise of an autocrat. And what happened? Over the course of several sessions members pissed away their power, granting it to the president in the name of convenience. 

They say convenience, I say laziness and apathy. Thus was born a wannabe autocrat.

Right now the Senate is the last barrier between us and disaster--pure unmitigated economic, social, public health, political disaster--and they should damn well take notice that if they fail us we will come after them. 

The House of Sycophants, unsurprisingly, passed Trump's ridiculously named "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act, aka H.R. 1. The bill is a recipe for enacting Project 2025, the ultra-conservative guide meant to drive the United States into third-world nation status. It's now before the Senate, and God help them--and us--if they let it pass.

On June 14, in more than 2,000 locations in all 50 states, an estimated 6 million Americans gathered to protest Trump. Not just his policies, programs, etc., but him, the disgusting beast that crawled out of the muck of the Hudson River. 

He wants to kill us and he doesn't care how he does it. H.R. 1 is his most frightening weapon yet, and if the Senate doesn't stand up to it with a resounding "You shall not pass," we are done for.

Assuming 5 million protesters on 6/14, that means there were 50,000 individuals for each U. S. senator. If members of Congress were terrified by just the few thousand thugs Trump threw at them on 1/6/21, how might they react to the hundreds of times that number of furious protesters that will crash down on them like a great righteous and wrathful wave if H.R. 1 passes? Hm?

Just sayin'. 

---Diogenes, Juneteenth, 2025 

 

 

  

For The Army

I have never made a secret of being a pacifist. I have spoken out, written, protested, posted, published, and otherwise made my detestation of war and armed conflict well known. 

In return I've been called a variety of unpleasant names. That's OK; I don't mind. Conversely, I have never, and will never, personally disrespect any individual who honorably wears the uniform of any American force. And in that spirit I write this post.

Saturday, June 14, 2025, was intended to be a day of celebration for the U. S. Army. It had been founded 250 years earlier when the Second Continental Congress established the Continental Army to support the several colonial militias that were then engaging elements of the British army and their mercenary troops.

But the misbegotten gnome dwelling in the White House figured that since the 14th was his birthday it must be about him (has anyone actually seen that birth certificate?), so he co-opted the event and in his own inimitable way made it something much less than it should have been.

So yes, Army, this one is for you.

For 250 years you have stood as the bulwark of democracy. Born out of the conflict we now call the American Revolutionary War, you have faithfully defended our frontiers. You have traveled to half a world away to battle forces bent on destroying us; and when necessary you have found the strength to defend us from inimical forces within.

You, the body of humanity we call the Army, have stood ready and have rallied to service when called for 250 years. That is one-quarter of a millennium. I do not believe there is another standing national army in the world that can make that claim.

You have not mutinied or been disbanded for disloyalty or been replaced with mercenary forces. You have heeded calls to fight in deserts, jungles, and Arctic regions. You have stood against Minié balls, arrows, machine guns, spears, tanks, missiles, Molotov cocktails, bombs, and overwhelming infantry charges. 

And you have done more than fight. You have built bridges and locks and dams, buried our dead with honor and grace, collected strategic intelligence, provided entertainment, organized disaster relief here and abroad, and taught us the meaning of words like valor, honor, and service.

For one-quarter of a millennium.

Outstanding.

--- Diogenes, 6.16.2025  

 

 

Habeas Corpus

 No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised [deprived] of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we [the king] go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.¹

The right to due process, ensuring that accused individuals are granted the rights due to them under a system of law, dates in western Europe from at least 1215, when King John of England signed the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta is a list of rights ranging from matters touching on property and inheritance to criminal law granted by the king to noble classes and landed gentry. The first paragraph above, ensuring that individuals accused of a crime would not be punished without a trial, is what we would call a due process clause. (The explanatory material in brackets is ours.)

While it is not expressly stated, the text implies that even the king is subject to the laws set out in the charter. This would have been remarkable at any point in history, but for it to appear when the doctrine of the divine right of kings, in which John believed, was widely accepted makes it even more so. 

The Magna Carta underwent many changes over centuries, and at times was held in abeyance, but it eventually became the basis of English common law. From there it jumped the Atlantic and became part of our Constitution.

Of everything in the Constitution adopted from English law, the greatest and most important is the concept of due process. Its legal name is Habeas Corpus, and it is the part of our laws that protects all of us from illegal imprisonment, deportation, or punishment. A complete definition is below, at note ².

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."  (The Constitution, Article 1, Section 9.)

The right to due process is the only specific right to be mentioned in two places in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, ratified and written into the Constitution in 1868, reinforced Article 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 The Trump White House is making noises about suspending Habeas Corpus. This has happened only 4 times since 1789, all but once during a war. The exception was during reconstruction when parts of North Carolina were overrun by the KKK. Suspension affecting the entire country has been applied only once, during the Civil War.

Habeas Corpus may be suspended only in times of invasion or war. Trump has tried in the past to make the case that we are invaded by an "army" of foreign terrorists. It's a feeble argument at best. Right now the only place suffering an invasion of terrorists is D.C. and the terrorists are those running the zoo Trump calls a government.

But I digress.

Now that Habeas Corpus is a target, it becomes clear why DonJohnny also wanted to get rid of the first part of the same amendment, the so-called "birthright" clause: to make it easier to deport anyone, citizen or not, arbitrarily, unilaterally, and without judicial interference.

Any change in any amendment must be made by another amendment, which has to go through the ratification process. The Supreme Court hasn't the power to repeal anything in the Constitution. Their job is to consider legislation in the light of the Constitution and decide if that legislation conforms. Period.

Habeas Corpus in some ways is the Constitution in miniature. Take away the protections it offers and the rest of the Constitution is little more than a manual on how to run government.

--- Diogenes, 13 May 2025

¹ Translation of 1297 Magna Carta by Nicholas Vincent, © Sotheby's, 2007. https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/magna-carta/translation.html.  Accessed 12 May 2025

² Latin for "you have the body," it is a writ (court order) which directs the law enforcement officials (prison administrators, police or sheriff) who have custody of a prisoner to appear in court with the prisoner to help the judge determine whether the prisoner is lawfully in prison or jail. The writ is obtained by petition to a judge in the county or district where the prisoner is incarcerated, and the judge sets a hearing on whether there is a legal basis for holding the prisoner. Habeas corpus is a protection against illegal confinement, such as holding a person without charges, when due process obviously has been denied, bail is excessive, parole has been granted, an accused has been improperly surrendered by the bail bondsman or probation has been summarily terminated without cause. Historically called "the great writ," the renowned scholar of the Common Law, William Blackstone, called it the "most celebrated writ in English law." It may also be used as a means to contest child custody and deportation proceedings in court. The writ of habeas corpus can be employed procedurally in federal district courts to challenge the constitutionality of a state court conviction.  Law.com: https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=848   Accessed 13 May 2025

The Bullies Of Trump 1: Tom Homan

Whether or not we have been victimized, I expect that all of us have run into a bully at some time in our lives.

Bullies and terrorists have a lot in common. The primary purpose of both is to instill a sense of fear into their victims, to keep them off balance and make them so paranoid they feel the need to keep looking over their shoulder.

Of course there is a difference in scale. Bullies ply their trade on playgrounds, in offices and online. Terrorists work on the world stage. Bullies typically target individuals. Terrorists aim at groups. Bullies enjoy inflicting psychological pain. Terrorists get satisfaction from destroying things and killing people.

DonJohnny is himself a bully, and has selected many of his lackeys for their ability to do his bidding and to emulate him. This open ended series will look at the bullies under Trump's command as they come to our attention.

We begin with Tom Homan, Trump's "border czar."

Homan's official title is "White House executive associate director of enforcement and removal operations." "Removal operations" means deportation. The use of that term dehumanizes Homan's victims, reducing them to the status of objects.

Homan is a career ICE officer who entered government service as a border patrol agent in 1984. He was appointed to a position with a title similar to his present one by President Obama and became ICE director in the first Trump administration.

In "The Secret History Of The U.S. Government’s Family-separation Policy," a Pulitzer prize-winning article published Aug. 7, 2022 in The Atlantic, Caitlin Dickerson describes Homan as an early and strident proponent of family separation as a deterrent to immigration, and "The intellectual 'father' of the idea to separate migrant families as a deterrent,"¹ which he first promulgated in 2014 but which was not implemented until Trump became president.

Homan has claimed that the policy is meant "to help families, not hurt them,"² which sounds very much like the Vietnam-era anonymous quote, "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."³

But I digress. 

Homan displays behaviors found in both bullies and terrorists. To the groups of people rounded up en masse, forced to frog march in front of the public and the press, then shipped off to a brutal prison in a foreign country with no due process, he most certainly is acting like a terrorist.

One could argue that Homan is more successful as a terrorist than he is as a bully.

The act that got him first in line for this series was his continuing attempts to intimidate Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The spat between the two is hardly new, but Homan won't give up. He has, in so many words, begged the Department of Justice to find any excuse to charge her with something--anything. Sounds a whole lot like Trump begging Brad Raffensperger to find votes, doesn't it?

Like all bullies, Homan uses vague threats and innuendo meant to intimidate his victims. His comment, "Maybe AOC is going to be in trouble now,"⁴ is a classic bullying tactic. Bullies use oblique, vague threats of unspecified danger to keep their victims off balance. In the final analysis, Homan is a coward, as are all bullies. He hides behind threats and bluster, frequently threatening some kind of legal action against his victims.

The "crime" Homan is claiming AOC is guilty of? Informing immigrants of their Constitutional rights--an act undertaken daily by USCIS, a sister agency of Homan's own ICE. Is he going to shut them down? Better not ask.

Homan calls AOC's work "impeding" the business of mass deportation. We call it what it is: exercising and protecting the Constitutional rights of vulnerable American residents.

--- Diogenes, 11 May 2025   

¹ Dickerson, Caitlin, "The secret history of the U.S. government’s family-separation policy," The Atlantic, Aug. 7, 2022. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/09/trump-administration-family-separation-policy-immigration/670604/ accessed 7 May 2025.

² Ibid.

³ Arnett, Peter, "It Became Necessary To Destroy The Town To Save It," Associated Press, Feb. 8, 1968. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre, accessed 9 May 2025 

⁴ Rahman, Billal, "Ocasio-Cortez's War of Words With Tom Homan Heats Up," Newsweek.com, 18 Feb. 2025. https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tom-homan-immigration-2032712, accessed 11 May 2025.

 

 

 As a youth my favorite hobby was building model airplanes. At that time in my life I was very jealous of my possessions. Once when a visiting relative, with my mother's permission, completed a few steps on a P-51 Mustang I had left unfinished on my work table, I saw red, ripped the offending parts off, then proceeded to reassemble the plane--my plane. It was petty and childish behavior, which I grew out of.

DonJohnny has the same problem in a big way, and even after nearly eight decades of life he has not grown out of it.

Just as he cannot stand the notion of someone having something that he does not or can not have, he hates knowing that others have done something that he has not. 

Remember the bizarre McDonald's publicity stunt during the campaign? The parasite who has never worked a day in his life tossing french fries in a carefully staged setting with vetted "extras?" That was done only because Kamala Harris had, in her college days, actually worked at a McDonald's. Yes, he really is that childish and petty.

Now he is doing his best to erase American history because he never had a hand in making it. Is that narcissistic enough for you? It reminds me of the destruction of antiquities undertaken by ISIS some years ago: 

Revered historic buildings and monuments that point to the glories of past civilisations are an ideological threat to the caliphate that ISIS believes surpasses them all. In ISIS' view there should be nothing that can challenge its legitimacy, whether Christian, Shia, Sufi or anything else. With a clean slate, ISIS seeks to present to future generations a new version of history, in which its binary narrative of ISIS heroes fighting evil will be able to flourish. Obliterating historic sites is an attempt to create a blank canvas for ISIS to build on: a new beginning.¹

 On April 30 Huffpost ran an insightful and troubling piece titled "Trump's First 100 Days: Destroying America Was The Plan All Along," by Paul Blumenthal.

In a disturbing anti-parallel to ISIS' blank slate mentioned above, Blumenthal writes that "Trump wants to be the anti-FDR," tearing down all the great accomplishments Americans achieved during the second half of the 20th century. One would expect it to follow that Trump would rebuild the country in his own image, but Blumenthal suggests he would more likely leave it in ruins:

  … the ordinary rules of democracy and the rule of law must be swept aside in order to turn back the clock to before the New Deal set America on its path of greater equality.

This is what Trump’s second term represents. His goal is to smash the country built during the 20th century and replace it with a country that is insular, less equal, less wealthy, less educated and anti-democratic. His supporters are quite explicit about this.²

Trump has taken to saying he is creating an American golden age. Perhaps; but his followers will soon discover it's all fool's gold.

During Trump's first term his miscellaneous psychoses were analyzed, debated and dissected ad nauseam. If Blumenthal is right, Trump's mental illness has ratcheted up into nihilistic territory, making it more likely that his administration will dissolve into chaos rather than engage in any rebuilding. I am hardly the first person to suggest this. Search on any combination of Trump and nihilism and prepare to be amazed.

It has become a serious question whether American democracy can survive a second ride on the Trump Coaster. Blumenthal concludes his article on a hopeful note, suggesting that "If there is any solace in Trump’s 100 days of destruction, it is that he has destroyed himself in the process." We can hope. As Hamlet says, "'tis a consummation/Devoutly to be wish'd."

But we must do more than hope and wish. We must act.

--- Diogenes, 2 May 2025

  ¹ Mubaraz Ahmed, "Why Does ISIS Destroy Historic Sites?" Tony Blair Institute For Global Change Newslatter, 1 Sept. 2015: https://institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/why-does-isis-destroy-historic-sites. Accessed 2 May 2025.

² Blumenthal, Paul, "Trump's First 100 Days." HuffPost, 30 April 2025: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-100-days-destroy-america_n_68113057e4b0d4c3d8e32149/amp. Accessed 1 May 2025.

 

Defend The Resistance

Don Johnny and his minions have only two responses to truthful criticism: Ignore and downplay it or try to criminalize the act. The latter is a clear act of tyranny.

And in the face of it comes Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. Speaking in New Hampshire Sunday, he unleashed an anti-Trump call to arms that should be resounding from coast to coast. Pritzker spoke of "mass protests" and "disruption." Republicans certainly heard it, and responded predictably, using words like "inflammatory" and "inciting violence."

That's the problem with Republicans. Everything that sounds even vaguely like criticism immediately starts collecting labels meant to inflame the public. There's certainly nothing vague about Pritzker. He goes straight for the jugular. And so he should. 

Right now he is the only orator of significance standing straight up and telling truth to America. Republicans will do all they can to stop him, and they must not be allowed to succeed. 

Of course there are other voices. Bernie Sanders speaks out regularly and forcefully against Trump and his policies, usually from the Senate chamber. Bernie does it well and makes excellent points, but he's no longer the firebrand he once was.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz makes occasional appearances, but too few. He's not quite the orator that Pritzker is, but he sells the message. They must be heard and we must protect them.

This is a beginning, but there are other powerful voices that need to be heard, that need to bring the message of truth against Trump and MAGA and for the United States, its Constitution and its people. Kamala Harris, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, and Mitt Romney--yes, three of them are Republicans--are nonetheless able to bring out the anti-Trump message, and they could do it powerfully.

So call out your most effective speakers, your organizers, your core of support, and let's get this resistance moving.

La lutte continue!

---Diogenes, 29 April 2025 

Not About Tariffs

 In October of last year The Atlantic ran an article by Charlie Warzel with the lead "I'm Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is."

The subject was the appalling number of Americans who were believing and buying into disinformation and conspiracy theories. And still are. Ask anyone you know who is not so afflicted, and there is a high probability they will tell you they know someone who is.

The phenomenon is one of the great conundrums of our time. When it started to make the news, I, like many other elitist snobs, assumed that anyone who could possibly believe such rubbish was a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, uninformed lowlife of questionable mental capacity. But when I discovered that people I knew and respected were buying into such nonsense I was forced to change my mind.

My first response was shock. I had to ask them, "How can you possibly believe this crap?" I never got a credible answer. The answers I did get were mostly in the line of "Well, everybody says so," and when I asked "Who's 'everybody'?" the responses tended to be vague, ranging from the Internet to YouTube to TV personalities (mostly on Fox News; no surprise there.)

The "Everybody says so" line is of course one of DonnyJohn's favorite means of trying to establish credibility for his outrageous lies and overstatements.

One reason we at Vox Populi have been quiet the past several days, is that we've been researching the nature of conspiracy theories and the people who believe in them. It's been maddening. After reading several studies by sources that I trust* the only positive results have been that I'm vindicated in the kinds of questions I've personally asked of conspiracy theorists. And I've learned a new word: "conspiracist."

One graph** I analyzed was an ambitious attempt to conflate results from several studies about conspiracy theories into one package based on the number of theories individuals believed, sorted by 53 sociodemographic definers. I decided to look only at the median response set where slightly more than half of all results landed up. According to my thoroughly unscientific analysis, the majority of people who are very susceptible to belief in conspiracy theories are either Black, Hispanic, or White men or women aged between 18 and 55, without college degrees, and earning a household income lower than or equal to the national median. As with all studies of this sort there were a few outliers: some Black and Hispanic individuals had higher than median income and some Hispanic individuals had college degrees. No gender was specified for the outliers.

The nature of conspiracy theories is easily stated: "an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of an unknown powerful group that may or may not be affiliated with government."  

I may be way off base here, but that definition strikes me as being very similar to the generally accepted reason why early humans invented gods: as a means to explain and rationalize natural phenomena.

Let's look at two hypothetical events.

A conspiracist hears that the stock market has crashed. They say, "Well, there's those blasted deep state manipulators at work again." 

Then let's rewind to--say 70,000 B.C.*** Lightning strikes a nearby tree, creating a huge blast of thunder. Kush, a nearby witness, shaken, says, "Dang! There's the lightning god Mawa trying to spear me again." 

How are these different? Both ascribe fearful incidents to a shadowy party believed to have control over worldly events. Conspiracists blame the mythical deep state. Kush blames Mawa. Is it not the same urge to take control by giving the things we fear a name?

But from where does the urge stem? Conspiracy theories aren't new--I first remember hearing some when I was in fourth grade. Of course we didn't call them that then because most of us took them as gospel, but there they were. In my school I think the source was older siblings or just older kids who told us credulous children those "facts" for fun. In the adult world we call that disinformation.

Since then I've heard some strange things that I simply ignored. But remember that definition above? Conspiracy theories arise to explain "harmful or tragic events." There was a spike in them after the JFK assassination, and as our heroes continued to fall and the Vietnam War continued on its horrid way, conspiracy theories surrounded us, but settled down as the war came to an end and no one else was assassinated.

Then came 9/11 and a spike in conspiracy theories, which ultimately played out. Of course the world was still sane then. When COVID-19 hit, after Americans had suffered through three years of insanity, presidential gibberish, and conspiracy theories flowing from the government itself, the floodgates opened and have not closed.

Like most fabulations, conspiracy theories are based in part on fact. Let's look at the widely believed notion of "chemtrails." A great many people are convinced that contrails--those white cloudlike streamers that follow jet aircraft--contain toxins that are meant to brainwash the population, or change the weather selectively, or implant seeds of alien growth, or … fill in the blank with your favorite phobia.

Fact: Jet aircraft leave contrails, which are nothing more than water vapor that condenses around jet exhaust.

Fact: Governments have used aircraft to disperse a variety of materials from fire retardant to Agent Orange, a known carcinogenic and mutagenic chemical.

Consider: Jet aircraft leave contrails in the atmosphere; Aircraft are known to spray harmful chemicals; therefore Contrails are harmful. 

It's a nice syllogism. A is true; B is true; therefore C is true. The structure is at the heart of many if not most conspiracy theories. The argument is false because of the disjunction between A and B, but good luck telling that to a believer.

Let's have some fun making up our own conspiracy theory. I thought I had invented this one but it was hitting the Internet before I could blink. Here's the argument:

Fact A: JD Vance had an audience with Pope Francis about 11:30 a.m. Easter Sunday, 20 April 2025.

Fact B: Pope Francis died of an apparent stroke about 7:35 a.m. the following day, Monday, 21 April 2025.

Both facts are true. Therefore, …  {draw your own conclusion}

 ---Diogenes, 24 April 2025 

 

* Including The Pew Research Center, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Carsey School of Public Policy, UNH, Nature.com, and Statista.com.

** I am intentionally not naming the project or the publication. The conclusions I draw from it are valid for our purposes here, but are superficial and simplified, and do no justice to a broad, complete, and highly nuanced study.

*** The established date of the Blombos Cave Engravings of South Africa. No one knows when language developed, but the appearance of art suggests the pre-emergence of language. 

 

 

George and Don Redux

For the first time since we established Vox Populi in early 2017 we are repeating a post with very slight, but immensely important, emendations.

This post comparing the grievances of the colonists against George III to those of Americans today against Donald Trump has been updated by the inclusion of two additional paragraphs from the Declaration of Independence. We held off including them until we were certain they were factual. They appear in italics below.

 "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."--The Declaration of Independence

 We all know that Donny John is a criminal, a crook, and a thug. We also know that he aspires to be another Vladimir Putin, i.e. to be ruler of his country for as long as the people let him get away with it. 

We say here, we will not allow him to get away with it. 

In 1776, when the American colonists were fed up with being bullied by King George III of Great Britain, they sent him a long letter defining how he had offended them. Then, ever so politely, they told him to piss off. We call that document our Declaration of Independence.

To get a little perspective on the nature of two tyrants, George III and DonnyJ, this post offers some comparisons.

From the Declaration, not in order, and in the original language:

1776: "He (George III) has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

NOW: DOGE.

1776: "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us."

NOW: Beginning 1/20/21 and intermittently thereafter.

1776: "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent," and "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world."

NOW: Reckless imposition of tariffs, which are in effect taxes on the American people, and have a dampening effect on international trade.

1776: "He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers."

NOW: This is admittedly a bit of a stretch, but relates to DJ and his minions denying election results and ignoring laws they don't like.

1776: "He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

NOW: Not yet, but he's working on it.

1776: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation."

NOW: Elon Musk.

1776: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: and
         For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

NOW:  Rendition of many people including American citizens to El Salvador and other places of imprisonment and inhumane treatment. (Added 11 April 2025)

And today we add our own list of grievances.

He (DJT) has elected to govern by fiat, arbitrarily and unilaterally using executive orders rather than adhering to properly debated and ratified legislation.

He has usurped the authority of Congress by arrogating unto himself the powers given to that body by the Constitution.

He has, on unnumbered occasions, openly and brazenly broken his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

He has appointed, contrary to custom and legislation, a foreign national to reduce the federal workforce haphazardly and brutally, without plan or reason.

He has, in violation of the Constitution and laws of this nation, worked to demonize and generally mistreat Americans whose race, color, culture, national origin, or sexual orientation are different from his own.

Having neither religion nor faith himself he criminalizes those who hold non-Christian beliefs.

He has robbed American women of the right to reproductive freedom.

He continues to attempt to overturn sections of the Constitution that guarantee equality and freedom for all.

He works to make the judiciary a tool of the Executive Branch in violation of the Framers' intent.

In clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution he has ordered symbols of Judaeo-Christianity to be placed in public school classrooms.

He attempts to make the education of American children a mission of the Executive Branch as a means of inculcating future generations into his cult following known as MAGA.

The Declaration has the last (slightly amended) word:

"The history of the [47th president of the United States] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

"When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."

--- Diogenes, with an assist from Thomas Jefferson et al.,  3 April 2025

A Slight Hiatus

We apologize for being quiet for a while. Even here in the Vox Populi ivory tower it's necessary to prepare taxes--not that we expect to pay them.

We're also taking this time to catch up research on some foundational documents.

We suggest you use the time you might have spent reading our posts contacting your senators and representatives. Yes, we still believe that's critically important, and so should you. The ship of state is mighty slow to turn, which is why it needs a lot of pushing and persistence.

Keep the faith. We'll be back soon.

---Diogenes, 27 March 2025

 

Can He Do That?

Donny John, members of the Cabinet, his lawyers, who should know better, and his benighted followers are laboring under the misconception that the president has the unlimited authority to act unilaterally on behalf of the government and the people of the United States.

He does not.

Say that again: He. Does. Not.

Let it sink in.

Having endured the abuses of George III, the Framers of the Constitution did all they could to keep the executive weak. Proposals ranged from having multiple executives, to avoid unilateral action, to having none. A faction called anti-Federalists most strongly opposed a single executive fearing "that cabals would develop to ensure his reelection, and that the presidential veto power would be abused. They further feared that presidential power to grant pardons would allow the president to conspire with others in treasonable activities with impunity."¹*

Sound familiar? It took more than two centuries to develop, but the fears of anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Samuel Adams have been realized.

Sort of. It is not by accident that Congress is the first branch of government presented in the Constitution. Congress holds the most power in the tripartite government.

So what can the president legally do?

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: [and]

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. [and] 

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."²

I've included virtually all of the language of Article II sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution lest I be accused of leaving out some critical bit of authority. If you take the time to parse the above paragraphs carefully you'll find the the president of the United States is constitutionally granted 12 powers (or 11 or 13, depending on how you interpret them), of which about half are ceremonial or administrative.

You might also note that he does not have the constitutional authority to do most of what he's doing, and that a lot of the authority he does have is contingent on the advice and consent of Congress. Call your senators and representatives to remind them of this fact and tell them they should stop letting Trump usurp their authority. 

Someone should be looking into that.

---Diogenes, 19 March 2025

 

¹ "The Debate Over The President And The Executive Branch," University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center for the Study of the American Constitution, https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/executive-branch/. Accessed 18 March 2025.  

* To get a sense of how great the fear and hatred of a single executive was, read the Declaration of Independence. Although it's couched in civil language it's still a massive putdown and the very essence of contemnation.  https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript .

² The Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Sections 2 and 3. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#page-header Accessed 19 March, 2025.