Month: March 2017

 

Retired US Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter – A member of the highest Court for 19 years – in a speech in support of increased funding for the humanities at the State Museum in Albany, NY in September, 2013 expressed serious concern about the level of civic ignorance in the United States.  He noted that “Less than a third of adult Americans i the United States understand that the basic constitutional structure of American Government is one of power divided into three branches that they can name.”  That is of course, the executive, legislative and judicial or in other words the President, the Congress and the Courts.  “Two-thirds of the country doesn’t have a clue about that”, he said.  This is because of the complete failure of the public and private secondary system to teach elemental civics to every student.  From the founding of the country until recently this was a required subject for everyone.

Souter, in his speech, went on to say that he did not believe “that constitutional government as we know it in the United States can ultimately survive in that atmosphere of pervasive civic ignorance disassociation from the basic process of American government.”  He added, “I would not expect American constitutional democracy to survive those kinds of statistics indefinitely under any circumstances.  But certainly not now in this age of ideological polarization and increased political spending by interest groups and by corporations at a time, when for example, one of the manifestations of the health of American democracy is the increasing trend of its military into a mercenary force.  I do not believe American democracy can survive in this state of civic ignorance and disengagement.”

The New York Times published an editorial entitled “Betsey DeVos Teaches the Value of Ignorance” on February 7, 2017, the day after her confirmation by the Senate to head the Department of Education in the Trump administration.  The Times began the editorial with a 2015 DeVos quote from a speech to educators, “Government really sucks.”   The editorial noted that she had, “Never run, taught in, attended or sent a child to an American public school”.  And that while advocating the replacement of Traditional Public Schools with charter schools and the converting of “taxpayer dollars into vouchers to help parents send children to private and religious schools”, she opposed, “Any real accountability for these publicly funded, privately run schools”, unlike public school in this regard.   The editorial asserted that, “her confirmation hearings laid bare her ignorance of education policy and scorn for public education itself.”  This does not appear to be someone who has any interest in insuring that any American student has a basic education in the constitutional structure of our national government.

The Founders of this nation had no doubts on this issue.  “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”  Thomas Jefferson, 1816

“Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty.  There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong.  A love of truth and a veneration of virtue….  If a people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply then to the sense of this difference?”  John Adams, 1775

“It is an axiom in my mind, that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that too of the people with a certain degree of instruction.  This is the business of the State to effect, and on a general plan.”  Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Washington, 1786

“It is universally admitted that a well instructed people alone can be a free people.”  James Madison, Annual Message to Congress, 1810

“It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice.  For they cannot live in any country where virtue and knowledge prevail.”

– Samuel Adams, 1772

“It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt when the degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty….  Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties.”

– James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, 1817

John Jay

 

David Souter, Retired US Supreme Court Justice, in a speech in New Hampshire in 2012 said the following:

“I don’t worry about our losing republican government in the United State because I’m afraid of a foreign invasion.  I don’t worry about it because I think there is going to be a coup by the military as has happened in some of the other places.  What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed, people will not know who is responsible.  And when the problems get bad enough, as they might do, for example with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial melt down, some one person will come forward, ‘Give me total power and I will solve this problem.’…..

“If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in the American people to demand performance from those responsible.  If we don’t know, we will stay away from the polls.  We will not demand it.  And the day will come when somebody will come forward and we and the government will in effect say, ‘Take the ball and run with it.  Do what you have to do.’

“That is the way democracy dies.  And if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night.”

In November, 2016 Donald Trump won the Presidency in a close, divided election  In the polling in the Electoral College, it was the closest of the last three elections and his opponent, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2,862,000 votes, more than five times the margin of Vice President Gore in the 2000 election, the last time there was a divided result with one candidate winning the Electoral College vote and the other candidate winning the national popular vote.

On Friday, January 27, 2017, seven days after the inauguration of President Trump, by executive order, he closed the nation’s borders to refugees from around the world, ordering that families fleeing the slaughter in Syria be indefinitely blocked from entering the United States and temporarily suspending immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries.  There followed protests all over the the United States:

“Protests against Trumps immigration plan rolling in more than 30 cities.”

“Protestors marched, chanted and waived signs across the nation Sunday as angry immigrant advocates pressed their demand for an end to President Trump’s executive order banning citizens of 7 Muslim majority countries from entering the US.  Rallies underway in Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Washington Los Angeles and other cities drew thousands, part of a groundswell of furry that erupted at airports across the nation Saturday and showed no signs of abating.”

The protests continued until a Federal District Court judge in Seattle, a few days later, granted a temporary restraining order sought by the State of Washington, temporarily halting the implementation of the executive order.  This decision was unanimously by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stating that the administration failed to show that the order met constitutional requirements.

Our country’s founders might have had some thoughts on this.

“…great innovations should never be forced on slender majorities.”

– Thomas Jefferson, 1808

“In Republics, the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the Minority.” James Madison, 1801

“All too will bear in mind this sacred principle that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal laws must protect and to violate would be oppression.”Thomas Jefferson, 1801

Of course in the current case, the minority, and the eyes of the majority, is the one engaging in oppression.

“It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the other part.”  James Madison, 1788

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privilege if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”                             – George Washington, 1783

“….a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask for zeal for the rights of the people then under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.  History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the later, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of the republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.”                                 – Alexander Hamilton, 1787

John Jay

 

In February 2017, Congressman Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina said: “We believe we need to fulfill our promise we made to the American people, which is we need to repeal the Affordable Care Act.”  Earlier on January 4th, then Vice President -Elect, Mike Pence and the top Republicans in Congress made clear, more explicitly, that they are dead serious about repealing the Affordable Care Act according to a report in the New York Times.

A contemporaneous article published by the Guardian newspaper said, “A Republican plan to repeal key provisions of the Affordable Care Act would leave 32 Million people without health coverage and double the cost of insurance premiums over the next decade, according to an analysis by the non partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)…..the CBO report…estimated that 18 million people would lose their insurance and premiums would rise by 20% to 25% in the first year following the dismantling of the law.  The number of uninsured could rise to 32 million by 2026 while causing premiums to double in that time frame.

A repeal of the Affordable Care Act would thus be likely to cause many thousands of additional deaths per year.  A study on what happens to death rates published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that for every 455 people who gained coverage pursuant to an expansion of Medicaid, one life was saved per year. Multiply that by a conservative estimate of 20 million losing their health care insurance results in a figure suggesting a very large number of preventable deaths annually.  This is not the way a civilized country should behave, especially one committed to the right of all human beings everywhere to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

On February 25, 2017, a leaked and subsequently published report, which analyzed a lengthy proposal made by the Republican Congressional leadership and which was presented to the National Governors Association meeting, indicated that millions of people would lose their health insurance pursuant of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and its replacement by the Republican Leadership’s plan.

Benjamin Franklin had some thoughts on this issue.  His friend, Dr. Thomas Bond, convinced Franklin to champion the building of a public hospital in Pennsylvania. Through his hard work and political ingenuity, Franklin brought the skeptical Pennsylvania legislature to the table, bargaining his way to use public money to build what would become the Pennsylvania Hospital.  Franklin proposed an institution that would provide – “Free of charge” – the finest health care to everybody, “whether inhabitants of the Province (this was in 1751 before the Revolution) or strangers.”  Even to the “poor, diseased foreigners.”  (referring to the immigrants of German stock that the colonials tended to disparage and discriminate against). Countering the Assembly’s insistence that the hospital be built only with private donations, Franklin said the following:        “That won’t work, it will never be enough, good health care costs a lot of money….<This> seems essential to the true spirit of Christianity, and should be extended to all in general, whether deserving or undeserving, as far as our power reaches.”

John Jay

 

The Founding Fathers were often prescient regarding possible dangers facing the newly founded republic. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, Number 68 that the “most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

When initial connections between the Trump campaign and Russia started surfacing last summer, they were sufficiently circumstantial to be seen as potentially harmless. Trump’s apparent admiration of Vladimir Putin (among other “strong leaders”) albeit misplaced, might have been charitably interpreted as his acknowledgment of the Russian leader’s ability to bring a crumbling and desperate former empire back to a position of influence in global affairs. However, these three things—Trump’s pro-Russia sentiments; mounting evidence of ongoing Russian connections to his campaign, Cabinet and White House staff; and unknown Russian interest or influence in his business affairs—are painting a dangerous picture of our current chief magistrate. As Hamilton also forewarned, “(f)oreign influence is truly the Grecian Horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its entrance.”

With regard to campaign, Cabinet and White House staff, a pattern is becoming all too familiar. Claim no contacts or associations, then claim loss of memory—regarding the meeting or the content of said meeting—and, ultimately, resign or recuse yourself.

The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, created an early flashpoint. Interestingly, Senator Sessions conversation with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was at the height of the initial dossier controversy, but again this could be just a coincidence. What is undeniable is that President Trump and his advisers have steadfastly denied the dossier’s validity, trying to cast it off as a political conspiracy fueled by the Democratic National Committee. President Trump’s response was: “It’s all fake news…it didn’t happen.” Instead, what has been revealed is that the FBI wanted to contract with Mr. Steele to continue his investigation regarding the ties between Trump and the Kremlin after the election was over. The FBI must have thought there was a trail worth following.

General Michael Flynn, President Trump’s initial National Security Advisor, claimed no connections to Russia. Later facts regarding phone conversations with Ambassador Kislyak, accompanied by photographs of General Flynn seated at the same table as President Putin, led to his resignation. This week it was also revealed that General Flynn was on contract as an agent of the Turkish government during the campaign, another involvement he failed to mention in his vetting as National Security Advisor.

During his confirmation hearings, Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to tell the truth about his meeting with the Russian Ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. If the meeting could have been cast aside as a temporary memory lapse, Sessions’ escape hatch closed with his denial of a meeting in written testimony regarding the same issue. Last week, the Attorney General finally decided to recuse himself from his Department’s investigations of ties between the White House and the Russian Government.

The above account does not include the activities of Paul Manafort, former Trump Campaign Advisor, or Carter Page, Mr. Trump’s foreign policy advisor. The former of these two certainly had contacts with Russia and substantial business interests in Ukraine; the latter met with Russian officials during the campaign as well. Both of these men also met with Ambassador Kislyak at a convention during the campaign.

In an ode to the tangled web of Trump associates and potential collusion with the Russian Government, Alexandra Petri’s Washington Post article satirically summarized the situation as follows:

He has spoken to Senators. He has spoken to generals, both regular and soon-to-be-attorneys. But as soon as he speaks his words vanish, as if they had never been. No one can definitely state that they were in the room with him at any time…His name is Sergey Kislyak, and he is the Most Forgettable Man in the World.

The denials proved just the beginning, however. In an onslaught of tweets last Saturday morning, President Trump accused former President Obama of wiretapping his offices in Trump Tower. Such allegations are not an issue of political correctness. He is alleging felonious actions on the part of former President Obama. This is also a misguided tactic because these allegations will either quickly be proven false or they indicate that an arduous process was undertaken to place taps on a private citizen based on substantial evidence of criminal activity. From the outset these tweets were a lose-lose proposition. In the face of White House pressure, current Director of the FBI, James Comey, encouraged the Justice Department not to divert resources into investigating this matter. Further, former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper flatly denied allegations that wiretaps of either Trump or his campaign had been authorized by the former Administration.

The Trump campaign, Trump White House and Trump Cabinet appear to have colluded with a foreign power for short-term political gains and potentially long-term financial rewards. The hacking itself and release of materials garnered through hacking were the first signs.

President Trump himself claimed he didn’t know Vladimir Putin. However, the facts present a multi-year association between these two men. And after several specific denials by the President himself regarding any meetings with Russian officials, it has now been confirmed that he met with Ambassador Kislyak on April 27, 2016.

This issue goes to the heart of American security. The Trump-Putin connection is undeniable, by all except our Commander-in-Tweet. We need a full-scope, fully independent investigation of all these matters, not a whitewashing or diversion into another Presidential delusion.

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.” – George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Abigail Adams

 

On Monday, March 6, 2017, the Trump administration rolled out “a down scaled, but still pernicious” version of the Muslim ban. Of the original seven countries under the first Muslim Ban, the new executive order targets refugees and travelers from six majority Muslim nations, excluding Iraq. They include: Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. Though the new order may disrupt fewer lives, it still carries the same false message as the first order: one of targeted religious discrimination built on a baseless claim of heightened security. As the New York Times concluded its editorial referring to what it called the “Muslim Ban Lite“, “Resorting to these bunker mentality tactics, which are being peddled with plenty of innuendo and little convincing evidence, will do lasting damage to America’s standing in the world and erode its proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing strife. While these steps are being sold to make the nation safer, they stand to do the opposite.”

Indeed, the United States has a long standing tradition of welcoming immigrants who flee persecution, as the inscription on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor makes clear:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, the wretched refugees of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I left my lamp beside the golden door.”

This Muslim ban imperils American standing in the world, but also our perennial commitment to religious freedom. As a result, the new executive order was immediately challenged by the State of Washington, with other states joining in. On March 16th, Federal Courts in Hawaii and Maryland issued orders temporarily blocking the implementation of what they correctly saw as a revised executive order but still a ban on Muslim immigration which they declared to be unconstitutional.

These challenges followed a harrowing report by the New York Times portraying the struggle of an immigrant family attempting to flee the United States near Champlain, NY, seeking asylum in Canada. Apparently, families, many with young children are traveling across the country to make this escape, fearing that their legal status in the country may change. Some have been refugees from Yemen and Turkey who fled their original countries in the hope of a better future and now believe they have become targets in their adopted country, the United Sates. A taxi driver who has taken many from Plattsburg Airport, to a point near the Canadian border was quoted as saying, “People just want to live their life and not be scared.”

But America is supposed to be a country to which refugees flee, not a country from which refugees flee. Others who have commented on this have said:

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privilege, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”
– George Washington, 1783

” I never will, by any will or act, vow to the shame of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. ” – Thomas Jefferson, 1803

And the fundamental qualification of an American citizen, an American patriot, after all, is that he or she subscribe to a principle written down in 1776 by Thomas Jefferson for all America: “We take these truths to be self-evident, that all men (women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

But some have suggested as did Professor Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, under George W. Bush, and now a professor at Harvard Law School,  that President Trump is in effect playing a game with the judiciary to weaken the courts and set them up to blame for the next international terror attack in the United States: “Trump is setting the scene to blame judges after an attack that has a conceivable connection to immigration” (with respect to the first immigration order).

“If Trump loses in court, he credibly will say to the American people that he tried and failed to create tighter immigration controls. This will deflect blame for the attack and it will also help Trump to enhance his power after the attack. (nevertheless with respect to the first order, the courts did their duty and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the order.)

This outcome was despite Trump’s attack on the courts quoted by Danner, “Just cannot believe that a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system.” But this was the right thing for our independent judiciary to have done as was said long ago:

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution.”
– Alexander Hamilton, 1788

“A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning.”
– Alexander Hamilton, 1788

And if someone in the White House should actually harbor thoughts such as those expressed by Professor Goldsmith, then shame on him, her or them, but the courts should do their duty and if after some international terrorist act against the United States – which hopefully will never come – someone in the White House, actually should seek to use such a tragedy to enhance the power of the President beyond its Constitutional limits then some words of Samuel Adams, later know as “Uncle Sam”, expressed long ago are relevant:

“If ever the time should come, when vain & aspiring Men shall posses the highest Seats in government, our Country will stand in Need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its Ruin.”
– Samuel Adams, 1780

John Jay

Recently much concern has been expressed about the possibility of an improper, perhaps illegal, relationship between the Trump campaign organization during the 2016 presidential campaign (and thereafter the Trump administration) and the Russian Government, including its intelligence services.

It is widely known that Russian hackers targeted the Democratic party and its campaign organization, subsequently releasing thousands of emails to WikiLeaks in a alleged effort to interfere with the 2016 election and aid then candidate Trump. Nicholas Kristoff, in his column in the New York Times on March 9, 2017 noted that “the most towering suspicion of all (is): that Trump’s Team colluded in some way with Russia to interfere with the US election. This is the central issue that we must remain focused on.”

In an earlier column on March 6th, Charles Blow reported that a strong majority of the American people wanted a Congressional investigation of the Russia issue and indicated that this matter potentially has the “profoundest of consequences” and could be “nearly unfathomable in its ability to injure our democracy.”

On March 20, 2017, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation told the House Intelligence Committee in public session that the agency is conducting an ongoing investigation into whether members of  the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. When asked by one of the members of the committee to explain to the American people why they should care about this, Director Comey said in part, “One of the things we radiate to the world is the importance of our wonderful, often messy, free and fair democratic system and the elections that undergird it. So when there is an effort by a foreign nation – state to mess with that, to destroy that, to corrupt that, it is very, very serious. It threatens what is America. And if any Americans are part of that effort it is a very serious matter. And so you would expect the F.B.I. to want to understand, is that so? And, if so, who did what?”

Comey’s words seem inspired by a passage by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers #68, written in 1787, in addressing the question of the care and importance invested in developing the provisions in the Constitution providing for the choosing of the President: “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practical obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally be expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.”

As indicated by Hamilton this concern is not a new one.

“The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.”
– Samuel Adams, 1775

“(The people) have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers.”
– John Adams, 1765

“Foreign intrigues and machinations, are among the most formidable enemies which republics have to encounter. These however narrowed or watched, are always likely to have too much influence upon their affairs. If it should be permitted to the agents of foreign powers to insert themselves in popular societies-to mingle openly and directly in the parties, which will never fail, more or less, to divide a free country, the fruits cannot fail to be dissension, commotion, and in the end, loss of liberty.”
– Alexander Hamilton , 1793

“We should be unfaithful to ourselves, if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties, if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that, can be procured by a party, through artifice or corruption, the government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not the nation, for the national good. If that solitary suffrage can be obtained by foreign nations by flattery or violence, by terror, intrigue or venality, the government may not be the choice of the American people but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations who govern us, and not We The People who govern ourselves.”
– John Adams, 1797

“There is a danger from all men, the only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
– John Adams, 1772

John Jay