Tag Archives: constitution

Implacable hostility in an atrocious cause

This is John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, one of America’s foremost advocates of slavery. Decades before the Civil War, he argued (anonymously) that South Carolina had the constitutional right to nullify any federal law that affected its rights regarding its profits from slave labor (no tax, no tariff). Andrew Jackson, a great psychotic in his own right, and also a heavy drinker, flew into a murderous rage when Calhoun anonymously published his nullification argument, precipitating the Nullification Crisis (1832-33).

One of the great regrets of Jackson’s presidency, Old Hickory said at the end, is that he didn’t follow up on his threat to go down to South Carolina and hang fucking Calhoun with his own hands. Not that Jackson, who killed several men in duels and carried a bullet around in his chest after a near fatal duel for him, also hadn’t become wealthy trading slaves or had anything against the Peculiar Institution, but on general principle.

Calhoun was also the guy who, while in the Senate, developed and perfected our beloved filibuster, which, of course is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution though it has always been slavery’s, bigotry’s and anti-democracy’s biggest friend in government.

Right piece of shit, John C. Calhoun, as far as I can tell . But quite an “I am an eternally hostile, implacable motherfucker who will fucking destroy you” glare on the politician’s face, isn’t it?

Another unappealable John Roberts special

As he did in striking down enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act simply by ignoring inconvenient facts, like many sessions of vigorous debate in Congress, thousands of pages of data considered, ongoing attempts by states with a history of racist laws to disenfranchise voters and suppress the vote, the unanimous Senate vote to re-authorize the Act, the near unanimous vote in the House, and the Republican president’s warm public embrace of the Act as he signed it into continued law, Roberts made the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment a matter of Federalist Society opinion about whether an insurrectionist is eligible for federal office, absent a specific, constitutionally sound law passed by Congress.

In the Voting Rights Act case the holding was 5-4: the Voting Rights Act worked beautifully to eliminate racially discriminatory voter suppression and no longer needs enforcement.  In this Colorado decision to disqualify an insurrectionist, textualists and liberals apparently agree that Colorado had no right to remove Trump from their ballot, no matter what their factual findings may have been, and therefore that no state may remove Donald Trump, or any candidate for federal office, from the ballot, absent Congress passing a new law to enforce section three of the 14th Amendment. 

Leave out a few key facts, ignore the central one (Trump planned, advertised, aided and gave comfort to participants in a riot that shut down the government in a violent attempt to keep him in power), reframe the narrow issue that you are looking at, et voilà, you can pull any politically expedient holding you would like out of your corporate “balls and strikes umpire” ass.  You can even broker a deal to make it a unanimous 9-0, including the spouse
of a powerful participant in the attempt to overthrow the election of 2020.

The Court declines to intervene in many cases because of their Political Question Doctrine and professes, under federalism, to defer to states on abortion, criminal law, family and business law, voting rules and procedures and many other matters, but reaches the conclusion, without touching the finding that the candidate in question, at minimum, aided and abetted insurrection, or Colorado’s evidence-based finding that he did, that this political question is one they can unanimously decide, bindingly, on behalf of all fifty states. The plain text of their sacred originalist Constitution, and the expressed, well-documented intent of the framers, be damned.

What I don’t understand is how this dog shit decision was 9-0. This time nobody on the Court has a word to say about the stench?

Here is Jesse Wegman’s right on analysis from today’s NY Times.