Maybe Hogsbreath could wash his hair a little more often and speak some truth to the reporters? Like many people in over their heads he is lashing out at the people whose job it is to report truthfully what he has to say…
Stephen, Hegseth is most likely unaware of his utter incompetence and unfitness for the job he now holds. He was picked because Trump watched him on TV and he might have done something in his minimal time in the military, something Trump never had. The concept at the beginning of Trump's second term was to get appointed the most unqualified, incompetent, unfit people for every single position in government leadership, and Senate Republicans and some Democrats went along with it. Together, they have done enormous damage. Hegseth's ego is far larger than his intelligence or ability to think clearly. He should be impeached along with the rest of the current regime, but that is not likely with Republicans in Congress regularly sipping the Kool-Ade, believing their Baby Donnie is just the ticket for a "great" America. Shame on all of them!
The members of Congress, with a very few exceptions, know that the felon is trying to become a dictator. They think he can control their futures, so they are wary of speaking out against him. What they don’t get is that if they banded together against him, he would not be able to hurt them. They are pretty much as stupid as he is.
Sandra, a great choice of descriptors. We can't have too many to describe the crew. We want to be sure the description is well-rounded and accurate! Yep, that would help!
Claudia, I am sure Mr. Hegseth is not remaining sober. Just because a Republican promises to do something does not mean he (or she) will do it. after all, they have all taken oaths to uphold and defend our nation and constitution which they break on a regular basis. I suspect Hegseth is doing more than sipping and he thinks he can make it look like he isn't. Everyone is not as stupid as he is and the truth will get out whether he keeps photographers and others out of the pentagon or not. Yep, just another stupid stepping out every day, right along with their Baby Donnie, toddler-man in chief!
have you ever noticed that the people around Trump ALL look like Bond villains? I mean Roger Stone, Guiliani, Hogsbreath (who always reminds me of Frankenstein’s monster), and all those blonde bimbos?
Joyce, the idea that the press is the fourth branch of government has no historical foundation.
In France, the press was called the Fourth Estate, meaning the 4th Group represented in the pre-revolutionary national legislature. The First Estate was the nobility, the Second Estate was the Church, and the Third Estate were male commoners of some wealth. Each of these estates were represented in the Estates General so that their opinions could be registered on issues of national importance. The press was called the Fourth Estate, because it also expressed opinions on issues of national importance. So, the press was never apart a part of the French government or any other government.
In politics of the United States, "fourth branch of government" is an unofficial term referring to groups or institutions perceived variously as influencing or acting in the stead of the three branches of the US federal government defined in the Constitution of the United States (legislative, executive and judicial).[1] Views as to whether the influence is due or undue or the actions are for good or ill also vary.
Such groups can include the 🔻press (akin to the European 'Fourth Estate'), the 🔻people (in sum or as grand juries), and 🔻interest groups.
The independent administrative agencies of the United States government, while technically part of any one of the three branches, may also be referred to as a 'fourth branch'. wiki excerpt
The term Fourth Estate or fourth power refers to the press and news media in their explicit capacity, beyond the reporting of news, of wielding influence in politics.[1] The derivation of the term arises from the traditional European concept of the three estates of the realm: the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners.
The equivalent term fourth power is somewhat uncommon in English, but it is used in many European languages[a] to refer to a government's separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
When I was growing up post WW2, the press (and other media) were often referred to informally as "the 4th estate" as a recognition of the role it has in informing the people of what the government at all levels is doing, both officially and unofficially. It was considered essential in order to fulfill the first amendment, and by extension, other parts of the Constitution, which requires an informed electorate AND the means by which the various parts of the government can be informed itself of the needs of the country. The origination of the term here is only loosely related to its use in Europe. I recall my parents and grandparents referring to the press this way, and it was what I was taught all the way through journalism classes in college. I don't know when the media stopped being thought of this way, but it was considered an important concept during the 20th century. I am a bit startled by what feels to me to be the denial of a long-standing perception of the press and other media (including informal forms).
I wouldn't use the word "prefers". I am fortunate to have grown up in a time when most people turned to the news, and it was readily available, if sometimes limited in scope. My parents and other relatives were interested, and often talked about what was going on. I had a good education, and though my family was often on the near edge of getting by, we could afford to subscribe to the paper and listened to the radio. We were fortunate to be able to afford a tv in the mid-50s. I knew what the other side of that line was like: my father became disabled not long after, and my mother went to work. My brothers and I all had to earn money. But the foundation was laid for us in terms of knowing about access to news and thinking critically. This at a time when many people still did not have a phone and sometimes not a radio. These days, we are overwhelmed with info from many sources that are not always reliable, that contradict each other, and we live in a society that bombards us with expectations. At least a third of our population struggles in one way or another with uncertainty about their lives. Most of all, we have a society at odds with itself and am elite eager to take advantage of every opportunity to manipulate those circumstances to serve themselves. I often feel overwhelmed myself. I cannot judge people who feel their ability to cope compromised with this kind of complexity.
In my neighborhood watch online group people were unaware of the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Willful ignorance. And yet people do notice when the gas price goes up. Perhaps they will notice a war with Iran, whether Pete allows himself to be photographed or not.
Kathleen, you're right. "Estates" are all about power--people with a particular connection lobbying or fighting for power against the rest of society. James Madison in Federalist No. 10 famously called them "factions," and he explained what they do and why they should be opposed and guarded against.
Our nation was constituted and our Constitution was written to prevent and defeat any "faction" which is any "majority" or any "minority" of people "who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
In Federalist No. 47, Madison echoed Montesquieu to emphasize the great danger posed by factions:
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many" (e.g., in the President, the Senate, SCOTUS or the House of Representatives or in any faction) is "the very definition of tyranny." "[T]he preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct."
As Montesquieu said, "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of" people or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," then "there can be no liberty, because" the same person or body of people can "ENACT tyrannical laws" and then "EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. " And "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of [people] would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR."
Madison explained that the division of powers in our Constitution was designed to "secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government." It was designed to be "a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government."
For the same reasons, Article I barred any part of the U.S. or state governments from granting (or claiming) any "Title of Nobility" and Amendment I barred "an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" by any part of the national government.
Kathleen, you're right that people (erroneously) think of the three powers of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) as the first three powers and they think of something outside government as the fourth power. That's an old-world attitude.
The point of our Constitution (the real meaning of the word "revolution") was overturning those old-world attitudes about power (including the power of royals, nobles and clerics over the people). As the language from Madison and SCOTUS justices that I quoted below shows, our Constitution converted "the people" from mere "subjects" (of other people's power) into the true sovereign. So the People, ourselves, are the first power and everyone in any government is a representative of the people, a public servant.
Under the old system, the people were represented only by the House of Commons. The House of Lords represented the lords spiritual and secular (the nobility and clergy). The monarch represented royalty. Legally, Parliament meant all three (both houses and the crown) working together to make law, and whatever law was made by the men of Parliament was the law of the land. Our Constitution turned that upside down. It also turned every employee of any government into a public servant (a representative, not a ruler, of the sovereign people).
"We the People" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" did in June 1788 "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The People acting as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. “establish[ed our] Constitution” (Preamble), i.e., "the Establishment of this Constitution" (Art. VII); established that all federal “Laws” must “be made in Pursuance” of “this Constitution” (Article VI); established “the supreme Law of the Land” (i.e., “this Constitution,” federal “Laws” and “Treaties”) (Article VI); established that all “Judges in every State shall be bound” by “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI); established that the President always in all official conduct must act only to “preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" (Article II); and established that “all executive and judicial Officers” (including all lawyers) and all legislators and (state and federal) always in all official conduct are “bound” to “support this Constitution” (Article VI).
In the U.S. we don't have such "estates" of people for a very good reason. Irrefutably and clearly, “the Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people” inasmuch as “the people” did “ordain and establish the Constitution.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 759 (1999). This was “an assertion that sovereignty belongs” to “the whole of the people.” Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128, 152 (2019) (Gorsuch, Thomas JJ., Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
“In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 741 (2015) (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, JJ., dissenting). “[T]he critical postulate” of our Constitution is “that sovereignty is vested in the people.” United States Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 794 (1995). “[T]he animating principle of our Constitution” was “that the people” are sovereign and the “source of all the powers of government.” Arizona State Legis. v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 813 (2015).
Earlier, in in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), SCOTUS unanimously emphasized how the sovereignty of the people established our freedom of expression and communication. SCOTUS quoted James Madison to emphasize that our “Constitution created a [republican] form of government under which ‘The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty.’ [Our Constitution] dispersed power” in many ways precisely because “of the people’s” extreme “distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels.”
Our freedom of thought, expression, communication and assembly truly flow from our sovereignty. So SCOTUS quoted Madison again to emphasize that in our “Republican Government,” the “censorial power is” necessarily generally “in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.”
What we call "the press" today isn't an "estate." Such estates were infamous for representing the selfish interests of their members. The press are representatives of all the people. And "the press" in the First Amendment doesn't refer to or protect journalists in any unique respect. "The press" in the 1780's and 1790's meant printing presses and printers. The "freedom of speech" and the "freedom of the press" are mere idiomatic expressions that refer to the freedom of expression and communication of all Americans.
I am sharing your comments here with friends and family. You have expressed very clearly what the founding authors had in mind, that we aspire to be a self-governing nation. In President Lincoln's framing, we are a self-governing nation, of, by, and for the people.
David, I've added a few more responses to other comments here today. You might find them interesting. One of the best books (concise, insightful, and entertaining) that I strongly recommend to anyone interested in such vital subjects is by the outstanding historian Gordon Wood from 2021 (Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution).
The term Fourth Estate or fourth power refers to the press and news media in their explicit capacity, beyond the reporting of news, of wielding influence in politics.[1] The derivation of the term arises from the traditional European concept of the three estates of the realm: the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners.
The equivalent term fourth power is somewhat uncommon in English, but it is used in many European languages[a] to refer to a government's separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC, public broadcaster) for several years has run a public affairs program called The Fifth Estate - deeper investigative journalism (but not necessarily *about* the fourth estate!) https://www.cbc.ca/news/fifthestate/about-the-fifth-estate-1.6022761
Fair enough. But Canada and the British Commonwealth still have a king and they still have no written constitution that governs all parts of their government. So Canada is part of the old-world system (which I described in an additional comment above) that we the people overturned with our Constitution (as I addressed with additional comments above).
Canada very definitely has a written constitution, since its creation in 1967. It had a substantial upgrade in 1982, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects the freedom of expression and of the press. Section 2 says this:
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
This does not make "the press" into a different "estate" and certainly not a branch of government, but the press and other media (which would certainly include the Internet and social media) are included.
The rights are subject to limits set out in section 1:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees
the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society.
Of course there is a good deal of case law interpreting these provisions...
John, there's an additional huge difference between the Constitution Act of Canada and the U.S. Constitution. As you highlighted, in the former the legislature granted rights. But neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.S. Congress granted us rights in the Constitution. Our Constitution declared our rights because the People claimed such rights for themselves. In our Constitution, the rights declared in Article I, Section 9 and in the first 8 amendments were rights and powers that (to use the language of the Preamble and the Tenth Amendment) "We the People" "reserved" to "the people."
As the Preamble emphasizes that "We the People of the United States" acted as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. to "ordain and establish" our own rights. The rights in the first 8 amendments were declared in our Constitution because people demanded that they be stated explicitly, not because our public servants granted those rights to us.
The same is true of, e.g., the 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 24th and 26th Amendments.
John, fair points all. But there's a huge "but" here. Compare who made the Constitution Act for Canada with who made the U.S. Constitution. The reason it's called an "Act" in Canada is that it was made by the formal legislature (like the English Bill of Rights of 1689). That's a huge qualitative difference between Canada's Constitution Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Americans realized that if a legislature could create a constitution, then a subsequent legislature could change the constitution. To this day, that is the rule under the U.S. Constitution--every Congress has the power to change any legislation created by any prior Congress. So various early state constitutions used various means to try to control the state legislature's ability to change the state constitution.
John Adams and Massachusetts led the U.S. in the system that the U.S. adopted. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 was the first to be ratified by the people. In 1787, the Philadelphia Convention followed suit. The Preamble and Article VII (establishing who established our Constitution and how) is the most essential difference between the U.S. Constitution and Canada's Constitution Act.
The Preamble emphasizes that "We the People of the United States" acted as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. (and the only legislative body for the U.S. in 1788) to "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Article I emphasizes explicitly that not all legislative power of the U.S. was vested in Congress. The first sentence of Article I (the Vesting Clause) expressly emphasizes that the People "vested in a Congress" only the limited "legislative Powers herein granted."
Amendment X also emphasizes the related truth that the U.S. government has only "[t]he powers" that were "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" and some powers were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Florida legislature just passed a law that all registered voters need to re register showing proof of citizenship starting starting in 2027. The bill goes to our esteemed governor for his signature. I’m sure he will trip over himself to sign it.
I will have to call the supervisor of elections to see if that’s just new voters or all current registered voters. I want to make sure I’ve read it correctly.
Hegseth is an ugly man, both inside and out. He simply doesn’t understand that his beliefs and manner make him repulsive, not “leftist lunatic” photographers.
Why is social media not having a field day mocking this ban? The meme of Kegbreath re-enacting the final ride of Major T. J. "King" Kong in "Dr Strangelove" is good but surely this ban should be inspiring.
Portraying Hegseth as dignified is a lost cause. Barring photographers for that reason is pointless. There's already a gif of him launching a skateboard into his crotch, so there's just no coming back from that. He's a dufus, and no amount of airbrushed or cartoonized photos will ever rid him of that iconic imagery.
Honestly, i cannot imagine what the judges have to deliberate in this case -- suppression of photos and videos of unclassified government meetings in this age is clearly a step toward the kind of oppression we call TOTALITARIANISM, not to mention the exclusion, or rude verbal dismissal, of journalists who ask hard questions ("nasty" questions, if the reporters are female).
Oppression in the name of Hegseth's vanity? Sorry, but i have never seen a picture of him that i would consider flattering. The emptiness between his ears shows through his eyes every time, and his grin when he brags of "death and destruction" is just ghoulish.
Just consider the source. Carly Simon's "YOU'RE SO VAIN" fits this entire administration in so far as how it's effecting the way they do business with the public as well as eroding our rights at the same time. Thank you Joyce for putting a fine point on this behavior.
Lionel, thanks for the link to This Old Vet. I loved it. It is priceless and the humor very much on point. The Florsheim bit was delightfully over the top, and your friend Bob hit the core smack on. Wish I could subscribe but I am afraid making a pledge might push my budget over the edge. But at least I think I might be able to get to sleep now.
Annie, subscriptions are free. I am retired. I do not want your stinking money (I wish I could remember what that line was from). Keep rousing the rabble. Just do it, because I just sent out a late-night refresher. Come on. Sooths my burn spurs.
No worries. Florsheim doesn't make shoes for women, only for men and children. I guess Trump didn't look at the entire site before he chose shoes for Rubio.
The Associated Press v. Budowich Viewpoints Discrimination lawsuit was filed Feb. 21, 2025.
District Judge McFadden ruled against the regime, but stayed his ruling pending appeal. That was a year ago and we're still waiting since "a delay of months between argument and opinion is not especially unusual."
Meanwhile, AP is still barred from briefings and the regime can still threaten other journalists and news outlets with banishment if dear leader doesn't like what they report, or the photos they take.
What was that about justice delayed being justice denied?
Freedom House is right: “Elected leaders in many democracies, who should be press freedom’s staunchest defenders, have made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage.”
What’s worse are citizens who support such silencing. For speech to be free, it must be free for all of us. Don’t people realize that?
He should have stuck with his former career, with a team of makeup artists and hairdressers to keep him in tiptop shape at all times. Peter Hegseth Principle, Ex. A.
WaPo headline:
"Pentagon bars press photographers over ‘unflattering’ Hegseth photos"
Question: are there any other kind?
Petulance doesn't have a good side.
Big boy panties, Pete.
Maybe Hogsbreath could wash his hair a little more often and speak some truth to the reporters? Like many people in over their heads he is lashing out at the people whose job it is to report truthfully what he has to say…
Stephen, Hegseth is most likely unaware of his utter incompetence and unfitness for the job he now holds. He was picked because Trump watched him on TV and he might have done something in his minimal time in the military, something Trump never had. The concept at the beginning of Trump's second term was to get appointed the most unqualified, incompetent, unfit people for every single position in government leadership, and Senate Republicans and some Democrats went along with it. Together, they have done enormous damage. Hegseth's ego is far larger than his intelligence or ability to think clearly. He should be impeached along with the rest of the current regime, but that is not likely with Republicans in Congress regularly sipping the Kool-Ade, believing their Baby Donnie is just the ticket for a "great" America. Shame on all of them!
The members of Congress, with a very few exceptions, know that the felon is trying to become a dictator. They think he can control their futures, so they are wary of speaking out against him. What they don’t get is that if they banded together against him, he would not be able to hurt them. They are pretty much as stupid as he is.
Sharon, it is certainly true that stupidity is strong with this Trumpian Regime!
Outstanding comment!
👍
Sandra, a great choice of descriptors. We can't have too many to describe the crew. We want to be sure the description is well-rounded and accurate! Yep, that would help!
If he stayed sober, he’s be way less defensive and a lot more coherent. Plus it might improve his blurry look!
Claudia, I am sure Mr. Hegseth is not remaining sober. Just because a Republican promises to do something does not mean he (or she) will do it. after all, they have all taken oaths to uphold and defend our nation and constitution which they break on a regular basis. I suspect Hegseth is doing more than sipping and he thinks he can make it look like he isn't. Everyone is not as stupid as he is and the truth will get out whether he keeps photographers and others out of the pentagon or not. Yep, just another stupid stepping out every day, right along with their Baby Donnie, toddler-man in chief!
My thought exactly! Hegseth looks like a smarmy Bond villain to me. He's absolutely repulsive...
have you ever noticed that the people around Trump ALL look like Bond villains? I mean Roger Stone, Guiliani, Hogsbreath (who always reminds me of Frankenstein’s monster), and all those blonde bimbos?
and please don't forget Stephen Miller!
Yes! TRump himself is their Dear Leader. They're all despicable cretins with psychological defects.
Good one!
Amen to that!!!
Joyce, the idea that the press is the fourth branch of government has no historical foundation.
In France, the press was called the Fourth Estate, meaning the 4th Group represented in the pre-revolutionary national legislature. The First Estate was the nobility, the Second Estate was the Church, and the Third Estate were male commoners of some wealth. Each of these estates were represented in the Estates General so that their opinions could be registered on issues of national importance. The press was called the Fourth Estate, because it also expressed opinions on issues of national importance. So, the press was never apart a part of the French government or any other government.
In politics of the United States, "fourth branch of government" is an unofficial term referring to groups or institutions perceived variously as influencing or acting in the stead of the three branches of the US federal government defined in the Constitution of the United States (legislative, executive and judicial).[1] Views as to whether the influence is due or undue or the actions are for good or ill also vary.
Such groups can include the 🔻press (akin to the European 'Fourth Estate'), the 🔻people (in sum or as grand juries), and 🔻interest groups.
The independent administrative agencies of the United States government, while technically part of any one of the three branches, may also be referred to as a 'fourth branch'. wiki excerpt
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the usage:
The term Fourth Estate or fourth power refers to the press and news media in their explicit capacity, beyond the reporting of news, of wielding influence in politics.[1] The derivation of the term arises from the traditional European concept of the three estates of the realm: the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners.
The equivalent term fourth power is somewhat uncommon in English, but it is used in many European languages[a] to refer to a government's separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
When I was growing up post WW2, the press (and other media) were often referred to informally as "the 4th estate" as a recognition of the role it has in informing the people of what the government at all levels is doing, both officially and unofficially. It was considered essential in order to fulfill the first amendment, and by extension, other parts of the Constitution, which requires an informed electorate AND the means by which the various parts of the government can be informed itself of the needs of the country. The origination of the term here is only loosely related to its use in Europe. I recall my parents and grandparents referring to the press this way, and it was what I was taught all the way through journalism classes in college. I don't know when the media stopped being thought of this way, but it was considered an important concept during the 20th century. I am a bit startled by what feels to me to be the denial of a long-standing perception of the press and other media (including informal forms).
Strange how a third of the electorate prefers to be uninformed.
It's that bad.
I wouldn't use the word "prefers". I am fortunate to have grown up in a time when most people turned to the news, and it was readily available, if sometimes limited in scope. My parents and other relatives were interested, and often talked about what was going on. I had a good education, and though my family was often on the near edge of getting by, we could afford to subscribe to the paper and listened to the radio. We were fortunate to be able to afford a tv in the mid-50s. I knew what the other side of that line was like: my father became disabled not long after, and my mother went to work. My brothers and I all had to earn money. But the foundation was laid for us in terms of knowing about access to news and thinking critically. This at a time when many people still did not have a phone and sometimes not a radio. These days, we are overwhelmed with info from many sources that are not always reliable, that contradict each other, and we live in a society that bombards us with expectations. At least a third of our population struggles in one way or another with uncertainty about their lives. Most of all, we have a society at odds with itself and am elite eager to take advantage of every opportunity to manipulate those circumstances to serve themselves. I often feel overwhelmed myself. I cannot judge people who feel their ability to cope compromised with this kind of complexity.
In my neighborhood watch online group people were unaware of the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Willful ignorance. And yet people do notice when the gas price goes up. Perhaps they will notice a war with Iran, whether Pete allows himself to be photographed or not.
Kathleen, you're right. "Estates" are all about power--people with a particular connection lobbying or fighting for power against the rest of society. James Madison in Federalist No. 10 famously called them "factions," and he explained what they do and why they should be opposed and guarded against.
Our nation was constituted and our Constitution was written to prevent and defeat any "faction" which is any "majority" or any "minority" of people "who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
In Federalist No. 47, Madison echoed Montesquieu to emphasize the great danger posed by factions:
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many" (e.g., in the President, the Senate, SCOTUS or the House of Representatives or in any faction) is "the very definition of tyranny." "[T]he preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct."
As Montesquieu said, "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of" people or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," then "there can be no liberty, because" the same person or body of people can "ENACT tyrannical laws" and then "EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. " And "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of [people] would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR."
Madison explained that the division of powers in our Constitution was designed to "secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government." It was designed to be "a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government."
For the same reasons, Article I barred any part of the U.S. or state governments from granting (or claiming) any "Title of Nobility" and Amendment I barred "an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" by any part of the national government.
Kathleen, you're right that people (erroneously) think of the three powers of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) as the first three powers and they think of something outside government as the fourth power. That's an old-world attitude.
The point of our Constitution (the real meaning of the word "revolution") was overturning those old-world attitudes about power (including the power of royals, nobles and clerics over the people). As the language from Madison and SCOTUS justices that I quoted below shows, our Constitution converted "the people" from mere "subjects" (of other people's power) into the true sovereign. So the People, ourselves, are the first power and everyone in any government is a representative of the people, a public servant.
Under the old system, the people were represented only by the House of Commons. The House of Lords represented the lords spiritual and secular (the nobility and clergy). The monarch represented royalty. Legally, Parliament meant all three (both houses and the crown) working together to make law, and whatever law was made by the men of Parliament was the law of the land. Our Constitution turned that upside down. It also turned every employee of any government into a public servant (a representative, not a ruler, of the sovereign people).
"We the People" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" did in June 1788 "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The People acting as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. “establish[ed our] Constitution” (Preamble), i.e., "the Establishment of this Constitution" (Art. VII); established that all federal “Laws” must “be made in Pursuance” of “this Constitution” (Article VI); established “the supreme Law of the Land” (i.e., “this Constitution,” federal “Laws” and “Treaties”) (Article VI); established that all “Judges in every State shall be bound” by “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI); established that the President always in all official conduct must act only to “preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" (Article II); and established that “all executive and judicial Officers” (including all lawyers) and all legislators and (state and federal) always in all official conduct are “bound” to “support this Constitution” (Article VI).
In the U.S. we don't have such "estates" of people for a very good reason. Irrefutably and clearly, “the Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people” inasmuch as “the people” did “ordain and establish the Constitution.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 759 (1999). This was “an assertion that sovereignty belongs” to “the whole of the people.” Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128, 152 (2019) (Gorsuch, Thomas JJ., Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
“In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 741 (2015) (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, JJ., dissenting). “[T]he critical postulate” of our Constitution is “that sovereignty is vested in the people.” United States Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 794 (1995). “[T]he animating principle of our Constitution” was “that the people” are sovereign and the “source of all the powers of government.” Arizona State Legis. v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 813 (2015).
Earlier, in in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), SCOTUS unanimously emphasized how the sovereignty of the people established our freedom of expression and communication. SCOTUS quoted James Madison to emphasize that our “Constitution created a [republican] form of government under which ‘The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty.’ [Our Constitution] dispersed power” in many ways precisely because “of the people’s” extreme “distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels.”
Our freedom of thought, expression, communication and assembly truly flow from our sovereignty. So SCOTUS quoted Madison again to emphasize that in our “Republican Government,” the “censorial power is” necessarily generally “in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.”
What we call "the press" today isn't an "estate." Such estates were infamous for representing the selfish interests of their members. The press are representatives of all the people. And "the press" in the First Amendment doesn't refer to or protect journalists in any unique respect. "The press" in the 1780's and 1790's meant printing presses and printers. The "freedom of speech" and the "freedom of the press" are mere idiomatic expressions that refer to the freedom of expression and communication of all Americans.
Hello, Jack Jordan
I am sharing your comments here with friends and family. You have expressed very clearly what the founding authors had in mind, that we aspire to be a self-governing nation. In President Lincoln's framing, we are a self-governing nation, of, by, and for the people.
David, I've added a few more responses to other comments here today. You might find them interesting. One of the best books (concise, insightful, and entertaining) that I strongly recommend to anyone interested in such vital subjects is by the outstanding historian Gordon Wood from 2021 (Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution).
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the usage:
The term Fourth Estate or fourth power refers to the press and news media in their explicit capacity, beyond the reporting of news, of wielding influence in politics.[1] The derivation of the term arises from the traditional European concept of the three estates of the realm: the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners.
The equivalent term fourth power is somewhat uncommon in English, but it is used in many European languages[a] to refer to a government's separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC, public broadcaster) for several years has run a public affairs program called The Fifth Estate - deeper investigative journalism (but not necessarily *about* the fourth estate!) https://www.cbc.ca/news/fifthestate/about-the-fifth-estate-1.6022761
Fair enough. But Canada and the British Commonwealth still have a king and they still have no written constitution that governs all parts of their government. So Canada is part of the old-world system (which I described in an additional comment above) that we the people overturned with our Constitution (as I addressed with additional comments above).
Canada very definitely has a written constitution, since its creation in 1967. It had a substantial upgrade in 1982, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects the freedom of expression and of the press. Section 2 says this:
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
This does not make "the press" into a different "estate" and certainly not a branch of government, but the press and other media (which would certainly include the Internet and social media) are included.
The rights are subject to limits set out in section 1:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees
the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society.
Of course there is a good deal of case law interpreting these provisions...
John, there's an additional huge difference between the Constitution Act of Canada and the U.S. Constitution. As you highlighted, in the former the legislature granted rights. But neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.S. Congress granted us rights in the Constitution. Our Constitution declared our rights because the People claimed such rights for themselves. In our Constitution, the rights declared in Article I, Section 9 and in the first 8 amendments were rights and powers that (to use the language of the Preamble and the Tenth Amendment) "We the People" "reserved" to "the people."
As the Preamble emphasizes that "We the People of the United States" acted as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. to "ordain and establish" our own rights. The rights in the first 8 amendments were declared in our Constitution because people demanded that they be stated explicitly, not because our public servants granted those rights to us.
The same is true of, e.g., the 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 24th and 26th Amendments.
John, fair points all. But there's a huge "but" here. Compare who made the Constitution Act for Canada with who made the U.S. Constitution. The reason it's called an "Act" in Canada is that it was made by the formal legislature (like the English Bill of Rights of 1689). That's a huge qualitative difference between Canada's Constitution Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Americans realized that if a legislature could create a constitution, then a subsequent legislature could change the constitution. To this day, that is the rule under the U.S. Constitution--every Congress has the power to change any legislation created by any prior Congress. So various early state constitutions used various means to try to control the state legislature's ability to change the state constitution.
John Adams and Massachusetts led the U.S. in the system that the U.S. adopted. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 was the first to be ratified by the people. In 1787, the Philadelphia Convention followed suit. The Preamble and Article VII (establishing who established our Constitution and how) is the most essential difference between the U.S. Constitution and Canada's Constitution Act.
The Preamble emphasizes that "We the People of the United States" acted as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. (and the only legislative body for the U.S. in 1788) to "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Article I emphasizes explicitly that not all legislative power of the U.S. was vested in Congress. The first sentence of Article I (the Vesting Clause) expressly emphasizes that the People "vested in a Congress" only the limited "legislative Powers herein granted."
Amendment X also emphasizes the related truth that the U.S. government has only "[t]he powers" that were "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" and some powers were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Let's ask AI (asking anything sentient would lead only to a "Nope nope nope")
Right!
But we paid so much for the makeup studio in the Pentagon. Is he not using it?
Thank you Steve, I needed a good laugh today.
The Florida legislature just passed a law that all registered voters need to re register showing proof of citizenship starting starting in 2027. The bill goes to our esteemed governor for his signature. I’m sure he will trip over himself to sign it.
I will have to call the supervisor of elections to see if that’s just new voters or all current registered voters. I want to make sure I’ve read it correctly.
Now you know why I needed a laugh.
Hegseth is an ugly man, both inside and out. He simply doesn’t understand that his beliefs and manner make him repulsive, not “leftist lunatic” photographers.
Why is social media not having a field day mocking this ban? The meme of Kegbreath re-enacting the final ride of Major T. J. "King" Kong in "Dr Strangelove" is good but surely this ban should be inspiring.
Maybe he needs to wear a cross….oh, wait a minute, image of burning is coming to mind…
Hegseth: “It’s WORK getting presentable! Kristi got all the good costumes—gimme a break!”
Didn’t he put in a make up station?
He did. And then scolded actual soldiers - the top brass! - on “manliness” — War Bulletins from the Pentagon Makeup Room!
While touching up his fascist tats.
And then preening naked before a full length mirror? (I’m putting off dinner right now.)
Thank you for that, David. I may have to dispense with dinner for a month.
Ah, the Hegseth Diet—he’s dimming, you’re slimming.
And trying to do a big boy pull up. Hell I'm 70 and I can do better then that.
Alla that ink is weighin' him down.
Grr
Times are ruff when you’re barking mad.
I am glad that I am barefoot. Nevertheless is so full of s**t his eyes are deep brown!! If any spills.,my feet are washable!
Indeed. And the puerility of Trump, Hegseth, Bondi, Noem—it’s indelible.
Portraying Hegseth as dignified is a lost cause. Barring photographers for that reason is pointless. There's already a gif of him launching a skateboard into his crotch, so there's just no coming back from that. He's a dufus, and no amount of airbrushed or cartoonized photos will ever rid him of that iconic imagery.
My favorite is when he was a Saturday morning host, and the group was outside throwing axes. And he hit somebody!
https://youtu.be/pMrVdFnjEjs?si=E5cCD11MdrmgldTu
And the chin up video is great as well.
Honestly, i cannot imagine what the judges have to deliberate in this case -- suppression of photos and videos of unclassified government meetings in this age is clearly a step toward the kind of oppression we call TOTALITARIANISM, not to mention the exclusion, or rude verbal dismissal, of journalists who ask hard questions ("nasty" questions, if the reporters are female).
Oppression in the name of Hegseth's vanity? Sorry, but i have never seen a picture of him that i would consider flattering. The emptiness between his ears shows through his eyes every time, and his grin when he brags of "death and destruction" is just ghoulish.
The technical term for Katsas and Rao is Performative Trump Turds. They're down there with Hogsbreath et al.
Just consider the source. Carly Simon's "YOU'RE SO VAIN" fits this entire administration in so far as how it's effecting the way they do business with the public as well as eroding our rights at the same time. Thank you Joyce for putting a fine point on this behavior.
If only vanity were the issue with this administration.
He is the paragon of the trumpturds' degenerate soul-less-ness.
Joyce, I fear you will never be given a pair of Florsheims.
https://lionelatwill.substack.com/p/hey-bob-how-are-you-doing?r=24gsex&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Fight the Fight! You inspire me.
I'm with you all the way,Joyce!
Please don’t insult Florsheims. The most comfortable dress shoe I ever wore and very reasonably priced
Bet Don doesn’t wear them. They aren’t expensive enough
Trump awards them to his minions. No insult to comfortable shoes. I wrote it up here:
https://lionelatwill.substack.com/p/hey-bob-how-are-you-doing?r=24gsex&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Perhaps the Don spray paints the insides with gold?
he has hooves hoofs ?
Lionel, thanks for the link to This Old Vet. I loved it. It is priceless and the humor very much on point. The Florsheim bit was delightfully over the top, and your friend Bob hit the core smack on. Wish I could subscribe but I am afraid making a pledge might push my budget over the edge. But at least I think I might be able to get to sleep now.
Annie, subscriptions are free. I am retired. I do not want your stinking money (I wish I could remember what that line was from). Keep rousing the rabble. Just do it, because I just sent out a late-night refresher. Come on. Sooths my burn spurs.
No worries. Florsheim doesn't make shoes for women, only for men and children. I guess Trump didn't look at the entire site before he chose shoes for Rubio.
Appears he has a habit of not thinking things through. Declaring war, for example...
and the horse he rode in on.
¿The ban of photographers over looking bad in a pic.?
Holy mannequin-madness, ¡Batman!
The inanity of vanity enabled by the insanity of Hannity.
Well if he doesn't wished to videotaped, shown on-air live, or photographed, then why in the H*LL did he install a makeup studio?
Not only that, but knowing what we know of him, he'd have to banish the mirror from the studio, for impertinence!
You just caused me to picture Kegsbreath in front of Maleficent's mirror saying "Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The Associated Press v. Budowich Viewpoints Discrimination lawsuit was filed Feb. 21, 2025.
District Judge McFadden ruled against the regime, but stayed his ruling pending appeal. That was a year ago and we're still waiting since "a delay of months between argument and opinion is not especially unusual."
Meanwhile, AP is still barred from briefings and the regime can still threaten other journalists and news outlets with banishment if dear leader doesn't like what they report, or the photos they take.
What was that about justice delayed being justice denied?
Mannequin Pete can't permit too many press photos or the public may figure out that he's not a real man just a hollow plastic facsimile of a man.
As always, Joyce, thank you for reminding us how seriously we need to take everything that's happening.
Absolutely. Thank you again, Joyce. I'm very grateful for your voice in a sea of lies, half-truths and cover-up.
Only beer goggles could make this man look good at this point - a LOT of beer
Just reflects that they skate on appearance with nothing underneath.
Freedom House is right: “Elected leaders in many democracies, who should be press freedom’s staunchest defenders, have made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage.”
What’s worse are citizens who support such silencing. For speech to be free, it must be free for all of us. Don’t people realize that?
Touchy little thing, isn't he? Worse than a 13 yr old girl - OOPS! Bad comparison!
Yes. It was.
He should have stuck with his former career, with a team of makeup artists and hairdressers to keep him in tiptop shape at all times. Peter Hegseth Principle, Ex. A.