It seems that we need better guardrails for those who want to sit in the oval office. If anyone has ever demonstrated the danger of leaving the requirements wide open, it is Trump. It will be interesting to see if participation in or support of an insurrection becomes a limitation.
You have more faith in Homeland Security than I do. If you've been around the block a few times, you'll remember all the times the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies have been weaponized by those in power. Homeland Security is young by comparison, but it was heavily implicated in the Trump administration abuses of migrants.
There's no good choice. As I noted elsewhere, adding qualifications or requirements for presidential and congressional candidates is likely unconstitutional (without a constitutional amendment, that is).
I totally agree. Every job or public office I’ve ever seen has a list of basic requirements. The presidency is a job; an extremely powerful one. It boggles the mind that the bar is so low it’s practically nonexistent.
It seems reasonable to expect that presidential candidates and members of Congress demonstrate that they can pass what I understand is a pretty rigorous test - the test applicants for U.S. citizenship are require to take. In lieu of passing perhaps they should be require to attend a civics class when they submit candidacy papers.
Well! Why can’t I have a fantasy if so many feel comfortable embracing conspiracies?
My wife, who acquired dual citizenship, dedicated months to studying for the comprehensive examination. This test included both written and oral components, covering a wide range of topics.
The background check could prove to be a challenging hurdle for the entire group associated with Trump, given their various issues.
During the former administration, security clearances were given to the likes of Kushner, a dangerous precedent which must never be allowed again, regardless of what any President would request.
And thanks to your wife, who evidently knew it was worth the time and effort to become a citizen of this great country! Maybe she will hold office one day and help this country improve!
She is the living embodiment of “Roberts Rules of Order.” Crystal is 39 with the wisdom and decorum of a distinguished 93 year old. I am 72 and have the exact opposite personality.
The US Citizenship test has been revised at least twice, to make it less of an obstacle to immigrants whose first language is not English (in one case) and to make it easier to pass, in the other case. I am mildly surprised Stephen Miller did not get the idea to require that it be impossible to pass at all!
But one of their think tank leaders, (Kevin Roberts, PhD) has recently criticized the Biden administration for having elite (read: 'educated') ultra-left members in his administration. Roberts said this in the context of writing about the Constitution being written by 'We The People.' [Note: Roberts was attempting to convey that 'We The People' was written by the common folks of the day - but how would that happen? They were back at the factories and offices, tending the home fires and keeping things running while their employers were away at meetings with other founding fathers writing, negotiating and compromising]. Roberts has a PhD from UT Austin, a master's degree from VA Tech, undergrad from Louisiana, Fayetteville - every one in history...and all higher education universities that are either R1 or world ranked. So he should know: 'We The People' was written by the elite intelligentsia of the day: all writers were business owners, doctors, lawyers, newspaper editors, publishers; and other educated elites, and they were running the government. Some were in Europe as diplomats: and they all were writing as public servants, making a social contract with those who could not write or attend the meetings that required absences from their homes and businesses for many months. Thomas Jefferson said he wanted religion left out of the Constitution and it was: there is no mention of 'God.' He wanted an educated populace who could ride herd on the government. And 'We The People' became so successful in its intent to become a document for all, that most folks have conjured that the Constitution was written by people just like them, whether they serve coffee and doughnuts, teach school, clean other people's houses, run a farm, or a bank, or practice law: few understand that the elite intelligentsia wrote it for THEM, at a huge sacrifice. The social contract has held for 235 years. But now the Christian nationalists in our bicameral congress are influencing the SCOTUS to weaken our rights. And one of them is criticizing our educated cabinet and executive branch with its thousands of support civil servants of being 'elitist' because they are Democrats with educations. These elite 'ultra radical leftists' are doing as the framers of the Constitution wished and had done by example. 'We The People' was created by an elite group: and they were wise enough to say a citizen did not have to have a religion to be a 'good citizen or a patriot.'
It boggles the mind that such an educated person would promote such drivel. But then again, such people "forget" their education when it comes to pandering to the cult.
Excellent--and, thank you for this. For an entertaining way to learn the basics of how all this came about, I suggest watching the excellent movie "John Adams" with Paul Giamatti as the lead. For a quick and enjoyable education on women's suffrage, Ken Burns's PBS special "Not For Ourselves Alone" is wonderful. Both should be required viewing for high school--or even younger-students. Even if you know the sacrifices that were made by all of those involved in setting up this country as a democracy and securing the universal right to vote, watching these movies is a painless and effective way to remind ourselves of what is expected of this country's citizens.
I read your piece on Kevin Roberts' critique of the Biden administration, and it's quite thought-provoking. It’s quite an intriguing civics class lesson. You point out that Roberts, with his extensive education, criticizes the administration for being 'elite', but isn't there a bit of irony here? The Constitution, starting with 'We The People', was crafted by the educated elite of the time—business owners, lawyers, doctors. They were hardly the 'common folk'. How do you think this historical context influences our understanding of the Constitution's intent today?
Also, when we talk about the founding fathers, they were, by all means, part of the educated intelligentsia. Does it seem contradictory to you to criticize today's political leaders for being 'elitist' due to their education, while the founders themselves were from a similar background?
Thomas Jefferson's vision for an educated populace overseeing the government highlights the importance of informed leadership. But how do we balance this with the democratic ideal of inclusive representation? Shouldn't we aim for a government that represents all layers of society, including those from less privileged backgrounds?
And finally, in your view, how can we ensure that the principle of 'We The People' remains inclusive and genuinely representative of the entire populace, not just a select, educated few?
Yes congratulations! I have helped several people become citizens. I love going with them to vote the first time. They are much more appreciative of it than most citizens.
It was more expensive for us as we lived in Montecito, California which is a very expensive locale.
Our experience with the immigration process turned out to be quite a story. Our attorney even said we were the easiest couple he'd ever worked with.
The day we went in for the interview, where they usually separate couples to question them, something different happened. The interviewer, a seasoned civil servant, just glanced at our 27 letters of recommendation and my lifelong involvement with Girl Scouts, and decided to skip the usual drill.
We had an album with us showing our two weddings — one at the Fairmont Hotel in Victoria, BC, and the other in Santa Barbara, California, at the sunken Gardens at the courthouse. Our attorney was there too, with a massive, color-coded binder, but he hardly had to say a word.
The funniest part? The interviewer was more interested in my Girl Scout history than anything else, maybe because he was an Eagle Scout himself. He asked which badge meant the most to me, and I ended up telling him this hilarious childhood story about my Archery badge. Once, my cousin Stanley shot me in the leg with a homemade arrow. I walked into my aunt's house, arrow and all, causing total chaos. Stanley got off easy, but my dad offered to teach me archery after that.
The next summer, I got my 'revenge’ hitting Stanley right in the butt with an arrow. Everyone was shocked, but my dad and I just shared a knowing look. And that's how Stanley got his nickname "cheeky cheeky." Our interviewer couldn't stop laughing, and finally, he told us we had passed and to get out of his office because he was a busy man. It was a memorable day, to say the least!
Oh my!! I knew you were a Girl Scout! Tres funny for the Archery Badge:) Do you always have the go bag packed for you, Crystal and the critters (ready made packs for their vitamins and meds/canned/freeze dried food for them) with extra LL Bean Petzls continually charged, and the auto gas tank(s) running on full; are the carry lamps charged and asking for a Goal Zero Yeti for Christmas, but most importantly, do you make a thermos of coffee, every single night, 365 days just in case there is a quake, tsunami, power outage in the case you have to load and drive in five minutes? That's a true Girl Scout:))
John! What a concept - that they would be required to attend a civics class. That went away from public schools when another Republican president, George W. Bush did his cramdown of No Child Left Behind beginning in 2003 - and lasting until 2015. It is not spoken of so much because Trump has done so many egregious things: but he has stated that he will abolish the US Department of Education if he is elected. But he will continue to offer vouchers for private (religious) schools.
Education in the critical thinking sense is not given as much priority as Staar tests. Synthesizing information is different than recognizing an answer in multiple choice. A poorly educated electorate is much easier to manipulate. Those fruits are coming to bear in these days of scoffing higher education and believing "facts" because they are popular.
We are seeing the results of George W. Bush’s no child left behind act of 2003, which lasted until 2015. Rod Paige was the secretary of education and this was his brainchild. He did not have the background to run the.department and his plan for ‘raising achievement’ was based on what Bush believed was competition from Japan. Neither Bush nor Paige had any clue about how Japanese schools work. They only drill, repeat and test at the end of middle school to determine high school placement and senior in high school to determine secondary if they are going or if they are going to a trade school. The Japanese school system includes having tutoring every night after school. The primary focus of grades K through five is building strong community. Then the real learning is happening through the tutors and then the same han they are when they are in the classroom. (I lived in Japan and my own two children went through Japanese schools yochien (preschool) at age 3 until finishing middle school). Japanese schools do not drill repeat and test little kids. They allow them to come up with an answer as a group. So by getting the process, so terribly wrong, Bush managed to ruin an entire generation. He erased civics from the curriculum. Little kids in kindergarten and first grade were retained because they couldn’t read! Anyone in early childhood education knows that children have so many ways of learning, and so many levels and achievements at different ages for every little kid. Research in the mid 2000s begin showing that an increase in dropout at ninth grade was correlated to kids being retained in kindergarten and first grade because they lost their first ‘tribe.’ They never fit in (or belonged) in their school experience after that. And if they were a kid who wouldn’t have been ready to read until third grade, their entire early childhood education experience was ruined. The shocking thing was this was going on, while Laura Bush had been trained as a teacher!
Thankfully, we no longer have the horror of ‘no child left behind.’ but we have the aftermath and a generation of some quite low reading skills, and without having had civics. I’m actually afraid we have a couple of those individuals in the house of representatives. They don’t seem to have the slightest clue about history, civics or the content of the founding documents
Not sure retention in kindergarten is a cause of drop out in 9th grade or if it is a marker for poor adjustment. I have always believed curriculum ought to be in pods so students can learn each discipline at their own pace. Completion to satisfaction of certain pods required to move on to the next level. Advancing students before they can master a level bakes in their struggle. Innovation and attention to students takes time and money but pays off in spades. Republicans do not give quality education priority.
It is an excellent thought, not fantasy at all. Just looking at the ignorance of civics of the members of the republican party occupying seats in the House at this time is proof that this should be a requirement.
The requirement of not having participated in an insurrection should also be enacted. Taking an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, and then breaking it, should also disqualify running for office.
This is sound reasoning, John, not a conspiracy at all!
Why is there a policy of "non-interference" by justice before elections? Any non-elected position has to go through a thorough background check before hiring? Why are only elected officials exempt? Unless a candidate's background check exposes they have committed something that is already a crime that needs to be investigated, the background checks shouldn't be able to block a candidacy, but anyone wanting to run for office (states could do their own backgrounds) should do so knowing that these background checks will be done, and they should be publicly available before all federal candidates can be placed on the ballot. I don't understand the idea that voters should be required to vote on candidates without more complete knowledge of those candidates past.
I at one time accessed my own federal file. The main entry occurred when I was five and expelled from my first year of school because I absolutely refused to finger paint. The only reason I can figure out why that is there is that it must have been discovered when my parents were applying the next year to be teachers for DODDS. The only other entry is from Chicago during the dem. convention in '68. It simply mentions I was picked up (among several hundred) and taken to jail. No charges were filed, but there was a picture of me lying on the ground and then the statement I was taken to the Chicago jail and then transferred to the hospital, and that I had been counted among those who had been injured. I spent the rest of my school years in DODDS schools, but the finger painting expellation remained on my school record even though it occurred prior. I can't think but that somehow it was deemed of some relevance to my parent's government application to be relevant. But a political candidate can claim to be a volleyball star and it's election interference to expose that as a lie before he is voted on, only after. Go figure. But I had a defense dept file at six years old that was weighed in determining if my parents could teach military dependents?
Yeah, let's throw out this democracy thing. It isn't working.
Seriously -- anyone who thinks this is a good idea should think it through, and pay particular attention to how Trump got elected. It's worth remembering that, though there have been mediocre presidents, Trump is unique in his flagrant lack of qualifications for the job. For me, the #1 question, as with any incompetent, is "Who hired him?" "We the people"? Almost but not quite: actually it was the Electoral College. So that's one place to start looking if one wants to prevent another Trump.
Another place is the mass media, specifically the consolidation of the media under corporate ownership. It's hard to address that without tangling with the First Amendment, but once upon a time we had the Fairness Doctrine. The right-wing think tanks *hated* the Fairness Doctrine. Wonder why! Maybe time to bring it back -- if the SCOTUS would allow it. Which leads to . . .
My point is that Trump is the product of a whole slew of system failures -- which, from the point of view of the right wing, weren't failures at all. Having Homeland Security vet candidates doesn't address any of it.
About RINOs -- part of me thinks that's a compliment, albeit a backhanded one, but the other part thinks that these days calling anyone a Republican of any kind is an insult. My Republican relatives of previous generations would be horrified.
Bonnie, In my view, if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can’t prevent a presidential candidate found complicit for insurrection by a district court judge from appearing on a ballot, I can’t imagine any legislative guardrail getting to the floor of Congress for discussion and a vote. Hence, I would submit we do all we can to mobilize public interest in the Colorado case, whose impact on cases in other states could be determinative. I, further, would note, practically speaking, given how divided we are with an upcoming election less than a year away, the clock has run out on pursuing any protection other than the one where a Colorado judge already has ruled on the critical piece.
Barbara Jo, with digital media now available - instead of having to hand sign a petition, do you think we could get enough signatures to mobilize public interest in the Colorado case? Would/could it originate with the Democrat National Committee (DNC) with first signatories Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton? That might give it a head of steam out of the gate.
Valere, I really like your idea of reaching out to a prominent organization. Considering the issue is a constitutional matter, my sense is we turn to constitutional scholars, perhaps to Democracy Docket. We could write to them and see what kind of a response we get. Another possibility is to write to Joyce to get her thoughts.
Hi Valere, Last March, I wrote to Joyce at joycevance@substack.com and she promptly replied. I think it’s terrific that you’re taking on your excellent idea.
Fay, I don’t believe interpretation of the Constitution is subject to the 10th Amendment. Hence, the plaintiffs filed with a federal district court. The appeal, I understand, will be decided by the 8th Circuit Court. And, whatever the ruling, the case will advance to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I believe it was Neil Katyal who said he would go before the Supreme Court to argue the matter if given the chance. He is a staunch defender of the Constitution, and if that happens, I surmise he would argue that the 10th amendment would clarify that the power of keeping or allowing someone on the ballot falls to the state.
Coupled with the 14th amendment, if is a firm argument for a state to prevent a traitor from running again.
Hi Celeste K., I would like to contact Neil Katyal to vet my letter to Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation re his obvious mis-speaks. Do you happen to have a contact for him?
I have looked briefly for a contact for Mr. Katyal, but only found a site concerning his services as an attorney. I was able to sign up for what appears to be a newsletter of sorts.
Try searching on-line...I just looked for 'contact Neil Katyal'. I'll keep looking and will respond if I have any further success.
Celeste, While I, too, heard Katyal express an interest, I don’t believe he would argue for the 10th for two reasons: 1) the 14th places a limit on the powers granted to states by the 10th to protect individuals’ civil liberties and 2) whatever the state ruling, the losing party would appeal to the Supreme Court whose powers supersede a state Supreme Court.
Interesting. I've been re-reading both amendments, and I don't see it that way. The civil liberties of the former president are not being denied if he has participated in or enabled the insurrection. It will be very interesting to see how the matter is approached when it reaches the SC.
Would someone please walk me through why keeping Trump off the ballot in this way would be a good idea? All I can see is the very real possibility that it would further inflame the base, which is already convinced that the "deep state" is out to get Trump and, by extension, them. This base is large enough and well armed enough that a few loose cannons could do a lot of damage.
Also, a common reason for trying to keep someone off the ballot is the fear that you're going to lose to them. Given all the nervous nellies who are supposedly in the anti-Trump (if not the pro-Biden) camp, I believe this is in play. Nothing says "loser" like trying to get your opponent disqualified.
Susanna, Given a district federal judge found Trump complicit in insurrection, I would view it not only as a violation of the 14th but also as a betrayal of our founding structures whose powers methodically were balanced if we were to permit voters to decide whether a person who had tried to overthrow our government could serve as its president. Such a move, in my view, would provide a permission structure for Trump’s 2025 Project.
I think a more appropriate list of disqualifications would be important for candidates from any party. But I can certainly see how the argument would go down as Congress volleys the list. These days anything can be a cat fight.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I'm pretty sure such a thing would be deemed unconstitutional even by a more moderate SCOTUS than we have now. It *might* pass muster if the major political parties applied such a list internally, i.e., imposed requirements for their party's nominee, but I have my doubts. A more plausible roadmap for preventing another Trump involves abolition of the Electoral College (also very difficult, but the proposed Interstate Voting Compact offers a way around it), overturning the Citizens United decision, and generally cleaning up campaign finance.
Bonnie, While I wouldn’t dispute a listing either of qualifications or disqualifications, as I stated earlier, considering how divided we are as a country with the 2024 election less than a year away, time has run out to enact reforms for this election cycle.
Early in Trump’s presidency, I realized how much is accomplished in Washington DC by a wink and handshake. Trump trampled the norms of the American presidency. If there is a need for guardrails, it is now, for Trump or any other seeking to destroy democracy.
I think it's going to be up to us, the citizenry, to write those "guardrails" One, we aren't running for office so we have no meat in the stew. Two Amendment 10 allows "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States. are reserved to the States respectively. OR TO THE PEOPLE" (emphasis mine) We are the people, the Citizens of the United States. If we want standards for elective or appointed office, it is up to us to write them. All we need is someone willing to accept, read, and distribute to a volunteer committee. We'd probably need a million or so digital signatures but it could be done. I'm not sure if we'd have enough time before this coming election but we could definitely have it in place by 2028.
Fay, Were Trump to retake the White House, his 2025 Project would eradicate civil society as we know it. Hence, we need to remain laser-focused on the next nearly 12 months.
D. O., I imagine no one here doubts, that as challenging as it is to preserve our democracy, reclaiming it once it’s gone would be immeasurably more grueling.
Valere, While I won’t submit to “if ever,” I, indeed, agree we must give whatever we can over the next year to preserve our cherished, admittedly, imperfect democratic republic.
Yes. Exactly. Should Trump retake the WH, we will have no 2028 to have anything in place. He will be a lifetime dictator and we will be in concentration camps.
Valere, My remarks notwithstanding, were the unthinkable to happen, I believe the majority of us somehow would muster the strength and the courage to stay in the fight for as long as necessary to reclaim what we had been given.
In the distant past, maybe. I used to be an ardent member. Anymore they feel more like traitors than supporters. In 2016 when Bernie Sanders actually had the lead to become the Democratic candidate, but the DNC pushed Hilary Clinton instead, then they actually gave a bunch of money to a MAGA Republican candidate because some #$%@$% thought they could beat him in the election in 2020. I no longer trust th3e DNC or the DCCC. If I had my way I'd fire the whole lot of them and replace with enthusiastic younger people.,
Maybe, Bonnie, but a staff member, or just a really interested volunteer. Someone like I used to be, an active volunteer who from the early 1960's (when I was in my 30's) until around 2015 when I was too caught up in my job traveling coast to coast for weeks on end. Look for some people between the ages of 25 to 55 who are really dedicated and in decent health.
I do not have any expectation that Trump will survive to 2028 given his anger level and his size. I think the House and Senate will be every bit as important as the Executive Branch as Trump tries to upend order with his remaining years. Thomas, Alito, and even Sotomayor could need replacement in the next term, so Supreme Court is a consideration as well. Work where you can down ballot; it all matters.
All true. We certainly have a lot to do after Joe Biden is elected. It’s vital to work on every level from the school board to the house and senate. Trump has mentioned frequently that he will do away with the department of education. Most folks are so concerned by his most inflammatory statements that it hasn’t resonated with them that when he does away with public school, he also will increase vouchers for private school, which are generally Christian goals with most of them being Christian nationalist. We can’t count on him flopping over because of his level size. That’s a logical statement to make and I can see why you would say it. On the other hand, everyone has free will and he could go on whole foods plant-based diet and drop 100 pounds. We just have to work with every ounce of energy to get this ruthless dictator, wannabe gone. Banking on those Supreme Court justices being gone retired doesn’t work much for me. But I hope you are right Thomas’s wife may be indicted for her role in January 6 - and he would be forced to resign. He’s done a lot of shabby things, and he should resign on his own, but it’s not likely because he is so entrenched and allegedly paid off. But the movement the court has made toward the far right (and with that stripping citizens of their rights) makes me think that the quickest restoration for those hard earned rights will be expanding the Supreme Court. The problem with that is then there is the risk of politicizing it forever. Biden could have expanded the court after Baake was erased because of Harvard affirmative action case. he was concerned about politicization. Politicization started with George Bush, senior. McConnell deserves credit for holding up Merrick Garland’s appointment - allowing Trump to make three appointments (it created a perfect storm . But the true harm that Trump has done to the Supreme Court with the caliber of appointments he has made will be difficult to recover from. We have many difficulties ahead. Kavanaugh is nothing more than a plant. Amy Coney Barrett is a tool for Christian nationalists. I’m not saying she has that belief system. However, she doesn’t appear to have any objections to going along with their wishes. I personally think we lost our democracy when Bush v. Gore was remanded to the Florida Supreme Court. I knew then that Sandra Day O’Connor had remained on the court to make a political decision. And while it’s true, that she stayed for a year or so, afterward, to me, she was quite tarnished. The mess we have didn’t begin with Trump. He simply took advantage. We have to stop him
Not only the Oval Office. SCOTUS keeps trying to wriggle away from accountability as well. The highest offices in both the Executive and the Judicial branch now claim they don't have to experience consequences for corrupt or seditious behavior.
This is why I repeatedly e-mail the President and ask that he increase the number of justices to 13, the same as the number of appellate courts. Our SC has tilted so far right, civil rights are being stripped, and corporate oligarchs the norm. It must be changed.
We can't have the party in power adding seats until they can get a majority; SCOTUS will soon be the size of the Senate. But arguing that somehow the number of judges is tied to giving various groups representation (by race, gender, etc.) or population might work. Something that can be seen as a fair reason to change not tied to party, not just to get the mix a president likes.
Hi Celeste, I wish also that we could have an expansion - get the job done and then contract the SCOTUS. Biden was asked after the reversal of affirmative action about a year ago, whether he would expand the SCOTUS to reverse the decision to bring back affirmative action. He responded that he would not because in his view, doing so would politicize the SCOTUS. I do think the American citizens are fed up with SCOTUS and the MAGAs in Congress. I see them taking to the streets in about six months - similar to the sixties. That would be a positive action, with positive results. I won't list why here: you know well the graft, hoochie mama behavior, an accused pedophile - while our military appointments are held up. The populace is going to say 'enough.'
Semantics the whole affair. Support. Protect. All boils down to the same . This is just TFG MO, throw intent aside over some semantically rant. So far he has PROVEN above the law...
AND....no.one.was.intended. to . be . that . here.
I can’t help but wonder, Joyce, if the proverbial carrot that Jack Smith was dangling in front of Mark Meadows face has been snatched back. His case is something of a question like “Will he or Wouldn’t he?”.
I read Jorge Ramos’ column yesterday about Trump’s too friendly interview with Univision. Ramos has been around a long time and he knows when this party is lying to Hispanics. He is desperately pleasing with them not to pay attention to the lies by reminding them it was Trump and Stephen Miller who separated families and kidnapped their children. The fact that this is yet another case where Jared Kushner is involved, makes my neck hairs stand straight out!
Got it, a purported 501(c)3 that uses the royal "we" & the tax sheltered "our". Hmmm. a 501(c)3 as as a contractually defined 'Author', 'Reader" & loquacious commenter under CA choice of law.
you have to go to the original comment. You can go to Joyce's original post on your iphone - scroll until you reach your comment as the 'original' then look at the bottom, right hand side for the three dots:) 💙
Go to your comment on your phone (if it is an iphone). Select your own comment (click on it). Then the phone takes you to the comment on the substack. Then the three dots appear at the bottom of it - right hand side.
Hi Marlene, Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but is there some reason you believe Mark Meadows is waffling on some kind of negotiation with the DOJ? Or has disappeared? My sense is that Mark initiated the contact. If he gave over his cell phone and information could he be in protective custody? If he worked a plea deal with Jack Smith on the insurrection indictments, we would not definitively know about it. Cassidy Hutchinson claims he has worked a plea deal. I suppose every prosecutor runs his office differently, but Fani Willis made it clear that anyone making a plea deal in Fulton County who renegged would go to jail.
Marlene, I have responded to you several times above on how to edit a word. You might want to scroll up and see the instructions in case you haven’t successfully figured that out. But you select the three dots first then select edit then go to your word you want to edit and change it like you would in a Word document., then select ‘save’ or ‘ post’
not sure of the word
But it’s on the bottom left and I’m pretty sure it is ‘save’
You have to go to the original msg. So one would go back to the Joyce Vance original posting and then hit comment and scroll down through all the comments and find yours. Then you can hit the three dots and it goes to edit. I use an iPhone and edit on it all the time. Hope this helps.
I thank you Joyce always for giving us the essentials in all of trump’s goings on in his many cases. As for that business in Colorado that has everyone scratching their collective heads, Faron Cousins on You Tube suggested a slightly different way to maybe keep tfg off other state ballots. Faron’s suggestion was that since tfg has publicly said that he would most likely pardon the insurectionists currently serving time in prison for participating in an insurrection, trump was, in effect, giving aid and comfort to the enemy and that might be a clearer and easier point that could be made in court.
As for everything else, I tend to take one thing at a time. If not, it would be easy to get overwhelmed with it all.
Am hoping your weekend was nice, relaxed and quiet. Love your cat, by the way. What eyes in all that black fur. Beautiful.
SPW, I believe you are right, but promising a pardon was not the only aid he provided. Allowing the attack to take place while watching it unfold, and not sending in the help necessary to stop it, was also providing aid. Thus, he has disqualified himself from ever holding any office in this country, ever. Twice.
Thank you, Joyce, for the clarification. I for one am so sick and tired of tRUMP and his attorneys and their persistent, repetitive attempts to subvert justice. I would like to never see his face or hear his voice again, ever!
Can anyone imagine what it might be like to have a civil debate between a rational (R) candidate and Biden on real issues! That do not include a stolen election, any foul words, or personal attacks on family!
Well, I gotta tell ya, I'm pretty much stuck, trying to imagine there being a "rational (R) candidate" at this point. Other than Chris Christie, who else is even acknowledging (even some type of) reality?
So you are on a self accredited crusades of sorts rather than let Federal courts rule on the 1st Amendment constitutional matters. See, Marbury vs Madison.
If nothing else, *all* of this is making it crystal clear how much housekeeping needs to be done in our governmental structures, procedures, and safeguards. As careful and thoughtful as the founders were, we’re currently beyond the pale of all they tried to anticipate.
I do agree. I am frustrated in the fact of the “Play on Words”. The President’s Oath of Office???? It is an official OFFICE. I think the Judges need to make it clearer. What good are the lower courts or the Supreme Court if they are not going to follow their Oath (s). He should not be able to run. Full Stop. When this sort of thing is happening to our Democracy I wish someone would explain to me why the higher courts should sit back and do nothing. NOTHING. I know, I am frustrated w/everyone else, but, like you I will not give up to that RAT,
Who - even in their worst nightmare - could have anticipated an asshat like Trump actually becoming president?? I'm afraid we can't blame the founders for not being able to imagine someone like Trump being the president...in America. Sheesh, but do we need some sturdy guardrails, or what??
Received a text yesterday: "If trump is gone before I wake, I pray to God the news ain't fake." Listened today to Rachael Maddow talk about her new book “Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism.” Whoa. He's not the first unAmerican wanting to sell out. My school days history forgot a lot.
I'm listening to Prequel. Most if that history was covered up, we never learned it. We've never heard of most of the prominent politicL figures of that time. Erased from collective memory.
What I find strange is that is still covered, not uncovered, after all these years by historians... that's their job isn't it? We have universities full of people who we pay to read all the stuff
Rachel read and make sense out of the past. Am I wrong? I'll ask Heather Cox Richardson, maybe she knows.
Difficult to say, Lynn. There are many histories written, but many left practically unread. From time to time we need to discover for the first time, a new way of looking at things. The combination of HCR and Joyce Vance, Rachel Maddow, among others are helping us to do this. A necessary work if democracy is to be preserved.
"There are many histories written, but many left practically unread." ✅ Or, if read, interpreted in such a way as to be dense for comprehension. I think what Rachel does is read, connect dots, and write into comprehensible story - after all, that's what hiSTORY is.
I’m listening to Heather Cox Richardson’s series of lectures on the history of the Republican Party going back to the early 1800s up to current times. and it is quite thorough. You can find it on YouTube.
Thank you for mentioning Jorge Ramos column. If only more of the media felt this way. Today on “justice Matters “was a comparison of President Biden and Tfg thanksgiving messages. Beyond night and day. Worth a listen.
What I don’t understand is aren’t journalists obligated to present information as important as Ramos’ message to the public when the stakes are so high right now to save democracy?
As a lawyer, I, too, found the District Court's decision mind boggling. Some of the conclusions clashed even with the opinions of Trump's expert, and his "expert" was not even admitted as an expert on Section 3.
Thanks Joyce for the week ahead. I’d like to compliment you and your#SIL co-hosts for this weekend podcast. It had a chill vibe with just answering your listeners questions, favorite leftovers, gentle ribbings. 👏👏
The Presidential Oath of Office indicates that it is an "office " making the holder an official, IMO;
The oath is ordered by the United States Constitution (Article II, Section One, Clause 8), and is given before the president begins his term of office.
This is what the oath says:
“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
An Oath with no enforcement is meaningless.
💔 ruling in Colorado that I hope will be correctly resolved with appeal. 5 USC 7311 should also be brought into the proceeding.
Friday sounds like the big day, although it will be interesting to hear what happens on Monday, if not as significant! We continue to press that Trump is NOT the Republican nominee, a message that seems to be gathering momentum. 7 weeks to Iowa, Monday 15th, a Federal vacation, and we get to see turnout, and the sentiment of the real people (not polling) as they caucus! My hope is he is soundly trounced and media sees how wrong the wisdom that he is the nominee designate actually is. It will be interesting to see how the courts respond to his filings if/when he is NOT running as a candidate. His rights to campaign are only there while he is in contention?
It seems that we need better guardrails for those who want to sit in the oval office. If anyone has ever demonstrated the danger of leaving the requirements wide open, it is Trump. It will be interesting to see if participation in or support of an insurrection becomes a limitation.
I mentioned in an earlier comment, presidential candidates and perhaps congressional candidates should pass a clearance by homeland security.
You have more faith in Homeland Security than I do. If you've been around the block a few times, you'll remember all the times the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies have been weaponized by those in power. Homeland Security is young by comparison, but it was heavily implicated in the Trump administration abuses of migrants.
Good point. Homeland Security has not had a stellar reputation from the beginning.
What would be a better choice?
There's no good choice. As I noted elsewhere, adding qualifications or requirements for presidential and congressional candidates is likely unconstitutional (without a constitutional amendment, that is).
I totally agree. Every job or public office I’ve ever seen has a list of basic requirements. The presidency is a job; an extremely powerful one. It boggles the mind that the bar is so low it’s practically nonexistent.
It seems reasonable to expect that presidential candidates and members of Congress demonstrate that they can pass what I understand is a pretty rigorous test - the test applicants for U.S. citizenship are require to take. In lieu of passing perhaps they should be require to attend a civics class when they submit candidacy papers.
Well! Why can’t I have a fantasy if so many feel comfortable embracing conspiracies?
My wife, who acquired dual citizenship, dedicated months to studying for the comprehensive examination. This test included both written and oral components, covering a wide range of topics.
The background check could prove to be a challenging hurdle for the entire group associated with Trump, given their various issues.
During the former administration, security clearances were given to the likes of Kushner, a dangerous precedent which must never be allowed again, regardless of what any President would request.
And thanks to your wife, who evidently knew it was worth the time and effort to become a citizen of this great country! Maybe she will hold office one day and help this country improve!
She is the living embodiment of “Roberts Rules of Order.” Crystal is 39 with the wisdom and decorum of a distinguished 93 year old. I am 72 and have the exact opposite personality.
The US Citizenship test has been revised at least twice, to make it less of an obstacle to immigrants whose first language is not English (in one case) and to make it easier to pass, in the other case. I am mildly surprised Stephen Miller did not get the idea to require that it be impossible to pass at all!
Congratulations to Wifey!!!!! ❤🙏👍🎈🏆🐾(and from the puppers:)
Exactly! They need to find a good blue collar job.
But one of their think tank leaders, (Kevin Roberts, PhD) has recently criticized the Biden administration for having elite (read: 'educated') ultra-left members in his administration. Roberts said this in the context of writing about the Constitution being written by 'We The People.' [Note: Roberts was attempting to convey that 'We The People' was written by the common folks of the day - but how would that happen? They were back at the factories and offices, tending the home fires and keeping things running while their employers were away at meetings with other founding fathers writing, negotiating and compromising]. Roberts has a PhD from UT Austin, a master's degree from VA Tech, undergrad from Louisiana, Fayetteville - every one in history...and all higher education universities that are either R1 or world ranked. So he should know: 'We The People' was written by the elite intelligentsia of the day: all writers were business owners, doctors, lawyers, newspaper editors, publishers; and other educated elites, and they were running the government. Some were in Europe as diplomats: and they all were writing as public servants, making a social contract with those who could not write or attend the meetings that required absences from their homes and businesses for many months. Thomas Jefferson said he wanted religion left out of the Constitution and it was: there is no mention of 'God.' He wanted an educated populace who could ride herd on the government. And 'We The People' became so successful in its intent to become a document for all, that most folks have conjured that the Constitution was written by people just like them, whether they serve coffee and doughnuts, teach school, clean other people's houses, run a farm, or a bank, or practice law: few understand that the elite intelligentsia wrote it for THEM, at a huge sacrifice. The social contract has held for 235 years. But now the Christian nationalists in our bicameral congress are influencing the SCOTUS to weaken our rights. And one of them is criticizing our educated cabinet and executive branch with its thousands of support civil servants of being 'elitist' because they are Democrats with educations. These elite 'ultra radical leftists' are doing as the framers of the Constitution wished and had done by example. 'We The People' was created by an elite group: and they were wise enough to say a citizen did not have to have a religion to be a 'good citizen or a patriot.'
It boggles the mind that such an educated person would promote such drivel. But then again, such people "forget" their education when it comes to pandering to the cult.
Does Roberts not realize that the founders were “elite,” insofar as they were literate at a time when it was not common?
Excellent--and, thank you for this. For an entertaining way to learn the basics of how all this came about, I suggest watching the excellent movie "John Adams" with Paul Giamatti as the lead. For a quick and enjoyable education on women's suffrage, Ken Burns's PBS special "Not For Ourselves Alone" is wonderful. Both should be required viewing for high school--or even younger-students. Even if you know the sacrifices that were made by all of those involved in setting up this country as a democracy and securing the universal right to vote, watching these movies is a painless and effective way to remind ourselves of what is expected of this country's citizens.
Thank you, Valere. This is a clear explanation of "We the people". It should be shared widely.
I read your piece on Kevin Roberts' critique of the Biden administration, and it's quite thought-provoking. It’s quite an intriguing civics class lesson. You point out that Roberts, with his extensive education, criticizes the administration for being 'elite', but isn't there a bit of irony here? The Constitution, starting with 'We The People', was crafted by the educated elite of the time—business owners, lawyers, doctors. They were hardly the 'common folk'. How do you think this historical context influences our understanding of the Constitution's intent today?
Also, when we talk about the founding fathers, they were, by all means, part of the educated intelligentsia. Does it seem contradictory to you to criticize today's political leaders for being 'elitist' due to their education, while the founders themselves were from a similar background?
Thomas Jefferson's vision for an educated populace overseeing the government highlights the importance of informed leadership. But how do we balance this with the democratic ideal of inclusive representation? Shouldn't we aim for a government that represents all layers of society, including those from less privileged backgrounds?
And finally, in your view, how can we ensure that the principle of 'We The People' remains inclusive and genuinely representative of the entire populace, not just a select, educated few?
Yes congratulations! I have helped several people become citizens. I love going with them to vote the first time. They are much more appreciative of it than most citizens.
It’s also expensive. I think near $800.
It was more expensive for us as we lived in Montecito, California which is a very expensive locale.
Our experience with the immigration process turned out to be quite a story. Our attorney even said we were the easiest couple he'd ever worked with.
The day we went in for the interview, where they usually separate couples to question them, something different happened. The interviewer, a seasoned civil servant, just glanced at our 27 letters of recommendation and my lifelong involvement with Girl Scouts, and decided to skip the usual drill.
We had an album with us showing our two weddings — one at the Fairmont Hotel in Victoria, BC, and the other in Santa Barbara, California, at the sunken Gardens at the courthouse. Our attorney was there too, with a massive, color-coded binder, but he hardly had to say a word.
The funniest part? The interviewer was more interested in my Girl Scout history than anything else, maybe because he was an Eagle Scout himself. He asked which badge meant the most to me, and I ended up telling him this hilarious childhood story about my Archery badge. Once, my cousin Stanley shot me in the leg with a homemade arrow. I walked into my aunt's house, arrow and all, causing total chaos. Stanley got off easy, but my dad offered to teach me archery after that.
The next summer, I got my 'revenge’ hitting Stanley right in the butt with an arrow. Everyone was shocked, but my dad and I just shared a knowing look. And that's how Stanley got his nickname "cheeky cheeky." Our interviewer couldn't stop laughing, and finally, he told us we had passed and to get out of his office because he was a busy man. It was a memorable day, to say the least!
Oh my!! I knew you were a Girl Scout! Tres funny for the Archery Badge:) Do you always have the go bag packed for you, Crystal and the critters (ready made packs for their vitamins and meds/canned/freeze dried food for them) with extra LL Bean Petzls continually charged, and the auto gas tank(s) running on full; are the carry lamps charged and asking for a Goal Zero Yeti for Christmas, but most importantly, do you make a thermos of coffee, every single night, 365 days just in case there is a quake, tsunami, power outage in the case you have to load and drive in five minutes? That's a true Girl Scout:))
John! What a concept - that they would be required to attend a civics class. That went away from public schools when another Republican president, George W. Bush did his cramdown of No Child Left Behind beginning in 2003 - and lasting until 2015. It is not spoken of so much because Trump has done so many egregious things: but he has stated that he will abolish the US Department of Education if he is elected. But he will continue to offer vouchers for private (religious) schools.
Education in the critical thinking sense is not given as much priority as Staar tests. Synthesizing information is different than recognizing an answer in multiple choice. A poorly educated electorate is much easier to manipulate. Those fruits are coming to bear in these days of scoffing higher education and believing "facts" because they are popular.
We are seeing the results of George W. Bush’s no child left behind act of 2003, which lasted until 2015. Rod Paige was the secretary of education and this was his brainchild. He did not have the background to run the.department and his plan for ‘raising achievement’ was based on what Bush believed was competition from Japan. Neither Bush nor Paige had any clue about how Japanese schools work. They only drill, repeat and test at the end of middle school to determine high school placement and senior in high school to determine secondary if they are going or if they are going to a trade school. The Japanese school system includes having tutoring every night after school. The primary focus of grades K through five is building strong community. Then the real learning is happening through the tutors and then the same han they are when they are in the classroom. (I lived in Japan and my own two children went through Japanese schools yochien (preschool) at age 3 until finishing middle school). Japanese schools do not drill repeat and test little kids. They allow them to come up with an answer as a group. So by getting the process, so terribly wrong, Bush managed to ruin an entire generation. He erased civics from the curriculum. Little kids in kindergarten and first grade were retained because they couldn’t read! Anyone in early childhood education knows that children have so many ways of learning, and so many levels and achievements at different ages for every little kid. Research in the mid 2000s begin showing that an increase in dropout at ninth grade was correlated to kids being retained in kindergarten and first grade because they lost their first ‘tribe.’ They never fit in (or belonged) in their school experience after that. And if they were a kid who wouldn’t have been ready to read until third grade, their entire early childhood education experience was ruined. The shocking thing was this was going on, while Laura Bush had been trained as a teacher!
Thankfully, we no longer have the horror of ‘no child left behind.’ but we have the aftermath and a generation of some quite low reading skills, and without having had civics. I’m actually afraid we have a couple of those individuals in the house of representatives. They don’t seem to have the slightest clue about history, civics or the content of the founding documents
Not sure retention in kindergarten is a cause of drop out in 9th grade or if it is a marker for poor adjustment. I have always believed curriculum ought to be in pods so students can learn each discipline at their own pace. Completion to satisfaction of certain pods required to move on to the next level. Advancing students before they can master a level bakes in their struggle. Innovation and attention to students takes time and money but pays off in spades. Republicans do not give quality education priority.
Cramdown...an excellent name for a trash policy. Just another way of looking "good on paper", yet serving no one in the end.
All the above comments are very apt and appropriate!.
It is an excellent thought, not fantasy at all. Just looking at the ignorance of civics of the members of the republican party occupying seats in the House at this time is proof that this should be a requirement.
The requirement of not having participated in an insurrection should also be enacted. Taking an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, and then breaking it, should also disqualify running for office.
This is sound reasoning, John, not a conspiracy at all!
Why is there a policy of "non-interference" by justice before elections? Any non-elected position has to go through a thorough background check before hiring? Why are only elected officials exempt? Unless a candidate's background check exposes they have committed something that is already a crime that needs to be investigated, the background checks shouldn't be able to block a candidacy, but anyone wanting to run for office (states could do their own backgrounds) should do so knowing that these background checks will be done, and they should be publicly available before all federal candidates can be placed on the ballot. I don't understand the idea that voters should be required to vote on candidates without more complete knowledge of those candidates past.
I at one time accessed my own federal file. The main entry occurred when I was five and expelled from my first year of school because I absolutely refused to finger paint. The only reason I can figure out why that is there is that it must have been discovered when my parents were applying the next year to be teachers for DODDS. The only other entry is from Chicago during the dem. convention in '68. It simply mentions I was picked up (among several hundred) and taken to jail. No charges were filed, but there was a picture of me lying on the ground and then the statement I was taken to the Chicago jail and then transferred to the hospital, and that I had been counted among those who had been injured. I spent the rest of my school years in DODDS schools, but the finger painting expellation remained on my school record even though it occurred prior. I can't think but that somehow it was deemed of some relevance to my parent's government application to be relevant. But a political candidate can claim to be a volleyball star and it's election interference to expose that as a lie before he is voted on, only after. Go figure. But I had a defense dept file at six years old that was weighed in determining if my parents could teach military dependents?
The bar is low for all elected offices, not just the Presidency. He can be a rambling numbskull, obviously and still appear on the ballot.
Yeah, let's throw out this democracy thing. It isn't working.
Seriously -- anyone who thinks this is a good idea should think it through, and pay particular attention to how Trump got elected. It's worth remembering that, though there have been mediocre presidents, Trump is unique in his flagrant lack of qualifications for the job. For me, the #1 question, as with any incompetent, is "Who hired him?" "We the people"? Almost but not quite: actually it was the Electoral College. So that's one place to start looking if one wants to prevent another Trump.
Another place is the mass media, specifically the consolidation of the media under corporate ownership. It's hard to address that without tangling with the First Amendment, but once upon a time we had the Fairness Doctrine. The right-wing think tanks *hated* the Fairness Doctrine. Wonder why! Maybe time to bring it back -- if the SCOTUS would allow it. Which leads to . . .
My point is that Trump is the product of a whole slew of system failures -- which, from the point of view of the right wing, weren't failures at all. Having Homeland Security vet candidates doesn't address any of it.
"My point is that Trump is the product of a whole slew of system failures" ✅
Well said Susanna:) Ironically, the man who calls Republicans RINO (Republican In Name Only) is a RINO himself:))
About RINOs -- part of me thinks that's a compliment, albeit a backhanded one, but the other part thinks that these days calling anyone a Republican of any kind is an insult. My Republican relatives of previous generations would be horrified.
Bonnie, In my view, if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can’t prevent a presidential candidate found complicit for insurrection by a district court judge from appearing on a ballot, I can’t imagine any legislative guardrail getting to the floor of Congress for discussion and a vote. Hence, I would submit we do all we can to mobilize public interest in the Colorado case, whose impact on cases in other states could be determinative. I, further, would note, practically speaking, given how divided we are with an upcoming election less than a year away, the clock has run out on pursuing any protection other than the one where a Colorado judge already has ruled on the critical piece.
Barbara Jo, with digital media now available - instead of having to hand sign a petition, do you think we could get enough signatures to mobilize public interest in the Colorado case? Would/could it originate with the Democrat National Committee (DNC) with first signatories Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton? That might give it a head of steam out of the gate.
Valere, I really like your idea of reaching out to a prominent organization. Considering the issue is a constitutional matter, my sense is we turn to constitutional scholars, perhaps to Democracy Docket. We could write to them and see what kind of a response we get. Another possibility is to write to Joyce to get her thoughts.
Hi Barbara,
I can contact Democracy Docket.
But I don’t have a direct email for Joyce Vance… Just this substack.
Hi Valere, Last March, I wrote to Joyce at joycevance@substack.com and she promptly replied. I think it’s terrific that you’re taking on your excellent idea.
Thank you! I will keep you informed:))
In this case Barbara it is Amendment 10 that allows this. What we need is persuasion.
Fay, I don’t believe interpretation of the Constitution is subject to the 10th Amendment. Hence, the plaintiffs filed with a federal district court. The appeal, I understand, will be decided by the 8th Circuit Court. And, whatever the ruling, the case will advance to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I believe it was Neil Katyal who said he would go before the Supreme Court to argue the matter if given the chance. He is a staunch defender of the Constitution, and if that happens, I surmise he would argue that the 10th amendment would clarify that the power of keeping or allowing someone on the ballot falls to the state.
Coupled with the 14th amendment, if is a firm argument for a state to prevent a traitor from running again.
Hi Celeste K., I would like to contact Neil Katyal to vet my letter to Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation re his obvious mis-speaks. Do you happen to have a contact for him?
I have looked briefly for a contact for Mr. Katyal, but only found a site concerning his services as an attorney. I was able to sign up for what appears to be a newsletter of sorts.
Try searching on-line...I just looked for 'contact Neil Katyal'. I'll keep looking and will respond if I have any further success.
Celeste, While I, too, heard Katyal express an interest, I don’t believe he would argue for the 10th for two reasons: 1) the 14th places a limit on the powers granted to states by the 10th to protect individuals’ civil liberties and 2) whatever the state ruling, the losing party would appeal to the Supreme Court whose powers supersede a state Supreme Court.
Interesting. I've been re-reading both amendments, and I don't see it that way. The civil liberties of the former president are not being denied if he has participated in or enabled the insurrection. It will be very interesting to see how the matter is approached when it reaches the SC.
Would someone please walk me through why keeping Trump off the ballot in this way would be a good idea? All I can see is the very real possibility that it would further inflame the base, which is already convinced that the "deep state" is out to get Trump and, by extension, them. This base is large enough and well armed enough that a few loose cannons could do a lot of damage.
Also, a common reason for trying to keep someone off the ballot is the fear that you're going to lose to them. Given all the nervous nellies who are supposedly in the anti-Trump (if not the pro-Biden) camp, I believe this is in play. Nothing says "loser" like trying to get your opponent disqualified.
Susanna, Given a district federal judge found Trump complicit in insurrection, I would view it not only as a violation of the 14th but also as a betrayal of our founding structures whose powers methodically were balanced if we were to permit voters to decide whether a person who had tried to overthrow our government could serve as its president. Such a move, in my view, would provide a permission structure for Trump’s 2025 Project.
I think a more appropriate list of disqualifications would be important for candidates from any party. But I can certainly see how the argument would go down as Congress volleys the list. These days anything can be a cat fight.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I'm pretty sure such a thing would be deemed unconstitutional even by a more moderate SCOTUS than we have now. It *might* pass muster if the major political parties applied such a list internally, i.e., imposed requirements for their party's nominee, but I have my doubts. A more plausible roadmap for preventing another Trump involves abolition of the Electoral College (also very difficult, but the proposed Interstate Voting Compact offers a way around it), overturning the Citizens United decision, and generally cleaning up campaign finance.
Bonnie, While I wouldn’t dispute a listing either of qualifications or disqualifications, as I stated earlier, considering how divided we are as a country with the 2024 election less than a year away, time has run out to enact reforms for this election cycle.
Early in Trump’s presidency, I realized how much is accomplished in Washington DC by a wink and handshake. Trump trampled the norms of the American presidency. If there is a need for guardrails, it is now, for Trump or any other seeking to destroy democracy.
Need more than guardrails. Try handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit. Size xxxxxxlarge.
Maybe a medium would be more interesting.
yuck!
Maybe...I understand your point! Have a good day
I think it's going to be up to us, the citizenry, to write those "guardrails" One, we aren't running for office so we have no meat in the stew. Two Amendment 10 allows "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States. are reserved to the States respectively. OR TO THE PEOPLE" (emphasis mine) We are the people, the Citizens of the United States. If we want standards for elective or appointed office, it is up to us to write them. All we need is someone willing to accept, read, and distribute to a volunteer committee. We'd probably need a million or so digital signatures but it could be done. I'm not sure if we'd have enough time before this coming election but we could definitely have it in place by 2028.
Fay, Were Trump to retake the White House, his 2025 Project would eradicate civil society as we know it. Hence, we need to remain laser-focused on the next nearly 12 months.
And beyond should things go the wrong way..
D. O., I imagine no one here doubts, that as challenging as it is to preserve our democracy, reclaiming it once it’s gone would be immeasurably more grueling.
If ever. It's up to us to do now.
Valere, While I won’t submit to “if ever,” I, indeed, agree we must give whatever we can over the next year to preserve our cherished, admittedly, imperfect democratic republic.
Yes. Exactly. Should Trump retake the WH, we will have no 2028 to have anything in place. He will be a lifetime dictator and we will be in concentration camps.
Valere, My remarks notwithstanding, were the unthinkable to happen, I believe the majority of us somehow would muster the strength and the courage to stay in the fight for as long as necessary to reclaim what we had been given.
Agree. And I agree absolutely that while we have a battle ahead, it will be easier to do it now than after ‘the unthinkable.’
Precisely!
Interesting action list, Fay. Who would be the "someone willing to accept it"? A Congressional representative?
The Democratic National Committee (DNC).
In the distant past, maybe. I used to be an ardent member. Anymore they feel more like traitors than supporters. In 2016 when Bernie Sanders actually had the lead to become the Democratic candidate, but the DNC pushed Hilary Clinton instead, then they actually gave a bunch of money to a MAGA Republican candidate because some #$%@$% thought they could beat him in the election in 2020. I no longer trust th3e DNC or the DCCC. If I had my way I'd fire the whole lot of them and replace with enthusiastic younger people.,
I just thought of a great person to lead such a petition, Heather Lofthouse, she is young, intelligent and dedicated.
Maybe, Bonnie, but a staff member, or just a really interested volunteer. Someone like I used to be, an active volunteer who from the early 1960's (when I was in my 30's) until around 2015 when I was too caught up in my job traveling coast to coast for weeks on end. Look for some people between the ages of 25 to 55 who are really dedicated and in decent health.
Barbara Jo Krieger is correct: if Trump takes the WH, there will be no 2028. He will be a lifetime dictator.
I do not have any expectation that Trump will survive to 2028 given his anger level and his size. I think the House and Senate will be every bit as important as the Executive Branch as Trump tries to upend order with his remaining years. Thomas, Alito, and even Sotomayor could need replacement in the next term, so Supreme Court is a consideration as well. Work where you can down ballot; it all matters.
All true. We certainly have a lot to do after Joe Biden is elected. It’s vital to work on every level from the school board to the house and senate. Trump has mentioned frequently that he will do away with the department of education. Most folks are so concerned by his most inflammatory statements that it hasn’t resonated with them that when he does away with public school, he also will increase vouchers for private school, which are generally Christian goals with most of them being Christian nationalist. We can’t count on him flopping over because of his level size. That’s a logical statement to make and I can see why you would say it. On the other hand, everyone has free will and he could go on whole foods plant-based diet and drop 100 pounds. We just have to work with every ounce of energy to get this ruthless dictator, wannabe gone. Banking on those Supreme Court justices being gone retired doesn’t work much for me. But I hope you are right Thomas’s wife may be indicted for her role in January 6 - and he would be forced to resign. He’s done a lot of shabby things, and he should resign on his own, but it’s not likely because he is so entrenched and allegedly paid off. But the movement the court has made toward the far right (and with that stripping citizens of their rights) makes me think that the quickest restoration for those hard earned rights will be expanding the Supreme Court. The problem with that is then there is the risk of politicizing it forever. Biden could have expanded the court after Baake was erased because of Harvard affirmative action case. he was concerned about politicization. Politicization started with George Bush, senior. McConnell deserves credit for holding up Merrick Garland’s appointment - allowing Trump to make three appointments (it created a perfect storm . But the true harm that Trump has done to the Supreme Court with the caliber of appointments he has made will be difficult to recover from. We have many difficulties ahead. Kavanaugh is nothing more than a plant. Amy Coney Barrett is a tool for Christian nationalists. I’m not saying she has that belief system. However, she doesn’t appear to have any objections to going along with their wishes. I personally think we lost our democracy when Bush v. Gore was remanded to the Florida Supreme Court. I knew then that Sandra Day O’Connor had remained on the court to make a political decision. And while it’s true, that she stayed for a year or so, afterward, to me, she was quite tarnished. The mess we have didn’t begin with Trump. He simply took advantage. We have to stop him
Not only the Oval Office. SCOTUS keeps trying to wriggle away from accountability as well. The highest offices in both the Executive and the Judicial branch now claim they don't have to experience consequences for corrupt or seditious behavior.
This is why I repeatedly e-mail the President and ask that he increase the number of justices to 13, the same as the number of appellate courts. Our SC has tilted so far right, civil rights are being stripped, and corporate oligarchs the norm. It must be changed.
We can't have the party in power adding seats until they can get a majority; SCOTUS will soon be the size of the Senate. But arguing that somehow the number of judges is tied to giving various groups representation (by race, gender, etc.) or population might work. Something that can be seen as a fair reason to change not tied to party, not just to get the mix a president likes.
Or perhaps a moral imperative that the justice not have a political agenda and had a known moral code?
Hi Celeste, I wish also that we could have an expansion - get the job done and then contract the SCOTUS. Biden was asked after the reversal of affirmative action about a year ago, whether he would expand the SCOTUS to reverse the decision to bring back affirmative action. He responded that he would not because in his view, doing so would politicize the SCOTUS. I do think the American citizens are fed up with SCOTUS and the MAGAs in Congress. I see them taking to the streets in about six months - similar to the sixties. That would be a positive action, with positive results. I won't list why here: you know well the graft, hoochie mama behavior, an accused pedophile - while our military appointments are held up. The populace is going to say 'enough.'
Semantics the whole affair. Support. Protect. All boils down to the same . This is just TFG MO, throw intent aside over some semantically rant. So far he has PROVEN above the law...
AND....no.one.was.intended. to . be . that . here.
I can’t help but wonder, Joyce, if the proverbial carrot that Jack Smith was dangling in front of Mark Meadows face has been snatched back. His case is something of a question like “Will he or Wouldn’t he?”.
I read Jorge Ramos’ column yesterday about Trump’s too friendly interview with Univision. Ramos has been around a long time and he knows when this party is lying to Hispanics. He is desperately pleasing with them not to pay attention to the lies by reminding them it was Trump and Stephen Miller who separated families and kidnapped their children. The fact that this is yet another case where Jared Kushner is involved, makes my neck hairs stand straight out!
*pleading* not pleasing! Grrr
Marlene, on an original comment you can Edit words & malfunctioningauto "spelling". 🙏
I was going to post this as well:)
How Bryan? Substack used to let us edit our comments by touching the three dots but that function seems to be gone from my phone and my iPad.
I will check out the tech I will be communicating with counsel for Substack Inc tomorrow about Thanksgiving Day Troll activity.
Thank youuuuu!
Thank you Bryan. The shill troll was also active on November 18 and 19.
Best, Valere
Got it, a purported 501(c)3 that uses the royal "we" & the tax sheltered "our". Hmmm. a 501(c)3 as as a contractually defined 'Author', 'Reader" & loquacious commenter under CA choice of law.
you have to go to the original comment. You can go to Joyce's original post on your iphone - scroll until you reach your comment as the 'original' then look at the bottom, right hand side for the three dots:) 💙
Open this site in browser when using phone or iPad, then the edit function will function.
Go to your comment on your phone (if it is an iphone). Select your own comment (click on it). Then the phone takes you to the comment on the substack. Then the three dots appear at the bottom of it - right hand side.
On the bottom right hand of your comment are three dots. Hover, poke on and edit will appear. Edit like you would a word doc. Then click on 'post.'
I'm checking my iphone to see if one can do it from the phone.
Open in "Browser" 1st.
Yes. Or go to the original.
Hi Marlene, Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but is there some reason you believe Mark Meadows is waffling on some kind of negotiation with the DOJ? Or has disappeared? My sense is that Mark initiated the contact. If he gave over his cell phone and information could he be in protective custody? If he worked a plea deal with Jack Smith on the insurrection indictments, we would not definitively know about it. Cassidy Hutchinson claims he has worked a plea deal. I suppose every prosecutor runs his office differently, but Fani Willis made it clear that anyone making a plea deal in Fulton County who renegged would go to jail.
ps: Evidently Mark Meadows is waffling in GA but appears to have made a plea deal in Jack Smith's case.
Perhaps but we just don’t know for certain. I would like to see the curtain open up before Cannon lets this drag out.
Marlene, I have responded to you several times above on how to edit a word. You might want to scroll up and see the instructions in case you haven’t successfully figured that out. But you select the three dots first then select edit then go to your word you want to edit and change it like you would in a Word document., then select ‘save’ or ‘ post’
not sure of the word
But it’s on the bottom left and I’m pretty sure it is ‘save’
"Edit" doesn't show up in the 3 dots section when accessing from phone or iPad - need to "open in browser" first.
You have to go to the original msg. So one would go back to the Joyce Vance original posting and then hit comment and scroll down through all the comments and find yours. Then you can hit the three dots and it goes to edit. I use an iPhone and edit on it all the time. Hope this helps.
I thank you Joyce always for giving us the essentials in all of trump’s goings on in his many cases. As for that business in Colorado that has everyone scratching their collective heads, Faron Cousins on You Tube suggested a slightly different way to maybe keep tfg off other state ballots. Faron’s suggestion was that since tfg has publicly said that he would most likely pardon the insurectionists currently serving time in prison for participating in an insurrection, trump was, in effect, giving aid and comfort to the enemy and that might be a clearer and easier point that could be made in court.
As for everything else, I tend to take one thing at a time. If not, it would be easy to get overwhelmed with it all.
Am hoping your weekend was nice, relaxed and quiet. Love your cat, by the way. What eyes in all that black fur. Beautiful.
SPW, I believe you are right, but promising a pardon was not the only aid he provided. Allowing the attack to take place while watching it unfold, and not sending in the help necessary to stop it, was also providing aid. Thus, he has disqualified himself from ever holding any office in this country, ever. Twice.
Thank you, Joyce, for the clarification. I for one am so sick and tired of tRUMP and his attorneys and their persistent, repetitive attempts to subvert justice. I would like to never see his face or hear his voice again, ever!
Can anyone imagine what it might be like to have a civil debate between a rational (R) candidate and Biden on real issues! That do not include a stolen election, any foul words, or personal attacks on family!
Well, I gotta tell ya, I'm pretty much stuck, trying to imagine there being a "rational (R) candidate" at this point. Other than Chris Christie, who else is even acknowledging (even some type of) reality?
Who is "our reading" and/or "our concern".
Did you mean Amendment 14, Section 3 not "Article" (sic) 14?
What? Is Is no there no syntax in Troll Land?
So you are on a self accredited crusades of sorts rather than let Federal courts rule on the 1st Amendment constitutional matters. See, Marbury vs Madison.
I am not concerned at all with :Bloopers'.
I am concerned with Troll activity in violation of Substack Inc's 2023 Terms of Use.
As we head into 2024 platforms are filling with poor language & misdirection.Are you a paid Subscriber?
Thanks for clarification as you always do. I’m hoping we are hearing the walls closing in on Trump. If not, we will be in the streets!
Marita, at least then we can meet up for coffee in person:) (But truly hope we do not have to 'be in the streets':)) 💙
I like cream in my coffee; see you :)
Woot! Let’s hope we’re not hitting the streets :-) maybe online petitions working out soon
If nothing else, *all* of this is making it crystal clear how much housekeeping needs to be done in our governmental structures, procedures, and safeguards. As careful and thoughtful as the founders were, we’re currently beyond the pale of all they tried to anticipate.
I do agree. I am frustrated in the fact of the “Play on Words”. The President’s Oath of Office???? It is an official OFFICE. I think the Judges need to make it clearer. What good are the lower courts or the Supreme Court if they are not going to follow their Oath (s). He should not be able to run. Full Stop. When this sort of thing is happening to our Democracy I wish someone would explain to me why the higher courts should sit back and do nothing. NOTHING. I know, I am frustrated w/everyone else, but, like you I will not give up to that RAT,
Who - even in their worst nightmare - could have anticipated an asshat like Trump actually becoming president?? I'm afraid we can't blame the founders for not being able to imagine someone like Trump being the president...in America. Sheesh, but do we need some sturdy guardrails, or what??
Plug holes yes. Inevitable that some next guy will find other ways around.
Received a text yesterday: "If trump is gone before I wake, I pray to God the news ain't fake." Listened today to Rachael Maddow talk about her new book “Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism.” Whoa. He's not the first unAmerican wanting to sell out. My school days history forgot a lot.
I'm listening to Prequel. Most if that history was covered up, we never learned it. We've never heard of most of the prominent politicL figures of that time. Erased from collective memory.
What I find strange is that is still covered, not uncovered, after all these years by historians... that's their job isn't it? We have universities full of people who we pay to read all the stuff
Rachel read and make sense out of the past. Am I wrong? I'll ask Heather Cox Richardson, maybe she knows.
Difficult to say, Lynn. There are many histories written, but many left practically unread. From time to time we need to discover for the first time, a new way of looking at things. The combination of HCR and Joyce Vance, Rachel Maddow, among others are helping us to do this. A necessary work if democracy is to be preserved.
"There are many histories written, but many left practically unread." ✅ Or, if read, interpreted in such a way as to be dense for comprehension. I think what Rachel does is read, connect dots, and write into comprehensible story - after all, that's what hiSTORY is.
I’m listening to Heather Cox Richardson’s series of lectures on the history of the Republican Party going back to the early 1800s up to current times. and it is quite thorough. You can find it on YouTube.
Thanks Tutone, I will look and listen.
Judge J. Michael Luttig has keen, persuasive opinions on the 14th Amendment issue vis a vis Trump’s Presidential candidacy.
Thank you for mentioning Jorge Ramos column. If only more of the media felt this way. Today on “justice Matters “was a comparison of President Biden and Tfg thanksgiving messages. Beyond night and day. Worth a listen.
Thank you as usual for the week ahead .
What I don’t understand is aren’t journalists obligated to present information as important as Ramos’ message to the public when the stakes are so high right now to save democracy?
As a lawyer, I, too, found the District Court's decision mind boggling. Some of the conclusions clashed even with the opinions of Trump's expert, and his "expert" was not even admitted as an expert on Section 3.
Pick one - so many choices: “Is Trump is an insurrectionist president or an insurrectionist wanting to be president?”
That’s easy. Pick any 2 from your choices and you have your answer.
I'm going to guess: 'an insurrectionist wanting to be a dictator' 💙
Yes
He is an insurrectionist ie loser.
I’ll go with they can both be true at the same time.
Thanks Joyce for the week ahead. I’d like to compliment you and your#SIL co-hosts for this weekend podcast. It had a chill vibe with just answering your listeners questions, favorite leftovers, gentle ribbings. 👏👏
I also appreciated the Sisters in Law podcast from last Saturday answering mailed in questions for the duration of the show. It was so informative.
You would think they would have learned from the CNN and NBC interviews.
The Presidential Oath of Office indicates that it is an "office " making the holder an official, IMO;
The oath is ordered by the United States Constitution (Article II, Section One, Clause 8), and is given before the president begins his term of office.
This is what the oath says:
“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
An Oath with no enforcement is meaningless.
💔 ruling in Colorado that I hope will be correctly resolved with appeal. 5 USC 7311 should also be brought into the proceeding.
5 U.S. Code § 7311 - Loyalty and striking
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311#
An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1)advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Friday sounds like the big day, although it will be interesting to hear what happens on Monday, if not as significant! We continue to press that Trump is NOT the Republican nominee, a message that seems to be gathering momentum. 7 weeks to Iowa, Monday 15th, a Federal vacation, and we get to see turnout, and the sentiment of the real people (not polling) as they caucus! My hope is he is soundly trounced and media sees how wrong the wisdom that he is the nominee designate actually is. It will be interesting to see how the courts respond to his filings if/when he is NOT running as a candidate. His rights to campaign are only there while he is in contention?
Sadly tfg will become the Republican nominee.
Only if he is alive.