Spokane GOP Shows Its Colors–Again

Dear Group,

Charlie Kirk is the smiling young man pictured above in the ad for this year’s Lincoln Day Dinner on Saturday April 13th. He is a 24 year old conservative hustler, founder and president of “Turning Point USA,” a non-profit organization, a 501(c)(3), with a 9 million dollar budget and 130 employees. In 2012 Mr. Kirk was fresh out of high school and angered that someone of “a different ethnicity and gender” took the position at West Point he thought was his. He founded Turning Point USA that year and gained non-profit status two years later. In 2014 he talked wealthy conservatives into donating 2 million dollars, in 2016, 8.2 million. The list of donors to Turning Point USA (sleuthed by The International Business Times) reads like an advertisement for Jane Mayer’s book and exposé Dark Money: DeVos, Bradley, Uihlein, and Home Depot co-founder, Bernie Marcus. (click the link for more.)

The mission of Turning Point USA? To “to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government.” The motto: “Big Government Sucks.” The methods?  First, establish and maintain The Professor Watchlist to expose professors “who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” The website offers a method to “Submit a Tip,” a tactic reminiscent of the McCarthy Era and blacklisting. Second, use non-profit money (tax free) to influence student government elections, elections not governed by campaign finance law, elections never before in need of transparency or subject to political partisan influence. Jane Mayer in The New Yorker and  Joseph Guinto in Trump’s Man on Campus (Politico) point out Mr. Kirk consistently overstates his accomplishments in his pitch to donors. He frequently drifts out of non-profit territory, away from advocacy and into electioneering. (But with Trump at the helm and the agency underfunded and understaffed, is the IRS likely to investigate?)

There was a time when one could argue the Republican Party was a party of high-minded ideas led by thought leaders like William F. Buckley, a party dedicated to fiscal conservatism, limiting the national debt, personal freedom (including the freedom of a woman to control her own body), and even racial equality (before Nixon, Goldwater, and the “Southern Strategy” of appealing to racism in pursuit of votes). Based on the invited speakers to Republican events in Spokane County over the last few years you should no longer mistake the Republican Party for a party of ideas: Jason Chaffetz and Deneen Borelli, Tomi Lahren, (all Fox News commentators), Nigel Farage (Mr. Brexit), and now a new and rising star, Mr. Charlie Kirk, a young man whose claim to fame isn’t ideas, but raising money to support blacklisting professors and injecting money into campus politics. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Fox’s Hearing Coverage

Dear Group,

If you are old enough, and if you watched any of the Michael Cohen hearing in the House of Representatives yesterday you might recall similar dramatic testimony aired on all three networks of the Watergate hearings, testimony that helped induce Richard Nixon to resign. 

If you listened you also noted that each Republican Committee Member in turn hammered on the same points: Michael Cohen cannot be trusted. Michael Cohen is a convicted felon. Michael Cohen is taking revenge on Donald Trump because he did not get what he, Mr. Cohen, wanted from Trump. This is a politically motivated, “Democrat”-organized witch hunt.

There was a remarkable sameness to the protestations and accusations of each Republican in turn, very little questioning of the substance of Mr. Cohen’s testimony, only an attack on the credibility of the witness. Before you conclude everyone you speak with must on the same page with you, though, I invite you to visit the Fox News website and sample some of the articles. I copied and pasted these titles at 11:21AM PST:

Remember, this is the network to which Trump listens, this is the propaganda wing of the Republican Party (whose motto, laughably, was “Fair and Balanced”), this is one of few news and opinion sources Trump, in his autocratic meanderings, has not labelled “fake.”

Remember this is all your Republican neighbor may have listened to or read about the hearings. There is nothing more chilling to me since the very beginning of Trump’s rise than his incessant denigration of all dissent as “fake” and all dissenters as members of or tools of the “deep state.” Those are the words of a dictator, and in Fox News he has found his propaganda outlet. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Red Line

Dear Group,

It is no longer about a wall, it is no longer about immigration, and it is no longer about one side “winning.” Now the question is this: Do we respect the checks and balances we’ve been told are so essential to the durability of these United States or do we toss them aside in favor of the “strong man,” the guy who says he alone can “fix it?”

Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” 

The Constitution is not holy writ, as some seem to claim, but it is the best we’ve got. It has been good enough to keep us from the excesses to which other democracies and republics have fallen. (Remember the Weimar Republic, 1920s Italy, and, recently, Venezuela were all representative democracies, democracies that fell to dictators who bent the rules.) 

The Constitution in Article 1, Section 7 gives the “power of the purse” to the members of the House of Representatives for a good reason: The House is the chamber of the Congress closest to the people, the people upon whose numbers the States are taxed, the people (more or less) represented by the person they send to that House. The power of the purse is a check on the power of President and a check against the oligarchic tendencies of the Senate. That’s why the Framer’s put it in there. We ignore it at our peril.

At least one House Republican has actually read the Constitution and is willing to stand in its defense. You can read his entire text in a very conservative online source, RedState, in an article entitled “Read Justin Amash’s Spot-On Constitutional Explanation Of ‘National Emergencies’” 

Trump has crossed the line in his pursuit of power. Our federal elected officials all swear to “defend the Constitution” when they enter government. Any Congressperson who fails to vote to curb Trump’s autocratic impulse has broken that oath. Even Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “warned against the emergency declaration before it was issued…” and then, tellingly, supported it after Trump ignored his advice. (Granted that McConnell was issuing a warning based on his sense that declaring an emergency might be a bad political move rather than an act contrary to the Constitution. McConnell is, after all, about nothing but political power, not statesmanship.)

The affirmation of the checks and balances of our Constitution is fundamental. It’s importance exceeds all else in the ever roiling news cycle, the wall, the Cohen hearing in Congress, the Trump chitchat with Kim Jong-Un. If we don’t stand for the rules that govern us what do we stand for?

5PM, Feb 26 update: The results are in. H.J.Res.46 passed 245-182 with every Democrat and 13 Republicans voting to “terminate” Trump’s national emergency. Remarkable among these Republicans were McMorris Rodgers and Herrera Beutler. Dan Newhouse was the only Washington State Representative to vote against the measure. I can only recall one other recorded vote in which McMorris Rodgers voted against the wishes of her “positive disruptor.” (The other was a measure that would have gutted the ADA.) Russ Fulcher of Idaho voted Nay. Apparently he and Newhouse both need to read the Constitution along with 182 of the other Republicans.

Research the House members votes on H.J.Res. 46: Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019. Regardless of today’s vote, they may get another chance in an attempted override of the autocrat’s veto. It is worth your time to let your Congresspeople know how important this vote is and how carefully you are paying attention. Check out your Congressperson’s vote here.

CMR:

Spokane Office       (509) 353-2374

Colville Office         (509) 684-3481

Walla Walla Office  (509) 529-9358

D.C. Office              (202) 225-2006

Rep. Russ Fulcher (new R, ID)

(202) 225-6611 

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)

D.C. Office          (202) 224-2621

Spokane Office  (509) 624-9515

Yakima Office     (509) 453-7462

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

D.C. Office          (202) 224-3441

Spokane Office  (509) 353-2507

Richland Office  (509) 946-8106

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)

D.C.  202-224-6142

North ID,  208–664-5490

Sen. James Risch (R-ID)

D.C. 202-224-2752

Coeur d’Alene  208-667-6130

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Is CMR a Stateswoman?

Dear Group,

Is McMorris Rodgers a stateswoman or a partisan hypocrite? Will she vote for the action of her autocrat, her “positive disruptor,” or will she cast her vote in defense of the U.S. Constitution? Will she vote against the “executive overreach” she has condemned (but only when a Democratic President was in office)?  

It could not be clearer. Donald Trump, the autocrat, was not voted all the funds he wanted for his non-emergent wall. The Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution: “1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” 

By Trump’s own admission, “I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.” That is not a description of an emergency. Having declared a bogus emergency he now plans to flout Congressional refusal to provide funds. Their is no clearer demonstration of a President’s contempt for the authority reserved to Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, under the Constitution. . 

McMorris Rodgers and all the other Trump followers will conveniently forget the National Emergencies Act of 1977 contained safeguards that were later dismantled by the Supreme Court (See A Constitutional Crisis for details.) Congress never intended to toss away its Constitutional prerogative to a President without appropriate safeguards, especially to an autocrat acting in precisely the manner Trump just has done.

Today the House of Representatives is likely to vote on H.J.Res. 46: Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019. The full text of the bill follows:

That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 9844 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949) is hereby terminated.

This is safeguard against autocracy the National Emergencies Act contained when Congress passed it in 1976.

H.J.Res. 46 has 225 co-sponsors, including one brave Republican, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a man who must have read the Constitution. It will pass the House. In the Senate, with its slim Republican majority, it’s fate is less certain. If it does pass the Senate, Trump will veto it, thus setting up a confrontation in the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution or the autocrat? We’ll see…but this is the groundwork for re-affirming we are a nation that follows the rule of law, not the whim of a narcissist. 

Call your Representative this morning and let them know how you feel. Then lodge your opinion with both your Senators.

CMR:

Spokane Office       (509) 353-2374

Colville Office         (509) 684-3481

Walla Walla Office  (509) 529-9358

D.C. Office              (202) 225-2006

Rep. Russ Fulcher (new R, ID)

(202) 225-6611 

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)

D.C. Office          (202) 224-2621

Spokane Office  (509) 624-9515

Yakima Office     (509) 453-7462

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

D.C. Office          (202) 224-3441

Spokane Office  (509) 353-2507

Richland Office  (509) 946-8106

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)

D.C.  202-224-6142

North ID,  208–664-5490

Sen. James Risch (R-ID)

D.C. 202-224-2752

Coeur d’Alene  208-667-6130

Control by the Minority

Dear Group,

Since last fall, 2018, both the executive and judicial branches of our federal government represent a minority of those who cast votes and a minority of the U.S. population. Let that sink in. The operatives now in control of the Republican Party understand this, and they understand the use of the anti-democratic machinery that offers them minority control. (We Believe We Vote, the Redoubters, and Matt Shea with his 51st State advocacy are all local manifestations I plan to cover in later posts.)

How can this be? Let’s tally it up.

Mr. Trump, like George W. Bush, was elected by a minority of voters. Trump fell short of a popular majority by 2.9 million votes, Bush by 544 thousand. (In 2000, Bush won the Electoral College by 5 votes [271-266] because a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court effectively awarded Florida’s 25 electoral votes to Bush on a series of technicalities. Every one of that five Justice majority was nominated by a Republican president.*) The last time before 2000 we had a President in office who lost the popular vote was in 1888.

The minority effect cascades into the Judicial Branch: Four of the five of the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court were nominated by GW Bush and D. Trump, the two minority Presidents**: All four, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, were put forward by the hyper-conservative, Koch-donoe-group-backed, Powell Memorandum-inspired Federalist Society

Supreme Court nominees must receive Senate confirmation, a requirement set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2, “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Each State elects two Senators regardless of the state’s population or number of voters. In our current system Republican Senators are elected disproportionately from States with lesser populations and fewer voters, giving those voters an outsize influence.

Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kananaugh hold records for gaining confirmation as what we might call “minority Justices.” The cumulative votes that put in office the 45 Senators who voted against the Gorsuch nomination exceed the cumulative votes that put in office the 54 Senators who voted for Gorsuch by 20 million (77 million to 57 million).*** The numbers for Kavanaugh must be worse, since he was approved by fewer Senators of the same Republican voting block, 50-48. These numbers are unprecedented. The nearest contender is Clarence Thomas (1991), voted in by 52 Senators whose underlying voter representation was only 3 million less than that of the Senators opposing him. In contrast, Elena Kagan (2010, Obama-nominated) had a 42 million vote representative excess. 

Finally, consider this: “… when Senate Republicans blocked Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination [under President Obama] to the Supreme Court, the 46 Senate Democrats represented 20 million more people than the 54 Republicans [Senators seated at the time].” In spite of that imbalance, Mitch McConnell (representing the 4.5 million person population of the state of Kentucky [population, not voter numbers]) was able to stiff-arm the Garland nomination over the objections of Dianne Feinstein (representing the 39.5 million person population of California), among others. 

Republicans may thumb their noses and say, “Well, those are the rules,” but those rules are not sacred writ. They simply represent the best compromises that could be achieved among representatives of slave and free states (the Three-fifths Compromise) and small and large states (The Connecticut Compromise) when the Constitution was cobbled together in the summer of 1787. 

This striking minority takeover of the Judicial Branch of our government rolls on in spite of the new Democratic majority in the House. A minority President and Senators representing a minority of the population and a minority of voters press forward to fill lower judgeships (around 100 of them) with Federalist Society approved candidates, judgeships McConnell and company refused to fill under Obama

Since Reagan (1980-1988) appointments to federal judgeships including the Supreme Court have become ever more contentious in parallel with the Republican endorsement of Federalist Society vetted nominees (and concurrent denigration of American Bar Association vetting as “too liberal”)

The federal judiciary has been dragged rightward over the last thirty years (most dramatically in the last two years) by maneuvers of Presidents and Senators representing of a minority of voters (and a minority of the population). They are empowered by the compromises that shaped our Constitution, compromises made necessary by circumstances now long past. We live with the anti-democratic result. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

*Rehnquist (Nixon, Reagan for Chief Justice), O’Connor (Reagan), Scalia (Reagan), Kennedy (Reagan), and Thomas (GHW Bush)

**To be strictly fair, GW Bush won the popular vote in 2004. So, technically, Samuel Alito was nominated in 2005 by a president who, at that time, had been elected by a majority popular vote. 

***Read Will the Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics in a Polarized America. This is no small feat of calculation. The whole article from the Chicago-Kent Law Review is well worth a look.

P.S. The Clarence Thomas confirmation final floor vote was: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats to confirm with 46 Democrats and two Republicans to reject the nomination. Had those eleven Democrats had  means to see into the hyper-partisan future (Gingrich, McConnell, two minority-elected Republican Presidents) perhaps they would have cast against..

A Constitutional Perspective

Dear Group,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

That quote is from the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration adopted by a rebellious group of white men in Philadelphia July 4, 1776. (Shots had been fired at the Concord Bridge more than a year earlier, April 19, 1775. Unrest and frustration with British rule percolated among some factions of colonists for years.) The War that followed the Declaration ground on until 1783.

Starting in 1781 representatives of the colonies (still at war with England) came together under the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no executive (president) and no supreme court. Agreement of nine of the thirteen states was required for the Confederation Congress to approve anything, and once a decision was made there was no method to enforce the decision.  “A guiding principle of the Articles was to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the states.”

Six years later in 1787, four years after the end of the Revolutionary War, another group of white men gathered in Philadelphia and put together another document, the Constitution of the United States. In school we are taught a nearly mythic version of this gathering in Philadelphia, a version suffused with lofty rhetoric and noble personages. For some (WeBelieveWeVote.org), the resulting document and system of governance even takes on religious overtones, a document written by men guided by the hand of God. The reality is far more interesting, complicated, and human. The system of governance set forth in the Constitution is a series of compromises among states fractious over the issue of slavery (See Connecticut Compromise—the compromise that gave us a bicameral Congress). If you can take the time, the wikipedia article “History of the United States Constitution” offers a sense of the complexity and length of the process.

The white men in Philadelphia, the “founding fathers,” were intent on assembling a federation of States that could present its united face to the rest of the world, engage other countries in trade, and regulate commerce between the several States.

The phrases “all men are created equal” and “the consent of the governed” do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the word “People” appears in the body of the Constitution only once, in this sentence: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” The Constitution is all about the rules of a federal government, rules States could agree upon by compromise to allow this fledgeling union to come together for the benefit of commerce and trade. The process was confusing, messy, and contentious, just like every political process before or since.

Of the thirty-nine signers of the Constitution only six were also signers on the Declaration, only five of those thirty-nine also signed the Articles of Confederation. This was a different group, a group with different goals. Gone was the lofty rhetoric of the firebrands who had put their names on the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is about all the human reasons for breaking the rules, the human reasons for an act of rebellion. The Constitution is all about making rules.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, are often thought of as integral to Constitution itself. The word “people” is found only once in the body of the Constitution, as I mention above. In contrast the word “people” is found in the first ten amendments five times. The first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) were NOT part of the original Constitution. They were proposed at the first meeting of the Congress, in part to placate the anti-Federalists, folks not at all pleased with this new federal government and its structure.

Take-homes for me:

1) The writing and acceptance of the U.S. Constitution was a messy and contentious process. Politics is messy. It is only through hindsight history takes on fine lines, mythic proportion, and even religious overtones.

2) Compromises around slavery shaped the structure of the government the Constitution established. These compromises engendered two un-democratic, unrepresentative institutions, the Senate and the Electoral College, with which we still struggle.

3) The Bill of Rights (the ten of the twelve amendments proposed by the First Congress that were actually ratified), was an afterthought to the business of forming a federal government good for trade and commerce.

4) For 230 years we have struggled to realize the lofty human goals written in the Declaration of Independence. We have struggled within and sometimes against the governmental structures established by the Constitution. Those struggles are written in the twenty-seven amendments appended to that Constitution, including the first ten. We would do well to study our history and remember while the arc of history may bend toward justice, that arc will not so bend without our effort and attention.

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

P.S. Much of the above comes from an online copy of the Constitution and all its amendments found on line here. I’ve copied below the original wording that came with the Congressional proposal to the States of what became the Bill of Rights two years later (in late 1791).

Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles [the first twelve amendments, only ten of which were ratified] be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

A Constitutional Crisis

Dear Group,

If you are confused over the legal authority Trump claims for his emergency declaration, you are in good company. The media have done a poor job of explaining. It’s messy. Below I’ve copied a portion of Doug Muder’s article “A Fishy Emergency Threatens the Republic.” It offers the clearest explanation I’ve seen of the whole complicated delegation of authority issue. (Muder’s whole article is worth reading if you have the time. Just click on the title.)

Congress still has a chance to weigh in, but there’s a catch. As originally passed in 1976, the National Emergencies Act allowed what is known as a legislative veto: Congress could override the President’s declaration if both houses agreed to do so. This is, in fact, likely to happen. The Democratic House will pass a resolution against the emergency fairly easily, and the Republican Senate will probably follow suit. (In order to do so, all 47 Democrats and 4 Republicans will have to agree. Mitch McConnell can’t prevent the resolution from coming to the floor, and it can’t be filibustered.)

However, in 1983 the Supreme Court (in regard to a different law entirely) found legislative vetoes to be unconstitutional. As laid out in the Constitution, Congress passes laws and the President has an option to veto them. Congress can delegate its power to the President (as it did in the National Emergencies Act), but it can’t switch places with the President and give itself veto power over his decisions.

As a result, Congress can still undo the President’s declaration, but it requires a joint resolution, which is then subject to a presidential veto. A two-thirds majority of each house would then be necessary to override the President’s veto. This is currently considered unlikely, because not enough Republicans are willing to go against Trump.

So the most likely scenario goes like this: Congress passes a joint resolution against the emergency, the President vetoes it, and Congress fails to override the veto.

The gist is this: In 1976 Congress passed and President Ford signed the National Emergencies Act. The intent of Congress at the time was to offer the president a way to act expeditiously, but with Congressional oversight. Congress essentially said: “If you, Mr. President, use this act in a manner the Congress deems out of bounds, then we have a means of quickly withdrawing our approval. We can take back the authority under this act with a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress, a vote of that, once called for, cannot be blocked by leadership, filibustered, or even vetoed by you. 

In 1983 the Supreme Court under Warren Burger (a conservative…for the time…nominated by Richard Nixon) in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, an unrelated case, made it much harder for Congress to rein in an autocratic President the way Congress had intended. By nixing the “legislative veto,” the Supreme Court handed the President far more power than Congress intended in 1976.

Does McMorris Rodgers even understand the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution? Republicans, are usually anxious to shout “Executive Overreach!” Does that extend to McMorris Rodgers’ “positive disruptor?” Does she understand how Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to thwart the Constitutionally mandated Congressional “power of the purse” produces a constitutional crisis over the powers of the Legislative and Executive branches of government? If Trump vetoes a majority vote to stop his usurpation of Congressional power, will she vote to override? You could ask her: 

“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall — Wednesday, February 20

When: 9:45 a.m.- 10:45 a.m.

Where: McIntosh Grange, 319 S 1st St. Rockford, WA 99030

“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall — Wednesday, February 20 

When: 12:15 p.m.- 1:15 p.m.

Where: Fairfield Community Center, 304 E Main St., Fairfield, WA 99012

“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall — Thursday, February 21

When: 2:30 p.m.- 3:30 p.m. 

Where: Medical Lake City Hall, 124 S Lefevre St., Medical Lake, WA 99022

Space is limited at all three events. Town halls are first come, first serve. 

Details can be found on McMorris’ website

Again, I encourage you to read Doug Muder’s whole article

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry