The time is now. The line is here. Ours is a job to do. From New York Harbor, we heard the unarmed but alarmed Lady Liberty’s clarion call. I made us 100 protest signs, here. Atop the U.S. Capitol Building Lady Freedom heard her. It is Lady Freedom that holds this Nation’s sword .She pulled it, dismounting to lead us to the streets. They both pointed out clear ways without bloodshed: boycott and gerrymander. Yes, we can, Cesar, Sí se puede. Rise!
Agreed. CO should get into this now, too! Our delegation is 4-4 and there’s no way that is fair (sorry, independent commission!) Time is NOW for gloves to come off
Lisa, thank you very much for your very timely and insightful piece. But it is counterproductive, and even dangerous, to encourage people to think that the courts will not save us. Neither judges nor lawyers all think alike. So issues that were not raised or addressed properly in prior litigation can and should be raised and addressed in later litigation. Gerrymandering is a crucial case in point.
It's important to bear in mind that judges don't like to look stupid or corrupt. They want to be respected. They want us to think they are smart and their heart is in the right place. So a national constitutional conversation right now can help shine much needed light on how illegal and unconstitutional the conduct of the SCOTUS majority in Rucho really was. If we show SCOTUS justices that we understand our Constitution, all judges, including SCOTUS justices, will be much more inclined to respect our Constitution and respect us.
In addition, it is important to understand that misrepresentations or violations of our Constitution by a handful of judges on SCOTUS simply are not and plainly cannot be the law of the land. Our Constitution clearly and succinctly states the rule of law in the U.S.
"We the People" did "ordain and establish this Constitution" to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves." Those words are crucial to understanding our Constitution. Their primary purpose was to declare and establish that in the U.S. the People are the supreme lawgivers. In the U.S., the People are the supreme legislature. Our supremacy as lawgivers and legislators is precisely why Article VI emphasizes that "the supreme Law of the Land" consists, first, of our "Constitution," and only subordinate to our Constitution are federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution and "Treaties." Very last and very least are all "Judges" who are "bound" by the law ordained and established by the People (the Constitution), federal law (enacted by Congress, typically with the president's approval) and treaties (negotiated by the president and subject to the approval of the Senate).
In the U.S. the rule of law is as emphasized in Article VI and Articles I, II and III. "We the People" established for "ourselves" a radical new concept of the rule of law:
Our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties" are "the supreme Law of the Land; and [all] Judges" are "bound thereby," and all legislators "and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support this Constitution" in all ways possible in all official conduct.
In Article I, the People "vested" in "Congress" absolutely "All legislative Powers." Then, we declared the limits of such legislative power. The people who wrote and ratified our original Constitution used Parliament as a model. The People vested in our elected (chosen) representatives in Congress only part of our own legislative Powers. We vested in Congress the power to “make all” (and only) “Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” absolutely “all” the “Powers vested by this Constitution” in Congress or vested in any part of “the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including, obviously, the president, all executive branch officers, and all judges).
In Article II, the People "vested in a President" the "executive Power." Then, we declared the limits of all such executive power. We vested in the president primarily the power only to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." But because exigencies and emergencies will expose gaps in legislation created by Congress (and because treaties must be negotiated by the executive branch and the president is the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces), we vested in the president the power to take all other actions (to the extent that necessary and proper) to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best" of the president's "Ability."
In Article III, we vested in judges the power to interpret and implement the law "under this Constitution" and federal "Laws" and "Treaties." SCOTUS justices have no power to change or violate our Constitution or federal laws enacted or approved by Congress. But that is exactly what the majority (illegally and unconstitutionally) pretended to have the power to do in Rucho.
Nobody in this entire nation should respect or acquiesce in the blatant violation of our Constitution by any public servant, including SCOTUS justices and state legislators guilty of partisan gerrymandering. We all should support the Texas legislators who stood up (and walked out) to fulfill their oaths to support our Constitution! Our Constitution supports them as strongly as they are supporting it. For more relevant analysis, please consider the following:
"The Criminal Conspiracy between SCOTUS Justices and State Legislators to Defraud and Rob Americans of the Power of our Most Precious Rights" (Part I and Part II)
David, I appreciate the sentiment. Even so, it's important to understand the real problem. It isn't that any one court is ignoring any other court. The problem is that any public servant is violating our Constitution (the supreme law of the land). The problem is even worse when any public servant ignores (KNOWINGLY) violates our Constitution. The problem is still worse when any public servant ignores (KNOWINGLY) violates our Constitution to violate someone's rights. That is criminal.
We all recall Trump complaining about a “rigged” election. Now that he’s our dictator, we have him talking about rigging the elections to come to cement his position in our government. There certainly are a bunch of people who are supporting this, but then there will always be a segment of the population who will blindly follow their “dear leader”. What do they really hope to get out of all of this? They are setting in motion another 100 years of misery for the majority of people in the country who will be adversely affected despite being in the majority. I used to think this would end. Now I have severe doubts that without a miracle we’re stuck with this BS forever.
"...which does not AUGER well for Dem efforts to beat Republicans at their own game."
That should be AUGUR, "to foretell, especially from omens." An AUGER is a carpentry tool. Nothing like a bracing dose of pedantry in the morning! And by the way, thanks for the excellent analysis...
Well, of course! The 2020 election probably included, rigging to Republicans is a sign of dominance. To Trump, all is fair if he wins—good business sense … for bullies.
I have a dream... That these various Red State's efforts to extreme gerrymandering for congressional seats could backfire in a spectacular fashion. It all depends on exactly how unpopular Trump and his Republican minions will be come November 2026.
Gerrymandering is all about a numbers game based on voting history of different people grouped by their geographic location. In other words, it is guesswork based on past trends. But when the trends are against you and you push some groups too far, we could potentially see that Tsunami that was warned about in 2022, except this time the waves would be Blue. A large skew leftward would enable more progressive proposals to come to the front. Would still need a Blue Senate and then a Progressive president to make them real, but with a strong House present, we could not only obstruct Trump's agenda, but also prepare an aggressive legislative agenda for when we do have our progressive president in place.
It takes time and good staff to work through all the tangles of complex bills, and there will be no time to waste when our president rolls into power in 2029. It will also be clear advertising of what we are FOR, and the CHANGE we are going to make, which is much more important to communicate than what we are against.
The people will figure out if they are against Trump or not despite anything we say, but as we have seen before, there is nobody better at delivering the anti-Trump vote than Trump himself.
We can start now on the legislative agenda, it is never too early to clarify what we are for. Trump will always lie, promise more, accuse more, but we just need to point and laugh at how it is always either empty promises, no evidence, or empty threats, except when they are horrific things he does do. When we make promises we back it up with reality. Real legislation with real votes behind it as opposed to having a "Concept of a plan" to deal with medical care in this country... or the "Infrastructure week" that never was, or the "Stop the war in one day" that was no more than the fantasy of a stupid man.
This is the second time Trump has had all the power of Congress and the Presidency and THIS time he is surrounded by 'Loyalists' who will do his bidding, regardless of the laws or their oaths of office. Stop worrying about what Trump will say or how to turn voters against him. best way to do that is to prepare our case (this time with EVERYTHING) for his impeachment, with secret ballot in the Senate votes.
The time is now. The line is here. Ours is a job to do. From New York Harbor, we heard the unarmed but alarmed Lady Liberty’s clarion call. I made us 100 protest signs, here. Atop the U.S. Capitol Building Lady Freedom heard her. It is Lady Freedom that holds this Nation’s sword .She pulled it, dismounting to lead us to the streets. They both pointed out clear ways without bloodshed: boycott and gerrymander. Yes, we can, Cesar, Sí se puede. Rise!
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/tone-telling-terror?r=3m1bs
You don’t fight fascists in a fair fight. Diplomacy and reasoning does not work with evil.
We fire bombed Germany. We dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan.
I wish it weren’t so.
We can retake the high ground later.
Agreed. CO should get into this now, too! Our delegation is 4-4 and there’s no way that is fair (sorry, independent commission!) Time is NOW for gloves to come off
Gerrymandering is most definitely 💯 wrong. We must protest in a big way folks in a nonviolent manner against this system.
Lisa, thank you very much for your very timely and insightful piece. But it is counterproductive, and even dangerous, to encourage people to think that the courts will not save us. Neither judges nor lawyers all think alike. So issues that were not raised or addressed properly in prior litigation can and should be raised and addressed in later litigation. Gerrymandering is a crucial case in point.
It's important to bear in mind that judges don't like to look stupid or corrupt. They want to be respected. They want us to think they are smart and their heart is in the right place. So a national constitutional conversation right now can help shine much needed light on how illegal and unconstitutional the conduct of the SCOTUS majority in Rucho really was. If we show SCOTUS justices that we understand our Constitution, all judges, including SCOTUS justices, will be much more inclined to respect our Constitution and respect us.
In addition, it is important to understand that misrepresentations or violations of our Constitution by a handful of judges on SCOTUS simply are not and plainly cannot be the law of the land. Our Constitution clearly and succinctly states the rule of law in the U.S.
"We the People" did "ordain and establish this Constitution" to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves." Those words are crucial to understanding our Constitution. Their primary purpose was to declare and establish that in the U.S. the People are the supreme lawgivers. In the U.S., the People are the supreme legislature. Our supremacy as lawgivers and legislators is precisely why Article VI emphasizes that "the supreme Law of the Land" consists, first, of our "Constitution," and only subordinate to our Constitution are federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution and "Treaties." Very last and very least are all "Judges" who are "bound" by the law ordained and established by the People (the Constitution), federal law (enacted by Congress, typically with the president's approval) and treaties (negotiated by the president and subject to the approval of the Senate).
In the U.S. the rule of law is as emphasized in Article VI and Articles I, II and III. "We the People" established for "ourselves" a radical new concept of the rule of law:
Our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties" are "the supreme Law of the Land; and [all] Judges" are "bound thereby," and all legislators "and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support this Constitution" in all ways possible in all official conduct.
In Article I, the People "vested" in "Congress" absolutely "All legislative Powers." Then, we declared the limits of such legislative power. The people who wrote and ratified our original Constitution used Parliament as a model. The People vested in our elected (chosen) representatives in Congress only part of our own legislative Powers. We vested in Congress the power to “make all” (and only) “Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” absolutely “all” the “Powers vested by this Constitution” in Congress or vested in any part of “the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including, obviously, the president, all executive branch officers, and all judges).
In Article II, the People "vested in a President" the "executive Power." Then, we declared the limits of all such executive power. We vested in the president primarily the power only to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." But because exigencies and emergencies will expose gaps in legislation created by Congress (and because treaties must be negotiated by the executive branch and the president is the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces), we vested in the president the power to take all other actions (to the extent that necessary and proper) to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best" of the president's "Ability."
In Article III, we vested in judges the power to interpret and implement the law "under this Constitution" and federal "Laws" and "Treaties." SCOTUS justices have no power to change or violate our Constitution or federal laws enacted or approved by Congress. But that is exactly what the majority (illegally and unconstitutionally) pretended to have the power to do in Rucho.
Nobody in this entire nation should respect or acquiesce in the blatant violation of our Constitution by any public servant, including SCOTUS justices and state legislators guilty of partisan gerrymandering. We all should support the Texas legislators who stood up (and walked out) to fulfill their oaths to support our Constitution! Our Constitution supports them as strongly as they are supporting it. For more relevant analysis, please consider the following:
"The Criminal Conspiracy between SCOTUS Justices and State Legislators to Defraud and Rob Americans of the Power of our Most Precious Rights" (Part I and Part II)
https://open.substack.com/pub/blackcollarcrime/p/the-criminal-conspiracy-between-scotus?r=30ufvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
https://open.substack.com/pub/blackcollarcrime/p/the-criminal-conspiracy-between-scotus-21b?r=30ufvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Add to this, the Supreme Court’s new tendency to ignore lower court decisions … if it contradicts right wing dicta.
David, I appreciate the sentiment. Even so, it's important to understand the real problem. It isn't that any one court is ignoring any other court. The problem is that any public servant is violating our Constitution (the supreme law of the land). The problem is even worse when any public servant ignores (KNOWINGLY) violates our Constitution. The problem is still worse when any public servant ignores (KNOWINGLY) violates our Constitution to violate someone's rights. That is criminal.
Very true. Criminal also when a lower court’s findings are ignored. See Jackson’s dissent in Trump v. CASA.
We all recall Trump complaining about a “rigged” election. Now that he’s our dictator, we have him talking about rigging the elections to come to cement his position in our government. There certainly are a bunch of people who are supporting this, but then there will always be a segment of the population who will blindly follow their “dear leader”. What do they really hope to get out of all of this? They are setting in motion another 100 years of misery for the majority of people in the country who will be adversely affected despite being in the majority. I used to think this would end. Now I have severe doubts that without a miracle we’re stuck with this BS forever.
So very true—what’s “true” to Trump is whatever he says it is. Here, it’s not really rigging if it works … for him.
"...which does not AUGER well for Dem efforts to beat Republicans at their own game."
That should be AUGUR, "to foretell, especially from omens." An AUGER is a carpentry tool. Nothing like a bracing dose of pedantry in the morning! And by the way, thanks for the excellent analysis...
Well, of course! The 2020 election probably included, rigging to Republicans is a sign of dominance. To Trump, all is fair if he wins—good business sense … for bullies.
True since the end of the Civil War.
Roger Taney was far worse than John Roberts. Dishonorable mentions go to SCOTUS (in)justices who upheld eugenic sterilization.
I have a dream... That these various Red State's efforts to extreme gerrymandering for congressional seats could backfire in a spectacular fashion. It all depends on exactly how unpopular Trump and his Republican minions will be come November 2026.
Gerrymandering is all about a numbers game based on voting history of different people grouped by their geographic location. In other words, it is guesswork based on past trends. But when the trends are against you and you push some groups too far, we could potentially see that Tsunami that was warned about in 2022, except this time the waves would be Blue. A large skew leftward would enable more progressive proposals to come to the front. Would still need a Blue Senate and then a Progressive president to make them real, but with a strong House present, we could not only obstruct Trump's agenda, but also prepare an aggressive legislative agenda for when we do have our progressive president in place.
It takes time and good staff to work through all the tangles of complex bills, and there will be no time to waste when our president rolls into power in 2029. It will also be clear advertising of what we are FOR, and the CHANGE we are going to make, which is much more important to communicate than what we are against.
The people will figure out if they are against Trump or not despite anything we say, but as we have seen before, there is nobody better at delivering the anti-Trump vote than Trump himself.
We can start now on the legislative agenda, it is never too early to clarify what we are for. Trump will always lie, promise more, accuse more, but we just need to point and laugh at how it is always either empty promises, no evidence, or empty threats, except when they are horrific things he does do. When we make promises we back it up with reality. Real legislation with real votes behind it as opposed to having a "Concept of a plan" to deal with medical care in this country... or the "Infrastructure week" that never was, or the "Stop the war in one day" that was no more than the fantasy of a stupid man.
This is the second time Trump has had all the power of Congress and the Presidency and THIS time he is surrounded by 'Loyalists' who will do his bidding, regardless of the laws or their oaths of office. Stop worrying about what Trump will say or how to turn voters against him. best way to do that is to prepare our case (this time with EVERYTHING) for his impeachment, with secret ballot in the Senate votes.
Yes I know. I was told while I lived in Maine that this for the census.
Thank you . I really hope we do . Please enjoy the music on my substack, also.