In 2019, Brandy Lee and other psychiatric experts authored The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.
Brandy and her colleagues nailed it.
Last year, she and colleagues authored The More Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 40 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Warn Anew.
One quote summarizes it all: “Psychopaths intentionally create harm to others without guilt or remorse, for personal gain or self-gratification.”
And, of course, psychopaths surround themselves with psychopaths, and other, weaker psychopaths are drawn to him. As we see, psychopaths will never change. Never.
In the meantime, psychopaths in Iran likely are putting together plans for 9/11 Part Two.
I resent every psychiatrist and psychologist who remain silent about the existential threat to every single human. They should be rejecting the Goldwater Rule and joining Dr. Lee.
The quote below, from the movie The American President (played by Michael Douglas), says what a healthy president would be thinking:
President Andrew Shepherd: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence Headquarters. He's going about doing his job... because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least Presidential thing I do.
I have come to despise the Goldwater rule. The APA is doing irreparable harm to the U.S. by allowing the people who have the keys to the kingdom - psychologists - remain silent out of fear of losing their licenses. What burns me up is why retired psychologists are not making a huge, loud noise. However, to be fair, Dr. John Gartner says he has beseeched the press multiple times to interview him about this topic, and they have refused. The irony is, they were probably right back in the 1960s. Goldwater likely WAS a narcissist.
Well said! You raise a crucial point. People who still support Trump's conduct simply support tyranny.
Many people who are speaking out to support Trump or support his attacks on Iran (last year and this year) or on Venezuela (in the capital or in the ocean) are quibbling over the meaning of "war." Many also like to highlight that many times the U.S. has waged war without a "declaration of war" by Congress.
They're committing at least three obvious and egregious mistakes: (1) trying to read our Constitution by relying on a mere dictionary, (2) ignoring other relevant parts of our Constitution and (3) ignoring the principles and purposes of the text, e.g., re: separation of powers.
The most relevant powers that were enumerated in Article I as being vested exclusively in Congress include the power to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations" and to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
The powers of Congress also include authorizing executive action that is necessary and proper in relation to the enumerated powers (and prohibiting executive action that isn't necessary or isn't proper). That's why Article I expressly emphasizes that “Congress shall have Power” to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [all] Powers [of Congress], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including the executive and judicial branches).
So the meaning or existence of mere "war" or a mere "declaration of war" is barely, if at all, relevant. The primary principle at work is the separation of powers for the purpose of preserving our liberties.
In Article I, the People vested in Congress the foregoing "legislative Powers." In Article II the People vested in the President only the "executive Power." Our Constitution clarified that, generally, "executive Power" means only the power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and to "faithfully execute the Office of President," i.e., to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Regarding the particular powers of Congress at issue here, "executive Power" means merely the power to "be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
When the President exercises "executive Power" as the "Commander in Chief" to attack another nation, he's obviously and necessarily almost always required to act under express authorization by Congress. An exception applies to the President to the same extent as it applied to state governors (especially in the first decades after the Constitution was written and ratified). Article I, Section 10 clarified that a "State" may "without the Consent of Congress" unilaterally "engage in War" if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Justice Scalia, in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988, emphasized "that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.'" He emphasized that "[t]he Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison [emphasized] that “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” As Justice Scalia emphasized, "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."
Madison in Federalist No. 47 (quoting Montesquieu in The Spirt of the Laws in 1754) emphasized the reason for the rule (separation of powers):
"There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner."
Trump and his supporters are highlighting the self-evident truth that Montesquieu, Madison and Scalia highlighted: Trump and his supporters, ultimately, are attacking and undermining our Constitution by supporting tyranny and the president's unconstitutional usurpation of powers that the People reserved to Congress to secure our liberty and keep us safe from tyrants.
Trump and Republicans communicate by image control, facts being too tedious to spend the time explaining them.
The optics of this rollout could not have been scripted worse! Obviously, Trump had to party first, then inform the country and the world looking tired, frumpy, and wearing his endless hat of self-promotion! Then “truthing” anything but the truth. It was so inappropriate for the gravity of the moment.
I don’t mind that Iran was dealt with, I mind how it was done.
The tools of the Constitution should be used starting today to prevent World War 3.
Just like Dorothy could get home by clicking her 👠, Republicans could love the country and the world more than their next election and remove this felon.
Then, use the tools of the Constitution to really love America and work together, even with Democrats. It’s not impossible.
This government is responsible for millions of deaths for cutting off aid to the world so what is a few thousand more deaths to them particularly when women or girls are killed. However, it may cause a backlash that could be WW3. Children running a country is dangerous.
I find it suspicious that Trump has initiated aggression against two out of three countries that conspiracy theorists say interfered in the 2020 election: Venezuela, Iran and China.
This article and comments so far certainly clarify what is going on. The Constitution needs to be understood better by everyone. That won’t happen in Trumpworld so now it’s up to Congress and the people to present their views as well. Let’s try to do better than Trump in making the case for peace, resolutions, and prosperity. Otherwise, we’ll continue to have conflicts, revolutions, and economic crises.
Public Notice gives me valuable news and commentary, which I appreciate immensely, but isn’t a quote being misused here? “President Donald Trump did not recently make that specific threat in the context of a U.S. attack on Iran. There are reports circulating online claiming he said: ‘I can do anything I want to do to them… I’m allowed to destroy the country.’ But that quote actually comes from unrelated remarks about tariffs and trade, not about military action against Iran. Those comments were made after a court ruled against his tariff powers and were about economic measures — not a threat to bomb or attack another nation. They have been widely circulated on social media, including Reddit threads, but the full, verified source context shows it was about trade policy, not war.” AI helped with that conclusion, so I thought I had better double-check so I am not misconstruing this.
I was not addressing how much of a maniac Trump is. Everyone who has an iota of critical-thinking capacity knows he is a colossal maniac. My topic is the use of a quote, and it’s a question for Noah Berlatsky (or whoever chose and displayed the quote).
Needs to be repeatedly blasted over the 'airwaves'. his drive to destroy anyone and anything [another country ] applies to US residents. He tipped us off by accusing Iran of changing the results of 2020. He will use 'national security' to support his theft of the 2026 elections and on.
Definitions of "psychopathy' are analytically helpful, although definitions of violent domestic [ read: US ] abuse are more useful. "if I can't keep and control what I want [ the US ], then I'll make sure no one else can have it, either."
Thank you for this excellent piece, which I will certainly share with thoughtful, principled folks, as there are others, unfortunately, who will only be outraged by Trump’s latest actions when they have to pay more at the gas pump!
We must press Congress to “do something” about the excesses of Donald J Trump. Legislation, impeachment, something. If MAGA grows weary of Trump, and independents, and Democrats…..then something can be done if lawmakers feel their jobs are threatened. Call. Write. And show up on “No Kings Day”.
“People will die in this effort, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.” - Lord Farquar, Shrek
In 2019, Brandy Lee and other psychiatric experts authored The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.
Brandy and her colleagues nailed it.
Last year, she and colleagues authored The More Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 40 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Warn Anew.
One quote summarizes it all: “Psychopaths intentionally create harm to others without guilt or remorse, for personal gain or self-gratification.”
And, of course, psychopaths surround themselves with psychopaths, and other, weaker psychopaths are drawn to him. As we see, psychopaths will never change. Never.
In the meantime, psychopaths in Iran likely are putting together plans for 9/11 Part Two.
I resent every psychiatrist and psychologist who remain silent about the existential threat to every single human. They should be rejecting the Goldwater Rule and joining Dr. Lee.
The quote below, from the movie The American President (played by Michael Douglas), says what a healthy president would be thinking:
President Andrew Shepherd: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence Headquarters. He's going about doing his job... because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least Presidential thing I do.
I have come to despise the Goldwater rule. The APA is doing irreparable harm to the U.S. by allowing the people who have the keys to the kingdom - psychologists - remain silent out of fear of losing their licenses. What burns me up is why retired psychologists are not making a huge, loud noise. However, to be fair, Dr. John Gartner says he has beseeched the press multiple times to interview him about this topic, and they have refused. The irony is, they were probably right back in the 1960s. Goldwater likely WAS a narcissist.
Well said! You raise a crucial point. People who still support Trump's conduct simply support tyranny.
Many people who are speaking out to support Trump or support his attacks on Iran (last year and this year) or on Venezuela (in the capital or in the ocean) are quibbling over the meaning of "war." Many also like to highlight that many times the U.S. has waged war without a "declaration of war" by Congress.
They're committing at least three obvious and egregious mistakes: (1) trying to read our Constitution by relying on a mere dictionary, (2) ignoring other relevant parts of our Constitution and (3) ignoring the principles and purposes of the text, e.g., re: separation of powers.
The most relevant powers that were enumerated in Article I as being vested exclusively in Congress include the power to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations" and to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
The powers of Congress also include authorizing executive action that is necessary and proper in relation to the enumerated powers (and prohibiting executive action that isn't necessary or isn't proper). That's why Article I expressly emphasizes that “Congress shall have Power” to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [all] Powers [of Congress], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including the executive and judicial branches).
So the meaning or existence of mere "war" or a mere "declaration of war" is barely, if at all, relevant. The primary principle at work is the separation of powers for the purpose of preserving our liberties.
In Article I, the People vested in Congress the foregoing "legislative Powers." In Article II the People vested in the President only the "executive Power." Our Constitution clarified that, generally, "executive Power" means only the power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and to "faithfully execute the Office of President," i.e., to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Regarding the particular powers of Congress at issue here, "executive Power" means merely the power to "be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
When the President exercises "executive Power" as the "Commander in Chief" to attack another nation, he's obviously and necessarily almost always required to act under express authorization by Congress. An exception applies to the President to the same extent as it applied to state governors (especially in the first decades after the Constitution was written and ratified). Article I, Section 10 clarified that a "State" may "without the Consent of Congress" unilaterally "engage in War" if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Justice Scalia, in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988, emphasized "that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.'" He emphasized that "[t]he Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison [emphasized] that “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” As Justice Scalia emphasized, "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."
Madison in Federalist No. 47 (quoting Montesquieu in The Spirt of the Laws in 1754) emphasized the reason for the rule (separation of powers):
"There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner."
Trump and his supporters are highlighting the self-evident truth that Montesquieu, Madison and Scalia highlighted: Trump and his supporters, ultimately, are attacking and undermining our Constitution by supporting tyranny and the president's unconstitutional usurpation of powers that the People reserved to Congress to secure our liberty and keep us safe from tyrants.
James Madison is so underrated in the formation of our country; he should be as well as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and so on.
Trump and Republicans communicate by image control, facts being too tedious to spend the time explaining them.
The optics of this rollout could not have been scripted worse! Obviously, Trump had to party first, then inform the country and the world looking tired, frumpy, and wearing his endless hat of self-promotion! Then “truthing” anything but the truth. It was so inappropriate for the gravity of the moment.
I don’t mind that Iran was dealt with, I mind how it was done.
The tools of the Constitution should be used starting today to prevent World War 3.
Just like Dorothy could get home by clicking her 👠, Republicans could love the country and the world more than their next election and remove this felon.
Then, use the tools of the Constitution to really love America and work together, even with Democrats. It’s not impossible.
I have Stubborn Hope.
This government is responsible for millions of deaths for cutting off aid to the world so what is a few thousand more deaths to them particularly when women or girls are killed. However, it may cause a backlash that could be WW3. Children running a country is dangerous.
I find it suspicious that Trump has initiated aggression against two out of three countries that conspiracy theorists say interfered in the 2020 election: Venezuela, Iran and China.
This article and comments so far certainly clarify what is going on. The Constitution needs to be understood better by everyone. That won’t happen in Trumpworld so now it’s up to Congress and the people to present their views as well. Let’s try to do better than Trump in making the case for peace, resolutions, and prosperity. Otherwise, we’ll continue to have conflicts, revolutions, and economic crises.
Public Notice gives me valuable news and commentary, which I appreciate immensely, but isn’t a quote being misused here? “President Donald Trump did not recently make that specific threat in the context of a U.S. attack on Iran. There are reports circulating online claiming he said: ‘I can do anything I want to do to them… I’m allowed to destroy the country.’ But that quote actually comes from unrelated remarks about tariffs and trade, not about military action against Iran. Those comments were made after a court ruled against his tariff powers and were about economic measures — not a threat to bomb or attack another nation. They have been widely circulated on social media, including Reddit threads, but the full, verified source context shows it was about trade policy, not war.” AI helped with that conclusion, so I thought I had better double-check so I am not misconstruing this.
And you think this maniac doesn't think he can do anything he wants? He is so power hungry he would delight in seeing millions die at his bidding!!!!
I was not addressing how much of a maniac Trump is. Everyone who has an iota of critical-thinking capacity knows he is a colossal maniac. My topic is the use of a quote, and it’s a question for Noah Berlatsky (or whoever chose and displayed the quote).
We will be greeted as liberators...
Groan.
The reason for the bombing is that Bibi wanted Khomeini dead.
Needs to be repeatedly blasted over the 'airwaves'. his drive to destroy anyone and anything [another country ] applies to US residents. He tipped us off by accusing Iran of changing the results of 2020. He will use 'national security' to support his theft of the 2026 elections and on.
Definitions of "psychopathy' are analytically helpful, although definitions of violent domestic [ read: US ] abuse are more useful. "if I can't keep and control what I want [ the US ], then I'll make sure no one else can have it, either."
Thank you for this excellent piece, which I will certainly share with thoughtful, principled folks, as there are others, unfortunately, who will only be outraged by Trump’s latest actions when they have to pay more at the gas pump!
We must press Congress to “do something” about the excesses of Donald J Trump. Legislation, impeachment, something. If MAGA grows weary of Trump, and independents, and Democrats…..then something can be done if lawmakers feel their jobs are threatened. Call. Write. And show up on “No Kings Day”.