#Chief Justice John Marshall

[blondebrainpowered]

The almost 222-year-old landmark precedent, as set forth by Chief Justice John Marshall on February 24, 1803, that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Quote carved in the halls of the SCOTUS.

[quotesfromall]

The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.

John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison

[deadpresidents]

Could you recommend books on the Supreme Court? I honestly didn’t think there were any.

There are countless numbers of books about the Supreme Court, so it really depends on what exactly you're interested in reading about, whether that might be a general history of the Court itself, biographies of the most influential justices, landmark cases, and so on.

By no means is this a complete list, but here's some suggestions that I can recommend:

GENERAL HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT •A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution by Peter Irons (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Nine Scorpions in a Bottle: Great Judges and Cases of the Supreme Court by Max Lerner and edited by Richard Cummings (BOOK) •The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- This history of the Court is especially interesting because it was written by the incumbent Chief Justice. •The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO)

BOOKS ABOUT SPECIFIC JUSTICES OR COURTS •The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Leaving the Bench: Supreme Court Justices at the End by David N. Atkinson (BOOK) -- A unique book about Justices at the end of their time on the Court and how they ultimately left the Court. Most of them died in office because the Court is a lifetime appointment, but the book looks at how some Justices held on to their seats and remained on the bench despite failing health or faltering cognitive abilities. •First: Sandra Day O'Connor by Evan Thomas (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Sisters In Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World by Linda Hirshman (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- An excellent dual biography about the first two women ever appointed to the Supreme Court and the impact they had on American law. •The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- The legendary journalist from the Washington Post gives the Woodward treatment to the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. •The Showdown: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court Nomination That Changed America by Wil Haygood (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- The remarkable life of Thurgood Marshall, who was already a legendary figure in the annals of American justice as a civil rights lawyer who successfully argued the case the led to the Supreme Court striking down Brown v. the Board of Education. Marshall's place in history became even more important when President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated him as the first-ever Black Supreme Court Justice. •Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir by John Paul Stevens (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- This is probably my favorite of the recommendations. John Paul Stevens, the third longest-serving Justice in the history of the Supreme Court, writes about the five Chief Justices (Fred Vinson, Earl Warren, Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, and John Roberts) that he worked for or with throughout his long career, beginning as a law clerk under Chief Justice Vinson and eventually serving as Associate Justice alongside Chief Justice Burger, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Chief Justice Roberts.

BOOKS ABOUT JOHN MARSHALL (Longest-serving Chief Justice of the United States and arguably the most important judge in American history) •John Marshall: The Chief Justice Who Saved the Nation by Harlow Giles Unger (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Without Precedent: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Times by Joel Richard Paul (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court by Richard Brookhiser (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO)

I also strongly recommend checking out James F. Simon's books about the Supreme Court and the Presidency, which focus on the impact that the Court and the Chief Justices at the time had on specific Presidential Administrations. These are all written by James F. Simon: •Eisenhower vs. Warren: The Battle for Civil Rights and Liberties (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •FDR and Chief Justice Hughes: The President, the Supreme Court, and the Epic Battle Over the New Deal (BOOK | KINDLE)

[mudwerks]

Just a neat quote carved in the halls of the SCOTUS. Might be relevant.

In the unanimous 1803 Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall famously declared:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

[libraryofva]

Recent Acquisition - Ephemera Collection

Christmas at the Swan, 1788. A Famous Old Richmond Tavern. Swan Tavern stood on the north side of Broad Street, near Ninth, in Richmond, Virginia. The old tavern was pulled down in 1903. Among famous guests who enjoyed the hospitality of the Swan were Edgar Allan Poe, Chief Justice John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson.

Vintage greeting card.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Michael Tomasky at TNR:

Last Thursday, while his henchmen were busy selling out Ukraine and Elon Musk was hoisting that chainsaw at CPAC, Donald Trump spoke to the Republican Governors’ Association. He bragged about how much money he’d raised. He talked about helping other candidates. Then he got to the point: “So we’ve got that money, and I got to spend it somewhere, and they tell me I’m not allowed to run,” Trump said. “I’m not sure. Is that true? I’m not sure.” This was at least the fourth time Trump has “joked” about running again since he returned to the White House—that is, in the last month or so. He did it at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 6. Also at an event in Las Vegas in late January. And during a speech in Mar-a-Lago. On top of these, there was the “joke” the White House posted on social media, apropos of Trump’s attempt to kill congestion pricing in New York, that showed him wearing a crown with the all-caps message “LONG LIVE THE KING!” When this comes up on cable news, the host typically asks the guests whether Trump is just trolling the libs or should be taken seriously. It’s a silly question, because the answer is obviously both. He’s always trolling. But if you’ve watched these first four weeks and think he’s not capable of finding a way to suspend the Constitution and stay in office, well, you’re not watching the same show I am.

Pay attention and connect the dots. Trump installed a loyalist at the Justice Department. Pam Bondi is qualified for the job of attorney general on paper, but there is no question as to why she’s really there: to wield the department’s power as Trump wishes. He installed a loyalist—an unqualified one—as the head of the nation’s intelligence services. Tulsi Gabbard will also do whatever Trump wants. And he’s done the same at the FBI. Kash Patel is obviously there to investigate Trump’s political foes and critics. Incidentally, this week, Patel is also apparently going to be sworn in as the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. These moves give Trump personal control over the country’s legal and intelligence services.

Then, on Friday night, he took an even more ominous step with a military purge, firing the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and five other senior officers. His new chairman is another loyalist, John Dan Caine (nickname “Razin”), who does not meet the legal qualifications for the job. Under law, the president can override the language about qualifications if he deems the appointment to be in “the national interest.” I’m not sure about the national interest, but Cain is surely in the Trumpian interest. Trump once claimed that Cain said to him, “I think you’re great, sir. I’ll kill for you, sir.”

Those terminated included the judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Why do they matter? Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall put his finger on it last week: “Among many other things it’s the military lawyers who determine what is a legal order and what’s not. If you’re planning to give illegal orders they are an obvious obstacle.” Personal control over the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, and the Pentagon, along with a pliable right-wing Supreme Court majority, will enable Trump to do many things. They’re all bad, but it’s having the lackeys in charge of the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs that are the blaring sirens here.

Tyrant Trump is harboring fantasies of being “President For Life” (aka Dictator For Life) by proposing a constitutional change to allowing him to serve a 3rd term.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Actually, the President of the United States is powerful

US Presidents have lots of things they can do beyond signing or vetoing legislation. Their administrative agencies have broad powers that allow them to act without dragging Congress behind them.

For example, Jennifer Abruzzo, the ass-kicking superhero that Biden appointed as National Labor Relations Board General Counsel, has used her powers to establish a rule that companies that break labor law during union drives automatically lose, with the affected union gaining instant recognition.

For a followup, Abruzzo is using a case called Thrive Pet Care to impose a “duty to bargain” on companies. If a company won’t bargain in good faith for a union contract, Abruzzo’s NLRB will simply force them to adhere to the contractual terms established by rival companies that did bargain with their unions, until such time as a contract is signed.

But wait, what about the dastardly Supreme Court? What if those six dotards in robes use their stolen seats on the country’s highest court to block Biden’s administrators?

Well, Biden could do what his predecessors have done. Like Lincoln, Biden could simply ignore the court, embracing popular policies he was elected to enact, revealing the Supremes to be toothless, out-of-touch, undemocratic and illegitimate.

(Andrew Jackson was a monster, but when he ignored his own Supreme Court, he proved that the Supremes’ only leverage came from their legitimacy; recall the (likely apocryphal) quote, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”)

Like FDR, Biden could threaten to pack the court, creating a national debate about the court’s illegitimacy, which would add fuel to the court’s plummeting reputation amidst a string of bribery scandals.

-Joe Biden is headed to a UAW picket-line in Detroit: “I want to do it, now make me do it.”

Image: Fabio Basagni https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/:Sahara_desert_sunrise.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[misfitwashere]

 Subscribe here for more

February 22, 2025

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

FEB 23

Last night’s Friday Night News Dump was a doozy: Trump has purged the country’s military leadership. He has fired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown, who Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested got the job only because he is Black, and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti, who was the first woman to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and whom Hegseth called a “DEI hire.” As soon as he took office, Trump fired U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Linda Lee Fagan, giving her just three hours to vacate her home on base. Last night, Trump also fired the Air Force vice chief of staff, General James Slife.

In place of Brown, Trump has said he will nominate Air Force Lieutenant General John Dan Caine, who goes by the nickname “Razin”—as in “Razin Caine”—to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs of Staff is the body of the eight most senior uniformed leaders within the United States Department of Defense. It advises the president, the secretary of defense, the Homeland Security Council and the National Security Council on military matters.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest-ranking and most senior military officer in the United States Armed Forces and is the principal military advisor to the president, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and the secretary of defense.

Caine has held none of the assignments that are required for elevation to this position. His military biography says he was a career F-16 pilot who served on active duty and in the National Guard. Before he retired, he was the associate director for military affairs at the CIA. The law prohibits the elevation of someone at his level to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff unless the president waives the law because “such action is necessary in the national interest.”

Marshall notes that Trump is “reaching far down the pecking order to someone who isn’t even on active duty in the military for the critical position not only as the chief military advisor to the President…but the key person at the contact point of civilian control over the military.” In Trump’s telling, his support for Caine comes from the military officer’s support for him. “I love you, sir. I think you’re great, sir. I’ll kill for you, sir,” Trump claims Caine said to him. Trump went on to claim that Caine put on a Make America Great Again hat, despite rules against political messaging on the clothing of active-duty troops.

Trump appears to be purging military officers with the intent of replacing them with loyalists while intimidating others to bow to his demands. It seems worth recalling here that Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) stalled the nominations of 451 senior military officers for close to a year in 2023. On February 10, Trump purged the advisory bodies of the military academies for the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard, saying: “Our Service Academies have been infiltrated by Woke Leftist Ideologues over the last four years…. We will have the strongest Military in History, and that begins by appointing new individuals to these Boards. We must make the Military Academies GREAT AGAIN!”

The purge of military leaders wasn’t the only news last night. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated he intends to fire the judge advocates general, or JAGs—the military lawyers who administer the military code of justice—for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. “Among many other things it’s the military lawyers who determine what is a legal order and what’s not,” Talking Points Memo’s Marshall pointed out. “If you’re planning to give illegal orders they are an obvious obstacle.” “Now that Trump has captured the intelligence services, the Justice Department, and the FBI,” military specialist Tom Nichols wrote in The Atlantic, “the military is the last piece he needs to establish the foundations for authoritarian control of the U.S. government.”

National Security Leaders for America, a bipartisan organization of people who served in senior leadership positions in all six military branches, elected federal and state offices, and various government departments and agencies, strongly condemned the firings, and urged “policymakers, elected officials, and the American public to reject efforts to politicize our military.”

Observers point out how the purging of an independent, rules-based military in favor of a military loyal to a single leader is a crystal clear step toward authoritarianism. They note that Trump expressed frustration with military leaders during his first term when they resisted illegal orders, saying, as then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley did, that in America “[w]e don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator…. We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.”

Observers note that during his first term, Trump said he wanted “the kind of generals that Hitler had,” apparently unaware that Hitler’s generals tried to kill him and instead imagining they were all fiercely loyal. They also note that authoritarian leader Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union purged his officer corps to make sure it was commanded by those loyal to him.

While the pattern is universal, this is a homegrown version of that universal pattern.

In order to undermine the liberal consensus that supported government regulation of business, provision of a basic social safety net, promotion of infrastructure, and protection of civil rights, reactionaries in the 1950s began to insist that such a government was socialism. A true American, they claimed, was an individual man who wanted nothing from the government but to be left alone to provide for himself and his family.

In contrast to what they believed was the “socialism” of the government, they took as their symbol the mythologized version of the western American cowboy. In the mid-1950s, Americans tuned in to Gunsmoke, Rawhide, Bonanza, Wagon Train, and The Lone Ranger to see hardworking white men fighting off evil, seemingly without help from the government. In 1959 there were twenty-six westerns on TV, and in a single week in March 1959, eight of the top shows were westerns.

When Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, in his white cowboy hat, won the Republican presidential nomination in 1964, the cowboy image became entwined with the reactionary faction in the party, and Ronald Reagan quite deliberately nurtured that image. Under Reagan, Republicans emphasized that an individual man should run his life however he wished, had a right to use a gun to defend his way of life, and that his way of life was under attack by Black Americans, people of color, and women.

It was an image that fit well with American popular culture, but their cowboy was always a myth: it didn’t reflect the reality that one third of cowboys were Black or men of color, or that cowboys were low-wage workers whose lives mirrored those of eastern factory workers. The real West was a network of family ties and communities, where women won the right to vote significantly before eastern women did, in large part because of their importance to the economy and the education that western people prized.

In the 1990s that individualist cowboy image spurred the militia movement, and over the past forty years it has become tightly bound to the reactionary Republican project to get rid of the government Americans constructed after 1933 to serve the public good. Now it is driving both the purge of women, people of color, and Black Americans from public life and the growing idea that leadership means domination. Trump and Hegseth’s concept of “warfighters” in an American military that doesn’t answer to the law but simply asserts power is the American cowboy hideously warped into fascism.

In a press conference in Brussels, Belgium, on February 13, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters: “We can talk all we want about values. Values are important. But you can't shoot values. You can't shoot flags and you can't shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power. As much as we may not want to like the world we live in, in some cases, there's nothing like hard power.”

That statement came after a troubling exchange between Hegseth and Senator Angus King (I-ME) during Hegseth’s nomination hearings. King noted that in one of his books, Hegseth had said that soldiers—he referred to them as “our boys”—"should not fight by rules written by dignified men in mahogany rooms 80 years ago." King noted that Hegseth was referring to “the Geneva Conventions,” a set of international rules that try to contain the barbarity of war and outlawed torture, and he wanted Hegseth to explain what he meant when he wrote: "America should fight by its own rules, and we should fight to win or not go in at all."

Hegseth explained that “there are the rules we swear an oath to defend, which are incredibly important, and…then there are those echelons above reality from, you know, corps to division to brigade, to battalion. And by the time it trickles down to a company or a platoon or a squad level, you have a rules of engagement that nobody recognizes.” “So you are saying that the Geneva Convention should not be observed?” King asked. “We follow rules,” Hegseth said. “But we don't need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars. And that's what President Trump understands.”

Hegseth refused to say he would abide by the Geneva Conventions. He refused to condemn torture.

This idea that modern warfare requires torture shines a harsh light on Trump’s January 29 order to the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security to prepare a 30,000-bed detention facility at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to detain migrants Trump called "the worst criminal illegal aliens threatening the American people.” Rather than simply deporting them, he said, “Some of them are so bad we don't even trust the countries to hold them because we don't want them coming back, so we're going to send them out to Guantanamo.”

Now it appears the White House is moving even beyond turning the military into cowboys with unlimited powers. On Thursday the White House posted on X a 40-second video that purported to be of migrants, in shackles and chains, faceless as the chains clank, with the caption “ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight.” As Andrew Egger explained in The Bulwark, ASMR videos use video cues to create feelings of relaxation and euphoria, or “tingles.”

No longer is the cruelty of utter domination a necessity for safety, it appears. Now it is a form of sensual pleasure for its own sake. As Jeff Sharlet wrote in Scenes from a Slow Civil War: “Listen to this, the White House is saying. This will make you feel good.” It is, he points out, “a bondage video” in which “[t]he sound of other people’s pain is the intended pleasure.”

Elon Musk posted over the video: “Haha wow,” with an emoji of a troll and a gold medal.

While MAGA seems to have turned an American icon into the basis for a fascist fantasy, President Theodore Roosevelt, who took office in 1901 after the assassination of President William McKinley, had actually worked as a cowboy and deliberately applied what he believed to be the values of the American West to the country as a whole. He insisted that all Americans must have a “Square Deal”—the equal protection of the laws—that the government must clean up the cities, protect the environment, provide education and healthcare, and stop the wealthy from controlling the government.

And, when Roosevelt learned that American soldiers had engaged in torture in the Philippines, he deplored those acts. He promised that “determined and unswerving effort” was “being made, to find out every instance of barbarity on the part of our troops, to punish those guilty of it, and to take, if possible, even stronger measures than have already been taken to minimize or prevent the occurrence of all such acts in the future.”

—

[whencyclopedia]

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review. In the decision, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the court struck down a congressional statute as unconstitutional for the first time in US history, thereby establishing the United States Constitution as a legal – not just a political – document.

Prior to the Marbury case, the Supreme Court was the weakest branch of the federal government. It had reviewed only 63 cases in the twelve years before 1801 and was viewed as a useless, aristocratic institution by many ardent Republicans, some of whom sought to do away with the federal judiciary entirely. In February 1803, the Court heard Marbury v. Madison, a case in which Secretary of State James Madison had withheld a commission for a federal office from a political opponent, William Marbury; Marbury had petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, which would force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court, ruled that while Marbury was legally entitled to the commission, the Supreme Court could not help him by issuing a writ of mandamus. The statute that empowered it to do so – Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 – was, in fact, in conflict with Article III of the Constitution. For this reason, the Marshall Court took the unprecedented step of striking down Section 13.

By striking down a congressional statute, Marshall had established the principle of judicial review – that is, a court's ability to uphold or strike down a law based on its constitutionality. Another major consequence was that the US Constitution was now no longer just a political document – a statement of the political ideals of the United States – but was a legal document as well, one which all federal and state courts and legislatures must adhere to. The case is therefore considered the single most important decision in US constitutional law and remains one of the most significant cases in the history of the US Supreme Court.

Background: Creating a Federal Judiciary

The federal judiciary – conceived at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and enshrined in Article III of the resultant United States Constitution – proved to be a controversial institution in the first decade of its existence. Americans were generally predisposed to distrust judges, whose flowing robes, rigid court protocols, and high benches smacked of the monarchism all too recently cast aside. It was not lost on the people that the federal judges were modeled closely off the colonial magistrates they had replaced, who themselves had been selected by the king and had – in the patriotic memories of the Americans, at least – arbitrarily wielded their authority. Thomas Jefferson, in 1776, referred to judicial decisions as "the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious, designing men" who were looking after political interests rather than enforcing the law (Wood, 402). This suspicion was carried over to the new American courts, whose judges were, in many instances, appointed rather than elected and served life tenures rather than limited terms of office, neither aspect seeming to hint at an enlightened government institution.

The makeup of this controversial body was roughly outlined in Article III of the Constitution, which vested judicial power in "one supreme court" of the United States as well as "such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish". The Supreme Court was granted original jurisdiction – or the power to hear a case for the first time – over cases that involved ambassadors, public officials, or individual states as parties in the suit. It was also given appellate jurisdiction – or the power to hear cases on appeal – over a broader range of suits involving constitutional or federal law. Although Article III left things rather vague, the courts were fleshed out by the First Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This act created a system of federal circuit courts and district courts under the Supreme Court and expounded on the powers of the judiciary. Section 25, for instance, allowed federal courts to overturn any state law or state court ruling that violated a federal treaty. Additionally, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act – which will become important later – allowed the judiciary to issue legal orders called writs of mandamus to government officials, which would force them to adhere to federal law.

While this expansion of judicial authority certainly ruffled a few feathers, the judiciary was still by far the weakest branch of the federal government. Neither Article III of the Constitution nor the Judiciary Act of 1789 had given the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. This refers to a court's ability to declare an act of the executive or legislative branch to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid, a function that the Supreme Court is best known for today and considered a vital part of the checks and balances of federal power. Without this authority, the Supreme Court wielded minimal influence in the first decade of its existence and was widely disregarded by the other two branches. In fact, between 1789 and 1801, it heard only 63 cases, none of which had any long-lasting importance. Since the federal courts were still seen as aristocratic bodies that hindered the rights of the states, some hardcore Republicans wanted to do away with the federal judiciary altogether. This was how matters stood when the US presidential election of 1800 swept such Republicans into power, placing the judiciary in jeopardy.

Continue reading...

[shannonselin]

John Quincy Adams by Charles Robert Leslie

America’s sixth president, John Quincy Adams, was inaugurated on March 4, 1825. Adams was Secretary of State in the outgoing administration of President James Monroe. He had finished behind Andrew Jackson in the number of popular votes and electoral votes received in the 1824 presidential election. However, since no candidate reached the 131 electoral vote majority necessary to win, the election was decided by the House of Representatives, which voted in favor of John Quincy Adams.

Adams spent two sleepless nights before his inauguration, and his wife Louisa Adams – the first foreign-born First Lady of the United States – was sick. The evening of March 3, she “was seized with a violent fever,” for which she was bled in an attempt to provide relief.

Friday, March 4th dawned cloudy in Washington. A tired John Quincy Adams “entered upon this day with a supplication to Heaven, first, for my country; secondly, for myself and for those connected with my good name and fortunes, that the last results of its events may be auspicious and blessed.”

Once seated in the Speaker’s chair, JQA read his inaugural address, which took about half an hour and was rather dull, but received a long applause. In it, he tried to heal electoral divisions.

Of the two great political parties which have divided the opinions and feeling of our country, the candid and the just will now admit that both have contributed splendid talents, spotless integrity, ardent patriotism and disinterested sacrifices to the formation and administration of this government; and that both have required a liberal indulgence for a portion of human infirmity and error.… There still remains one effort of magnanimity, one sacrifice of prejudice and passion, to be made by the individuals throughout the nation, who have heretofore followed the standards of political party. It is that of discarding every remnant of rancor against each other; of embracing, as countrymen and friends; and of yielding to talents and virtue alone, that confidence which, in times of contention for principle, was bestowed only upon those who bore the badge of party communion.…

Then, placing his hand on a volume of the laws of the United States, held up to him by Chief Justice John Marshall, JQA read the oath of office of President of the United States.

Throughout the day Louisa Adams continued to feel extremely ill. She received visitors in her drawing room before dinner, but was not well enough to go out in the rain to the inaugural ball. Adams went to the ball, but did not stay for the whole thing.

Immediately after supper I withdrew, and came home. I closed the day as it had begun, with thanksgiving to God for all His mercies and favors past, and with prayers for the continuance of them to my country, and to myself and mine.

For more details, see The Inauguration of John Quincy Adams.

[yourreddancer]

Heather Cox Richardson

February 10, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Feb 11

As soon as President Donald Trump took office, his administration froze great swaths of government funding, apparently to test the theory popular with Project 2025 authors that the 1974 law forbidding the president from “impounding” money Congress had appropriated was unconstitutional.

The loss of funding has hurt Americans across the country. Today, Daniel Wu, Gaya Gupta, and Anumita Kaur of the Washington Post reported that farmers who had signed contracts with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to improve infrastructure and who had paid up front to put in fences, plant different crops, and install renewable energy systems with the promise the government would provide financial assistance are now left holding the bag.

With Republicans in Congress largely mum about this and other power grabs by the administration, the courts are holding the line.

Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island today found that the Trump administration has refused to disburse federal funding despite the court’s “clear and unambiguous” temporary restraining order saying it must do so. McConnell said the administration “must immediately restore frozen funding” and clear any hurdles to that funding until the court hears arguments about the case. This includes the monies withheld from the farmers.

This evening, Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley blocked the Trump appointees at the National Institutes of Health from implementing the rate change they wanted to apply to NIH grants. But, as legal analyst Joyce White Vance notes, the only relief sought is for the twenty-two Democratic-led states that have sued, keeping Republican-dominated states from freeloading on their Democratic counterparts. As Josh Marshall noted today in Talking Points Memo, it appears a pattern is emerging in which Democratic-led states are suing the administration while officials from Republican-led states, which are even harder hit by Trump’s cuts than their Democratic-led counterparts, are asking Trump directly for help or exceptions.

As soon as he took office, Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, who was a key author of Project 2025 and who is also acting as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, announced he was shuttering the agency. That closure was a recommendation of Project 2025, which called the consumer protection agency “a shakedown mechanism to provide unaccountable funding to leftist nonprofits.” Immediately, the National Treasury Employees Union sued him, saying that Vought’s directive to employees to stop working “reflects an unlawful attempt to thwart Congress’s decision to create the CFPB to protect American consumers.”

MAGA loyalists, particularly Vice President J.D. Vance, have begun to suggest they will not abide by the rule of law, but before Trump and Vance took office, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts called out Vance’s hints that he would be willing to defy the rulings of federal courts as “dangerous suggestions” that “must be soundly rejected.”

Today the American Bar Association took a stand against the Trump administration’s “wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself” as it attacks the Constitution and tries to dismantle departments and agencies created by Congress “without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law.”

“The American Bar Association supports the rule of law,” president of the organization William R. Bay said in a statement. “That means holding governments, including our own, accountable.” He cheered on the courts that “are treating these cases with the urgency they require.”

“[R]efusing to spend money appropriated by Congress under the euphemism of a pause is a violation of the rule of law and suggests that the executive branch can overrule the other two co-equal branches of government,” Bay wrote. “This is contrary to the constitutional framework and not the way our democracy works. The money appropriated by Congress must be spent in accordance with what Congress has said. It cannot be changed or paused because a newly elected administration desires it. Our elected representatives know this. The lawyers of this country know this. It must stop.”

He called on “elected representatives to stand with us and to insist upon adherence to the rule of law…. The administration cannot choose which law it will follow or ignore. These are not partisan or political issues. These are rule of law and process issues. We cannot afford to remain silent…. We urge every attorney to join us and insist that our government, a government of the people, follow the law.”

Today, five former Treasury secretaries wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that also reinforced the legal lines of our constitutional system, warning that “our democracy is under siege.” Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, who served under President Bill Clinton; Timothy F. Geithner and Jacob J. Lew, who served under President Barack Obama; and Janet L. Yellen, who served under President Joe Biden, spoke up about the violation of the United States Treasury’s nonpartisan payment system by political actors working in Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency.”

That DOGE team “lack training and experience to handle private, personal data,” they note, “like Social Security numbers and bank account information.” Their involvement risks exposing highly sensitive information and even risks the failure of critical infrastructure as they muck around with computer codes. The former Treasury secretaries noted that on Saturday morning, a federal judge had temporarily stopped those DOGE workers from accessing the department’s payment and data systems, warning that that access could cause “irreparable harm.”

“While significant data privacy, cybersecurity and national security threats are gravely concerning,” the former secretaries wrote, “the constitutional issues are perhaps even more alarming.” The executive branch must respect that Congress controls the nation’s money, they wrote, reiterating the key principle outlined in the Constitution: “The legislative branch has the sole authority to pass laws that determine where and how federal dollars should be spent.”

The Treasury Department cannot decide “which promises of federal funding made by Congress it will keep, and which it will not,” the letter read. “The Trump administration may seek to change the law and alter what spending Congress appropriates, as administrations before it have done as well. And should the law change, it will be the role of the executive branch to execute those changes. But it is not for the Treasury Department or the administration to decide which of our congressionally approved commitments to fulfill and which to cast aside.”

That warning appears as Trump indicates that he is willing to undermine the credit of the United States. Yesterday, on Air Force One, he told reporters that the members of the administration trying to find wasteful spending have suggested that they have found fraud in Treasury bonds and that the United States might “have less debt than we thought.” The suggestion that the U.S. might not honor its debt is a direct attack on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which says that “[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” That amendment was written under similar circumstances, when former Confederates sought to avoid debt payments and undermine the power of the federal government.

Lauren Thomas, Ben Drummett, and Chip Cutter of the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that “for CEOs and bankers, the Trump euphoria is fading fast.” Consumers are losing confidence in the economy, and observers expect inflation, while business leaders find that trying to navigate Trump’s on-again-off-again tariffs is taking all their attention.

Meanwhile, Trump has continued his purge of government employees he considers insufficiently loyal to him. On Friday he tried to get rid of Ellen Weintraub of the Federal Elections Commission, who contended that her removal was illegal. He also fired Colleen Shogan, the Archivist of the United States, head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the government agency that handles presidential records. The archivist is the official responsible for receiving and validating the certified electoral ballots for presidential elections—a process Trump’s people tried to corrupt after he lost the 2020 presidential election.

It was NARA that first discovered Trump’s retention of classified documents and demanded their return, although Shogan was not the archivist in charge at the time.

The courts happened to weigh in on the case of the retained classified documents today, when U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI must search its records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from journalist Jason Leopold after Leopold learned that Trump had allegedly flushed presidential records down the toilet when he was president, and later brought classified documents to Florida.

The judge noted that the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States that the president cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed as part of his official duties and is “at least presumptive[ly] immune from criminal prosecution for…acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility” means that there is no reason to hold back information to shield him from prosecution. Indeed, Howell notes, that decision means that the FOIA request is now the only way for the American public to “know what its government is up to.”

Howell highlighted that the three Supreme Court justices who dissented from the Trump v. United States decision described it as “mak[ing] a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.” In a footnote, Howell also called attention to the fact that presumptive immunity for the president does not “extend to those who aid, abet and execute criminal acts on behalf of a criminally immune president. The excuse offered after World War II by enablers of the fascist Nazi regime of ‘just following orders’ has long been rejected in this country’s jurisprudence.”

Today, Trump fired David Huitema, director of the Office of Government Ethics, the department that oversees political appointments and helps nominees avoid conflicts of interest.

On Friday, Trump fired the head of the Office of Special Counsel, U.S. Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger. That office enforces federal whistleblower laws as well as the law that prohibits federal employees from engaging in most political activity: the Hatch Act. Congress provided that the special counsel can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and today Dellinger sued, calling his removal illegal.

Tonight, Judge Amy Berman Jackson blocked Dellinger’s firing through Thursday as she hears arguments in the case.

—

[deadpresidents]

Does it matter that Trump didn't place his hand on the bible when he was sworn in?

No, it does not matter. There's no requirement that the President must place their hand on a Bible while taking the oath of office; it's just a tradition that started with George Washington.

We don't definitively know how many of the early Presidents actually place their hands on a Bible when they were sworn in. Many historians say that John Quincy Adams placed his hand on a "book of laws" when he was sworn in, but I think it is entirely possible that people are confused by his own recollections of his inauguration in 1825. In his diary entry for March 4, 1825, John Quincy Adams wrote that, following the swearing-in of Vice President John C. Calhoun:

"I repaired to the Hall of the House of Representatives, and after delivering from the Speakers Chair my inaugural Address to a crowded auditory, and I pronounced from a "Volume of the Laws", held up to me by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States, the Oath faithfully to execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of my ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States..."

From his description, it seems to me that Adams might be saying that Chief Justice Marshall administered the oath from a "Volume of the Laws", not that he placed his hand upon a book of laws when being sworn in. But I don't think we can be completely sure of it. Also, note that Adams delivered his Inaugural Address before he was sworn into office.

We do know that Lyndon B. Johnson didn't place his hand on the Bible when he was first sworn in on as President on November 22, 1963. In the tumult immediately following President Kennedy's assassination, LBJ took that oath in a conference room aboard Air Force One before it took off from Love Field in Dallas, Texas and returned to Washington, D.C. As they hurried to put together the quick ceremony, nobody could find a Bible, but they found a Catholic missal -- a book containing Catholic prayers, chants, liturgical instructions, etc. -- onboard that belonged to JFK, and LBJ took his oath on that.

[reddanceragain]

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

April 16, 2025 (Wednesday)

In El Salvador today, authorities denied Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) a meeting or a phone call with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man the Trump regime sent by “administrative error” to the terrorist prison CECOT. Abrego Garcia is Van Hollen’s constituent, and the senator promised his family to try to get him released. That Salvadoran officials cannot or will not produce him raises concerns about his well-being.

Senator Van Hollen had hoped to meet with El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, but met instead with Vice President Félix Ulloa. Ulloa at first told Van Hollen there had not been enough time to arrange a meeting with Abrego Garcia, but when the senator offered to come back next week, Ulloa allowed as how a meeting might not be possible at all.

Van Hollen reported that when he asked Ulloa why El Salvador was continuing to imprison Abrego Garcia when it had no evidence that he was a gang member, Ulloa answered that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador to hold him.

Evidently, President Donald Trump thinks what he is doing to Abrego Garcia and the optics of CECOT play well to his base. Jordain Carney and Nicholas Wu of Politico reported today that the White House has “heavily encouraged” Republican lawmakers to lean into the idea of Abrego Garcia—who has no criminal record—as an example of the dangerous criminals they insist Democrats want to bring to the U.S. Yesterday, out of the blue and with absolutely no evidence, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that Abrego Garcia engaged in human trafficking.

At least a dozen Republicans have followed the president’s lead. Congressional reporter Craig Caplan reported that yesterday, House Ways and Means committee chair Jason Smith (R-MO) led a delegation of Republican House members to tour CECOT. The delegation included representatives Ron Estes (KS), Kevin Hern (OK), Mike Kennedy (UT), Carol Miller (WV), Riley Moore (WV), and Claudia Tenney (NY). At least some of the representatives had photographs taken of them in CECOT, standing in front of the caged men.

(NOTE: WHAT A BUNCH OF NAZI PIGS!!!!!)

The delegation also met with U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador William Duncan, who posted on social media that “[t]he delegation is visiting the country to strengthen bilateral ties and discuss initiatives that promote economic development and mutual cooperation.”

Two days ago, Bukele posted a picture of himself and Trump with their arms around each other with the comment: “Friends.” Ron Filipkowski of MeidasNews wrote: “We traded Europe for a guy that builds concentration camps for profit.”

Trump is likely pushing his narrative about criminal undocumented immigrants—although Bloomberg has reported that 90% of the men he has sent to El Salvador have no criminal record—in part because that rendition is stirring up opposition. In addition to popular protests, judges are pushing back.

Today, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued an opinion saying that the administration’s “hurried removal” of the men to El Salvador after Boasberg had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting them from doing so, demonstrated “a wilful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” Boasberg wrote. Quoting Chief Justice John Marshall, who laid down the foundations of much of America law, Boasberg wrote: “To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself.’”

If the government decides not to try to repair its contempt, Boasberg says the court will use declarations, hearings, or depositions to identify the individuals responsible for making the judgment to ignore the court. Then he will ask the government to prosecute the contempt, but if—as is likely—it refuses, Boasberg says he will appoint a private prosecutor to move the case along. As legal analyst Joyce White Vance puts it: “These cases are about making sure that, American citizen or not, criminal or not, peoples’ right to have the day in court that the Constitution guarantees them is honored. That’s all. But it’s everything.”

Trump is also likely playing to his base because Americans are terribly concerned about what’s happening to the economy on his watch.

Stocks fell again today after Trump’s administration said it would put limits on chip sales to China and after Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell told the Economic Club of Chicago that Trump’s tariffs will have “significantly larger than anticipated…economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.” The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 700 points or 1.73%, the S&P 500 fell 2.24%, and the Nasdaq Composite fell 3.07%.

Danielle Kaye of the New York Times reports on a recent Bank of America survey that shows global investors have dumped a record amount of U.S. stocks in the past two months. Trump insists that the U.S. has been bringing in $2 billion a day in tariffs, some of which he claims comes from his new levies, but, in fact, Lori Ann LaRocco of CNBC reported today that U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the U.S. is taking in only $250 million a day.

Leila Fadel of NPR reports that China used to buy more than half the U.S. crop of soybeans and now soybean farmers are gravely concerned they’re going to lose that market. At the same time, we are heading in the prime months for the U.S. tourism industry, and Bloomberg reports that a worst-case scenario by the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimates that the U.S. could lose almost $90 billion as foreign tourists stay away from the U.S. and boycott American products.

So Trump is hitting his MAGA themes hard.

Today he escalated his attacks on Maine governor Janet Mills. Trump has demanded that Mills prohibit transgender girls in the public schools from participating in girls’ sports. Mills, who was Maine’s attorney general before she became governor, maintains she is bound by the 2021 state law that explicitly protects against discrimination on the basis of gender identity. As Jeremy Roebuck and Joanna Slater of the Washington Post note, Mills has said that law is “worthy of debate” but that Trump cannot change it by decree.

On February 21, Trump threatened to withhold federal education funding for Maine unless Mills promised to comply with his ban. When she reiterated that “I’m complying with state and federal laws,” and that “We’re going to follow the law,” he warned: “You’d better comply because otherwise you’re not getting any federal funding.” Mills answered: “See you in court.”

Since then, the administration has attacked the state, opening investigations, cutting and then restoring Social Security Administration contracts, and taunting Mills on social media. On Friday the Department of Education said it would pull all federal funding for education in Maine unless the state agreed to ban the state’s two transgender girls from playing on girls sports teams. Today the Justice Department sued Maine’s Department of Education, and Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened to pull past funding retroactively.

Mills said the administration is trying “to pressure the State of Maine to ignore the Constitution and abandon the rule of law.” “For nearly two months, Maine has endured recriminations from the Federal government that have targeted hungry school kids, hardworking fishermen, senior citizens, new parents, and countless Maine people,” Mills said. “We have been subject to politically motivated investigations that opened and closed without discussion, leaving little doubt that their outcomes were predetermined. Let today serve as warning to all states: Maine might be among the first to draw the ire of the Federal government in this way, but we will not be the last.”

Trump is also keeping his attack on Harvard in the news. Yesterday, after Harvard defied the regime’s attempt to take over the school, Trump posted “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

Today, Evan Perez, Alayna Treene, and Marshall Cohen of CNN reported that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is planning to take away Harvard University’s tax-exempt status. Law professor Sam Brunson noted that this is illegal. “In 1998,” he wrote, “Congress explicitly provided that the President could not, directly or indirectly, request that the IRS start or end an audit or other investigation of a taxpayer.” Brunson also noted that the move was “dumb.” “Unless Trump has super-secret information, Harvard hasn't done anything to violate its tax-exempt status.” Brunson added: “there's not a single competent attorney left in the Administration.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board helpfully noted that the Supreme Court “has repeatedly held that the government may not use federal benefits or funds to coerce parties to surrender their constitutional rights. This is what the Administration is doing” with its demands on Harvard.

Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark reposted a clip of then-senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) on the Fox News Channel when a right-wing group falsely alleged the IRS was targeting them. "This is about whether we have functional constitutional government in this country,” Vance told host Laura Ingraham. “If the IRS can go after you because of what you think or what you believe or what you do, we'd no longer live in a free country.“

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 16, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Apr 17, 2025

In El Salvador today, authorities denied Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) a meeting or a phone call with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man the Trump regime sent by “administrative error” to the terrorist prison CECOT. Abrego Garcia is Van Hollen’s constituent, and the senator promised his family to try to get him released. That Salvadoran officials cannot or will not produce him raises concerns about his well-being.

Senator Van Hollen had hoped to meet with El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, but met instead with Vice President Félix Ulloa. Ulloa at first told Van Hollen there had not been enough time to arrange a meeting with Abrego Garcia, but when the senator offered to come back next week, Ulloa allowed as how a meeting might not be possible at all.

Van Hollen reported that when he asked Ulloa why El Salvador was continuing to imprison Abrego Garcia when it had no evidence that he was a gang member, Ulloa answered that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador to hold him.

Evidently, President Donald Trump thinks what he is doing to Abrego Garcia and the optics of CECOT play well to his base. Jordain Carney and Nicholas Wu of Politico reported today that the White House has “heavily encouraged” Republican lawmakers to lean into the idea of Abrego Garcia—who has no criminal record—as an example of the dangerous criminals they insist Democrats want to bring to the U.S. Yesterday, out of the blue and with absolutely no evidence, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that Abrego Garcia engaged in human trafficking.

At least a dozen Republicans have followed the president’s lead. Congressional reporter Craig Caplan reported that yesterday, House Ways and Means committee chair Jason Smith (R-MO) led a delegation of Republican House members to tour CECOT. The delegation included representatives Ron Estes (KS), Kevin Hern (OK), Mike Kennedy (UT), Carol Miller (WV), Riley Moore (WV), and Claudia Tenney (NY). At least some of the representatives had photographs taken of them in CECOT, standing in front of the caged men.

The delegation also met with U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador William Duncan, who posted on social media that “[t]he delegation is visiting the country to strengthen bilateral ties and discuss initiatives that promote economic development and mutual cooperation.”

Two days ago, Bukele posted a picture of himself and Trump with their arms around each other with the comment: “Friends.” Ron Filipkowski of MeidasNews wrote: “We traded Europe for a guy that builds concentration camps for profit.”

Trump is likely pushing his narrative about criminal undocumented immigrants—although Bloomberg has reported that 90% of the men he has sent to El Salvador have no criminal record—in part because that rendition is stirring up opposition. In addition to popular protests, judges are pushing back.

Today, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued an opinion saying that the administration’s “hurried removal” of the men to El Salvador after Boasberg had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting them from doing so, demonstrated “a wilful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” Boasberg wrote. Quoting Chief Justice John Marshall, who laid down the foundations of much of America law, Boasberg wrote: “To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself.’”

If the government decides not to try to repair its contempt, Boasberg says the court will use declarations, hearings, or depositions to identify the individuals responsible for making the judgment to ignore the court. Then he will ask the government to prosecute the contempt, but if—as is likely—it refuses, Boasberg says he will appoint a private prosecutor to move the case along. As legal analyst Joyce White Vance puts it: “These cases are about making sure that, American citizen or not, criminal or not, peoples’ right to have the day in court that the Constitution guarantees them is honored. That’s all. But it’s everything.”

Trump is also likely playing to his base because Americans are terribly concerned about what’s happening to the economy on his watch.

Stocks fell again today after Trump’s administration said it would put limits on chip sales to China and after Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell told the Economic Club of Chicago that Trump’s tariffs will have “significantly larger than anticipated…economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.” The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 700 points or 1.73%, the S&P 500 fell 2.24%, and the Nasdaq Composite fell 3.07%.

Danielle Kaye of the New York Times reports on a recent Bank of America survey that shows global investors have dumped a record amount of U.S. stocks in the past two months. Trump insists that the U.S. has been bringing in $2 billion a day in tariffs, some of which he claims comes from his new levies, but, in fact, Lori Ann LaRocco of CNBC reported today that U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the U.S. is taking in only $250 million a day.

Leila Fadel of NPR reports that China used to buy more than half the U.S. crop of soybeans and now soybean farmers are gravely concerned they’re going to lose that market. At the same time, we are heading in the prime months for the U.S. tourism industry, and Bloomberg reports that a worst-case scenario by the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimates that the U.S. could lose almost $90 billion as foreign tourists stay away from the U.S. and boycott American products.

So Trump is hitting his MAGA themes hard.

Today he escalated his attacks on Maine governor Janet Mills. Trump has demanded that Mills prohibit transgender girls in the public schools from participating in girls’ sports. Mills, who was Maine’s attorney general before she became governor, maintains she is bound by the 2021 state law that explicitly protects against discrimination on the basis of gender identity. As Jeremy Roebuck and Joanna Slater of the Washington Post note, Mills has said that law is “worthy of debate” but that Trump cannot change it by decree.

On February 21, Trump threatened to withhold federal education funding for Maine unless Mills promised to comply with his ban. When she reiterated that “I’m complying with state and federal laws,” and that “We’re going to follow the law,” he warned: “You’d better comply because otherwise you’re not getting any federal funding.” Mills answered: “See you in court.”

Since then, the administration has attacked the state, opening investigations, cutting and then restoring Social Security Administration contracts, and taunting Mills on social media. On Friday the Department of Education said it would pull all federal funding for education in Maine unless the state agreed to ban the state’s two transgender girls from playing on girls sports teams. Today the Justice Department sued Maine’s Department of Education, and Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened to pull past funding retroactively.

Mills said the administration is trying “to pressure the State of Maine to ignore the Constitution and abandon the rule of law.” “For nearly two months, Maine has endured recriminations from the Federal government that have targeted hungry school kids, hardworking fishermen, senior citizens, new parents, and countless Maine people,” Mills said. “We have been subject to politically motivated investigations that opened and closed without discussion, leaving little doubt that their outcomes were predetermined. Let today serve as warning to all states: Maine might be among the first to draw the ire of the Federal government in this way, but we will not be the last.”

Trump is also keeping his attack on Harvard in the news. Yesterday, after Harvard defied the regime’s attempt to take over the school, Trump posted “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

Today, Evan Perez, Alayna Treene, and Marshall Cohen of CNN reported that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is planning to take away Harvard University’s tax-exempt status. Law professor Sam Brunson noted that this is illegal. “In 1998,” he wrote, “Congress explicitly provided that the President could not, directly or indirectly, request that the IRS start or end an audit or other investigation of a taxpayer.” Brunson also noted that the move was “dumb.” “Unless Trump has super-secret information, Harvard hasn't done anything to violate its tax-exempt status.” Brunson added: “there's not a single competent attorney left in the Administration.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board helpfully noted that the Supreme Court “has repeatedly held that the government may not use federal benefits or funds to coerce parties to surrender their constitutional rights. This is what the Administration is doing” with its demands on Harvard.

Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark reposted a clip of then-senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) on the Fox News Channel when a right-wing group falsely alleged the IRS was targeting them. "This is about whether we have functional constitutional government in this country,” Vance told host Laura Ingraham. “If the IRS can go after you because of what you think or what you believe or what you do, we'd no longer live in a free country.“

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[lboogie1906]

Judge Charles E. Freeman (December 12, 1933 – March 2, 2020) is the first and only African American to serve on the State of Illinois Supreme Court, representing the First Judicial District of Illinois. He was born in Richmond, Virginia. A graduate of Virginia Union University. He served in the Army (1956-58) and was stationed in South Korea. He married Marylee Voelker (1958) and moved to Chicago. They had one son.

He earned a JD from John Marshall Law School. He worked for the Cook County Department of Public Aid. In 1962 he was licensed and admitted to practice law in Illinois. He served as an assistant state’s attorney, an assistant attorney general, and an attorney for the Board of Election Commissioners.

He worked in private legal practice specializing in real estate and divorce law. He worked with Alderman Ralph Metcalfe. He met Harold L. Washington, They formed a law practice partnership. Illinois Governor Otto Kerner appointed him an arbitrator for the Illinois Industrial Commission administering workers’ compensation cases. Governor Dan Walker appointed him a commissioner for the Illinois Commerce Commission.

He was elected to the Cook County Circuit Court and sat in the Chancery and Law Divisions. In February 1983, while serving as a Cook County Circuit Court judge, Harold L. Washington, chose him to administer the oath of mayoral office.

He was elected to the Illinois Appellate Court hearing appeals from verdicts reached at the circuit court. He was elected to the Illinois Supreme Court and he was selected as Chief Justice of the highest court in the state. He wrote the opinion that honored a ruling the Illinois Supreme Court made and overturned the conviction of Rolando Cruz in The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Rolando Cruz, Appellant #70407.

He was ranked senior member of the Illinois Supreme Court. He holds memberships with the American Judges Association, American Judicature Society, DuPage County Bar Association, Illinois Judicial Council, and Illinois Judges Association. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #phibetasigma

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Paul Gowder at The UnPopulist:

In the early days of Donald Trump’s second stint in the White House, presidential norms, congressional statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and even clear constitutional constraints have been summarily brushed aside as mere inconveniences. In keeping with the presidential Caesarism he has thus far exhibited—and many of his supporters have enthusiastically cheered on—it would not be shocking to see Trump attempt to stay in office for a third term. In fact, longtime Trump whisperer Steve Bannon openly floated this idea at CPAC, and Trump himself followed suit more than once. House Republican Committee Chair Kevin Hern tried to dismiss Trump’s comments, claiming, “He understands the Constitution. ... [H]e knows the Democrats are going to go crazy. He loves messing with them, and they’re so easy to get riled up, so there’s no way he thinks he’s going to have a third term.” But Trump made his apologists look like fools when he subsequently expressed to NBC News that he is “not joking” about seeking a third term. It’s time to take this threat seriously. I’ll give you the bad news first: While most of us are aware that the Constitution prohibits a president from serving more than two terms, some legal scholars have argued that there is a loophole that Trump, despite being twice-elected, could exploit. Unlike his plainly unconstitutional attempt to abolish birthright citizenship for everyone except the children of citizens and green card holders, the third-term question has been a live and serious debate within legal circles for years prior to Trump’s ascent. Now for the good news: The best reading of the Constitution really does rule out a third Trump term. In the end, even the sophisticated legal arguments for allowing a third presidential term depend on exploiting loopholes in a document that isn’t written to exhaustively anticipate and exclude them and therefore, as Chief Justice John Marshall warned us, end up undermining the very foundations of our Republic. Ordinarily, this is the point where I would bring in relevant case law, or precedents of various kinds, to help elucidate the constitutional dispute. But since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment—the term-limit amendment enacted after Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the only president to serve more than two terms—the two-term norm has been so firmly observed and accepted that the courts have not had to formally adjudicate it—until now, that is, when a norm-buster like Trump arrived on the scene and made it a live issue for the first time.

What’s the (Alleged) Loophole?

The basic idea is this: the 22nd Amendment contains two prohibitions:

A person may not be elected to the presidency more than twice.

A person who has served more than two years of someone else’s term (e.g., by being vice president when the president dies, resigns, or is removed) may not be elected to the presidency more than once.

Now consider the following three potential events in a politician’s career: (a) get elected vice president; (b) as vice president, take office upon the resignation of the president early in his or her term; (c) get elected as president. On its face, the 22nd Amendment rules out the sequence a-b-c-c. But the Amendment does not (supposedly) rule out the sequence c-c-a-b. It has an apparent ordering: no getting elected twice after you’ve taken over for someone else’s presidency (for 2+ years). It doesn’t say: no taking over for someone else’s presidency after getting elected twice. Thus, the loophole: in 2028, JD Vance (or whoever) successfully runs for president with Donald Trump as vice president. On Jan. 20, 2029, Vance’s first inaugural address is two words: “I resign.” Donald Trump becomes president by the ordinary rules of succession just like if he’d gotten elected to a third term. Checkmate, libs!

You might recall that the 12th Amendment says that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States.” But, as Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf argues, “a person who has twice before been elected president is not ineligible to the office of president; such a person is merely ineligible to be elected to the office of president. And a vice president who takes office as president by operation of Section 1 of the 25th Amendment is not elected president.” While Dorf is no advocate of this scheme, he is right to draw our attention to the worrying textual difference between the word “eligible” in the 12th Amendment and the word “elected” in the 22nd.

[...]

Vice Signalling

The simple fact is that the Constitution’s framers were not at their best when it came to specifying the role of the vice president and with the issue of presidential succession. How can we tell? So far it’s taken three amendments—the 12th, 22nd, and 25th—to clean up the mess. The 12th corrected the ridiculous situation where the president and vice president could be political opponents, and the 25th corrected the ridiculous situation where the president could become temporarily incapacitated without any clear authority for the vice president to step into the role. But there remain obvious drafting errors plaguing the vice presidency. Here’s another instance: Ordinarily the vice president, as president of the Senate, presides over all of the Senate’s business. This includes impeachment trials. The Constitution specifically provides that when the president is tried, the Chief Justice presides. That’s obvious good sense: We don’t want the vice president presiding over the president’s trial since the incentives are all wrong (oddly, in both directions—a loyal vice president would want to protect the boss, while an ambitious one would want to get rid of him or her and take the job). But the Constitution says nothing about who presides over an impeachment trial for a vice president. Are we to suppose that the vice president gets to preside over his or her own trial? Have we found another loophole? Or are we willing to accept the obviously correct conclusion that the Constitution’s drafters did not intend for the sitting vice president to conduct his or her own impeachment trial? In an ideal world, we’d have another constitutional amendment fixing the aforementioned glitches in the specifications for the vice presidency. In our actual world, we don’t need to read it to create a bunch of surprise loopholes in otherwise clear constitutional rules. That includes the term limits on the presidency. If you’re still tempted to accept the loophole after this argument, then please forward this article to Barack Obama and let him know that I’ll be happy to have him as my running mate in 2028.

Trump can try for his third term all he wants, but he cannot legally be President for a 3rd term.

See Also:

Public Notice: Trump’s third term threats are not a distraction