Santa Claus isn’t the only one who is keeping a list of “who is naughty and who is nice.” Charlie Sykes recently brought some limited order out of the chaos of Trump’s first months–a real service, since most of us have been beaten down by the daily firehose of assaults on decency, the Constitution and the rule of law–the tactic Steve Bannon has called “flooding the zone with shit.”
Sykes assembled his list in order to criticize Chuck Schumer, who has finally graduated from sending “stern letters” and moved to block Trump appointees. Sykes asks “What took you so long? Why didn’t you act when”…and then he provides his list of Trumpian assaults that should have prompted active blowback when they occurred.
Granted, Sykes’ list isn’t comprehensive, so intensely has the zone been flooded, but here are the acts that he says should have triggered action from Schumer when they occurred:
blanket pardons for Jan. 6 rioters, including those who assaulted police officers.
his purge of the FBI, targeting agents who had investigated his own misconduct.
suspending enforcement of the foreign bribery ban.
calling for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against him.
firing the head of the Office of Special Counsel who protects whistleblowers.
firing the head of the Office of Government Ethics.
firing the prosecutors who worked on Capitol riot investigations.
slashing the office that prosecutes misconduct by public officials.
dropping charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams in return for Adams agreement to work with ICE — a move that led to the resignation of the acting SDNY U.S. attorney and several other federal prosecutors.
Trump’s refusal to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. — stating that he could, but wasn’t going to.
Trump’s suggestion to the president of El Salvador that he would send “homegrown” criminals — American citizens — to his notorious prison.
Trump’s executive orders targeting individuals who had criticized him — including Chris Krebs, who had challenged his 2020 election lies.
stripping the security clearances of law firms who had challenged him.
Trump’s threats to strip licenses from media critics.
allowing Elon Musk’s team to access sensitive and protected taxpayer information.
when his top aides were caught chatting about military action on Signal.
firing six National Security Council officials on advice from far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer.
refusing to rule out the use of military force to seize Greenland.
Trump’s purge of top generals, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
sending masked agents to seize people on the streets.
arresting international students for little more than for writing op-eds.
when White House aide Stephen Miller said that administration was considering suspending habeas corpus.
Sykes list–which I would emphasize is far from comprehensive–was generated as Americans learned of Qatar’s offer of a “gift”–a plane described as a “palace in the sky.” The offer was, as Sykes says, “a very visible symbol of Trump’s susceptibility to corruption.” But–as he also reminds us– we have seen countless other examples.
Sen. Chris Murphy, for example, has been banging the drum about Trump’s potential $TRUMP crypto conflict of interest for months. “My hair has been on fire about the meme coin from day one,” Murphy told The Washington Post. “That is a level of corruption that is just absolutely stunning. It was already the most corrupt thing a president has ever done in the history of the United States.”
What didn’t make Syke’s list is the Trump administration’s effort to neuter the other two branches of government.
Under the Constitution, Congress and the courts are “co-equal” with the Executive branch, but Trump and MAGA have bullied the Republicans in Congress into submission. (Given that the GOP is currently in the majority, Democrats have been left with limited options for resistance–a good reason to put those options to maximum use.)
Unlike Congress, the courts–at least, the lower federal courts–have fulfilled their Constitutional role. They have ruled for the plaintiffs in virtually every case challenging Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional actions–but while Trump has given lip service to obeying those rulings, he continues to ignore a number of them. At the same time, he has increased his threats against judges who dare to rule against him, and MAGA thugs (Trump’s “brownshirts”) have taken to issuing threats against the judiciary and their families.
We the People need to leave a large civic lump of coal in the Trump stocking. Sooner rather than later.
Well well well…I think the veil has just come off the Indiana GOP’s pious concern for (certain) religious beliefs.
Indiana media outlets have reported on a Church “Bill of Rights” recently authored by two of the state’s most embarrassing Christian Nationalist officials, Todd Rokita and Micah Beckwith. Interestingly, that document mostly focused on the churches’ “rights” to engage in specified political advocacy: How churches can participate in the electoral process; what election-related activities a church can engage in without risking the loss of its tax-exempt status; whether the First Amendment offers any protection to churches when they engage in election-related activities; and whether religious objections to vaccines are protected in the workplace. In other words, the document outlines how much protection the law offers churches that want to engage in far-Right political advocacy.
But what about legal protections for religions pursuing more progressive values? Well, as the saying goes, that is a horse of a different color….
For those churches, “Christian” Warrior Todd Rokita has a very different message. The media has recently reported on Rokita’s “investigation” of Notre Dame, an effort to determine whether that institution might be–horrors of horrors–engaging in the DEI practices forbidden by the Trump administration.
DEI–like “woke”–is a term adopted as an all-purpose (and highly pejorative) epithet describing people who believe that their God and/or their understanding of moral behavior requires efforts to ameliorate past injustices, to foster equal treatment, and to welcome all persons to full participation in the civic enterprise.
Rokita has informed the Catholic university that
Publicly available materials suggest that various aspects of Notre Dame’s operations may be governed by University policies that treat individuals—including students, prospective students, faculty, staff, and job applicants…differently based on the individuals’ race or ethnicity… employ race in a negative manner… or utilize racial stereotyping.”
The letter directly threatens Notre Dame’s non-profit status.
Failure to correct such policies and bring them into compliance with state and federal law could result in legal action by my office pursuant to Indiana Code § 23-17-24. I ask that the University respond to the questions contained herein to assist my office in evaluating whether further action is warranted to ensure Notre Dame is acting consistent with the terms of its nonprofit status.
You might wonder what happened to Rokita and Beckwith’s purported concerns for the ability of religious organizations to follow their beliefs without legal concerns or government harassment. (That’s a sarcastic question, because the answer is obvious.)
It seems that our Christian Nationalist officials are only concerned to protect certain religions.
This contempt for citizens who follow non-fundamentalist and non-Christian religions is hardly new to Indiana. When the state passed its ban on abortion (following a Dobbs decision that ignored precedent while reflecting Justice Alito’s Rightwing Christianity), our “pious” legislators ignored testimony that other religions disagreed with Christian fundamentalists about such terminations. Jewish and liberal Protestant clergy objected to the ban on religious liberty grounds, noting that the obvious basis of the legislation was religious dogma from some–but certainly not all– religious traditions, and that the application of the ban to people of other religions (or none) was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Silly folks! In Indiana, our elected “faith warriors” protect only the “real” religions–those that support their theocratic political ambitions.
The juxtaposition of these two announcements–the issuance of the “Church Bill of Rights” and the investigation of Notre Dame–perfectly illustrates the Christian Right agenda: If your religion teaches you that God wants Republicans in office, that He (in these churches, God is most definitely a White male) wants women and minority folks to be submissive and subservient–why then, the laws of the land will be interpreted to protect you.
If, however, your religion happens to teach that all people–even women and those with dark skin (Beckwith’s three-fifths)– are entitled to human dignity, and that all persons should be welcomed and treated as equals in our various communities, such beliefs are not entitled to legal protection.
And if you happen to fall within the growing number of “nones”–if you depend upon a considered philosophy or moral framework to guide your interactions with your fellow humans, rather than adopting the dogma of a particular organized religion–our elected theocrats will simply ignore your right to intellectual autonomy, a right protected by the real Bill of Rights.
Have I mentioned how obvious and embarrassing these people are?
When George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court, I watched the confirmation hearings on television. I saw a brilliant, thoughtful jurist. His purported “evolution” on the high court bench didn’t surprise me; his jurisprudence remained grounded in precedent and reverence for what I call the American Idea.
A few years after he retired from the Court, I was fortunate enough to attend a small conference on civic literacy at Harvard Law School, convened by then-Dean Martha Minow. Both Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor participated, and I was especially impressed by Souter’s remarks. I asked him if he would allow a copy to be published in the Journal of Civic Literacy –a publication of the Center I’d established at IUPUI (now IU-Indy). He graciously agreed. That was in 2013, and his observations have become even more pertinent.
Here they are.
____________________________________
Dean Minow: Nearly three years ago, Justice Souter gave a truly extraordinary commencement address here at Harvard, upon receiving an honorary degree. In his exploration of the tensions among the values embodied in the United States Constitution, he offered deep insights into important decision making by the Supreme Court and equally conveyed the hard work that is necessary to advance the values of democracy and freedom, individual rights, and democratic participation. We are so touched and honored by your participation here today, which I know reflects your admiration and affection for your colleague, Justice O’Connor, and also your deep abiding commitment to this subject [civics]. Why does it matter to you so much?
Justice Souter: I’ve come by stages, I guess, to the answer. I’ll take you through the stages. By the way, I should issue two disclaimers to begin with. The first is, we are talking about civics and I’m going to talk in terms of civics. But, you cannot have civics without history. So, I might just as well be making the argument for history. The second disclaimer is, I don’t mean to take positions in the pedagogy controversy. I don’t know how to teach, I don’t know where the proper midpoint is between interactive learning and book learning and participatory exercises and so on. I’m not taking a position there. Maybe with one exception, and that is, if you’re going to test in math and reading you better test in civics or it’s going to be a poor child of the curriculum.
On the question why I think it matters, as I’ve said, I’ve come to my feelings by stages and the first stage was set by Justice O’Connor at a series of conferences she and Justice Breyer sponsored in Washington, provoked by the concern for the independence of the courts. The judiciary at the time was under a lot of attack and almost from the beginning the thing we learned there was the degree of civic illiteracy. We learned the statistic, which I believe is still true today, that there are only about a third of the people in the United States who can name the three branches of government. And the lesson that everyone learned was that without some knowledge of the structure, without, frankly, some constitutional knowledge, the value of an independent judiciary is a value that makes no sense. Independent from whom? From what? Well, we know the answer. The rest of the government, etcetera.
But, the first point of focus that came to me was that without a bedrock grounding in a lot of fundamentals that my own generation did learn as kids, constitutional values will frequently make no sense because there is no context for them.
The second stage of thinking why this subject of civics matters has come as a result of the recent calls for constitutional amendment and constitutional change, which we have been getting from all corners. There have been calls for an amendment in response to Roe v. Wade, calls for an amendment in response to the Citizens United campaign contribution limitation decision, calls for change in response to the possibility of a disparity between the Electoral College vote and the popular vote, and so on. It’s pretty obvious that someone who has no idea of what we have in the Constitution to start with is in no position to make any kind of critical judgment about what we might change, whether we ought to change it, and if so what change we ought or ought not to make. Ignorance is no foundation for constitutional thinking but, like it or not, we are being asked as a country to engage in constitutional thinking. None of it may in fact lead to a formally proposed amendment, let alone a convention, but who knows. So, I guess the second point in my feeling was about what is at stake: simply the need for a foundation for critical judgment on the part of citizens.
But finally, I’ve come, to a third, umbrella position, which certainly subsumes the two stages that I’ve already mentioned. And I will warn you right now that my ultimate line is like the remarks of several other people here this morning. Let me make my point this way. The American constitutional system is in effect a constant exercise in balancing, and perhaps a precarious balancing, between two very fundamental tendencies in American society and American political organization: the tendency to fragment into pursuit of individual interests and the tendency to pull together.
I could spend a long time this morning, which I won’t, simply cataloging what seems to me the growing force of the former sort, the centrifugal tendencies that pull us apart. Just think about these.To begin with, the very nature of the United States as it has developed is a conglomeration of fragmenting tendencies. We do not have a national religion. We do not have a homogenized national private culture, as distinct from political culture. We are in fact an amalgamation. We are a patchwork. We are a nation of immigrants, and people remember where they came from, whether they look back one generation or fourteen. There is a disuniting tendency built into the very nature of the United States, and it’s not going to go away. And I don’t suppose there’s anyone who wants it to go away entirely. I don’t.
Number two, there is great force in a philosophical tenant that we like to think of as ours. It’s not a coincidence that Ralph Waldo Emerson was an American. Consider the notion of Emersonian individualism, Emersonian self-reliance. They feed a kind of admirably atomistic tendency that I suppose can be called a widely shared character, a powerful element of our scrambled culture.
Number three, we are living at a time when the class divide in the United States is growing larger and the possibility of bridging that class divide is in fact shrinking. We are at a point now where the spread of wealth disparity is greater than it has been for over a century. And it is now a very unfortunate fact of life in the United States that social mobility is greater in a number of European countries than it is in this one. Parents in the United States cannot assume that their children have a real opportunity to be better off than they were.
Number four, there is an increasingly apparent divisiveness inherent in current developments in the news media. You can cherry-pick the news you want on the device that you hold in your hand. A substantial portion of the country is not even exposed to the breadth of traditional newspapers.
And, finally, I’ll stop by simply echoing what others have said about the growing tendency toward cynicism about the processes of government for which there is a very good foundation. Too many people are realistically looking upon government as basically a clash between a public interest and more powerful interests, exerting power through lobbies financed by huge amounts of money, with the names of the people behind them being to a great extent undisclosed. These are conditions, historical and contemporary, that drive us apart and tend to disunite us. What have we got pulling on the other side? By and large, what we have pulling on the other side is an adherence to an American Constitutional system. The American Constitution is not simply a blueprint for structure, though it is that. It is not merely a Bill of Rights, though it is that, too. It is in essence, a value system, a value system that identifies the legitimate objects of power, the importance of distributing power, and the need to limit power by a shared and enforceable conception of human worth.
That value system is the counterpoise to the divisive tendencies that are so strong today, and civic ignorance is its enemy. It is beyond me how anyone can assume that our system of constitutional values is going to survive in the current divisive atmosphere while being unknown to the majority of the people of the United States. So, what is driving me right now is simply the indispensability of our increasingly unrecognized and ignored constitutional value system. Without it, there is no chance of overcoming, of surviving the polarization that everyone decries. It is only in the common acceptance of that value system that at the end of the day, no matter what we are fighting about, no matter what the vote is in Congress or the State House or the town meeting, we will still understand that something holds us together.
Ultimately, what is driving me in working for the renewal of civic education is the need to share the threatened aspirations that should mark us as people who belong together as a nation.
In governance, there are two basic questions: What and How. Our current political polarization is between the MAGA/Project 2025 ideologues who are focused on the “what,” and those of us who are intent upon protecting a Constitutional order prescribing “how.”
If there is one clear distinction between western constitutional systems, including ours, and the various dictatorships and theocracies around the globe, it is the formers’ emphasis on process. Indeed, we might justifiably characterize our Bill of Rights as a restatement of your mother’s admonition that how you do something is just as important as what you choose to do. Sometimes, more so.
The ends do not justify the means is an absolutely fundamental American precept.
This emphasis on process–the means– is widely acknowledged by political scientists. Whatever their other debates, there is a shared recognition that the American approach to legitimate governance is procedural. We are a nation of laws that are meant to govern how we go about ordering our common lives.
Some twenty-plus years ago, Rick Perlstein made a point about the political parties that has only gotten more apt.
We Americans love to cite the “political spectrum” as the best way to classify ideologies. The metaphor is incorrect: it implies symmetry. But left and right today are not opposites. They are different species. It has to do with core principles. To put it abstractly, the right always has in mind a prescriptive vision of its ideal future world—a normative vision. Unlike the left (at least since Karl Marx neglected to include an actual description of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” within the 2,500 pages of Das Kapital), conservatives have always known what the world would look like after their revolution: hearth, home, church, a businessman’s republic. The dominant strain of the American left, on the other hand, certainly since the decline of the socialist left, fetishizes fairness, openness, and diversity. (Liberals have no problem with home, hearth, and church in themselves; they just see them as one viable life-style option among many.) If the stakes for liberals are fair procedures, the stakes for conservatives are last things: either humanity trends toward Grace, or it hurtles toward Armageddon…
For liberals, generally speaking, honoring procedures—the means—is at the very core of being “principled,” of acting with legitimacy. For conservatives, fighting for the desired outcomes—the ends—and, if necessary, at the expense of procedural niceties, is the definition of “principled.”
In a constitutional democracy, the franchise is first among the means. Democrats generally understand our system to be one in which citizens demonstrate their preference for “ends”–for policies–at the ballot box; accordingly, they believe that the more extensive the turnout, the more legitimate the ensuing legislative mandate.
Republicans–focused on ends–disagree. As the late New Right founding father Paul Weyrich once put it, “I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
Over the years, that difference between ends and means has become institutionalized within the two political parties. In states with Republican Attorneys general or Secretaries of State, like Indiana, those officials work to squeeze as many minority voters from the rolls as possible. Republican state legislatures gerrymander to the greatest extent possible, disenfranchising thousands of urban and liberal voters. (And yes, Democrats gerrymander too, but demonstrably much less.)
These moves strike Americans who were raised with the admonition that “it isn’t whether you win or lose, but how you play the game” as “dirty pool.” But they make all kinds of sense to people who believe they are trying to save civilization from hurtling toward an Armageddon where “those people” will replace the good White Christian men that God wants in charge.
Those True Believers represent a very significant element of the MAGA base. They don’t necessarily include the party overlords, but those pooh-bas recognize that their hold on power depends upon playing to the base’s beliefs. Today’s Republican officeholders agree with Machiavelli, who said “We ought to see clearly that the end does justify the means…If the method I am using to accomplishes the goal I am aiming at, it is for that reason a good method.”
The Trump administration–with its attacks on due process, habeas corpus and the rule of law itself– is making the difference impossible to ignore.
During the past couple of weeks, the subject of a Constitutional Convention has been raised twice: once during a question-and-answer session following a speech, and once via an email from a good friend. So it would seem reasonable to revisit the subject, and explain why I find that prospect–as proposed currently– horrifying.
Would it be possible to improve upon our centuries-old charter? Sure. We now see flaws that have emerged over the years, (If nothing else, there’s the Electoral College–a system used by no other country, for reasons that have become increasingly apparent…). If the idea of a reasonable review seems innocuous, however, we can be disabused of that conclusion simply by looking at the people pushing for a redo. The most prominent are ALEC (the far-Right American Legislative Exchange Council) and the Heritage Foundation. (Yes, the same Heritage Foundation that produced Project 2025.)
The goals of these and the other ideologues advocating such a convention are entirely inconsistent with the values of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Back in 2017, members of Indiana’s legislature were calling for such a convention, and I explained my opposition. As I wrote then, proponents clamoring for shortcuts to major change—revolution, a new constitution—always assume that the changes that ultimately emerge will reflect their own preferences and worldviews. History suggests that’s a naive assumption.
Indiana’s proponents wanted the state to join the calls for a Constitutional Convention. They claimed that a convention could be limited to budgetary matters–to devising “a framework for reigning in overspending, overtaxing and over-regulating by the federal government and moving toward a less centralized federal government.”
Constitutional scholars disagree with the assertion that such a convention could be limited to specified goals, but even if it could be, the specified matters would open a Pandora’s box. Think about it.
Wall Street bankers could argue that financial laws are “over-regulation.” One definition of “overspending” might be the massive subsidies enjoyed by (very profitable) U.S. oil companies; others might be Medicare or farm subsidies. Many Americans think we spend too much on the military; others target foreign aid. “Less centralization” could justify virtually any limitation of federal government authority, from FDA regulation of food and drug quality to laws against discrimination.
But the risk isn’t simply that a convention could rather easily be hijacked by people who disagree with the conveners about the nature and extent of needed changes. It isn’t even the likely influence of well-heeled special interests. The real danger is in calling together a presumably representative group of Americans and asking them to amend a document that few of them understand.
At the Center for Civic Literacy I founded at IUPUI (now IU Indy), we focused on the causes and consequences of what we’ve come to call America’s civic deficit. The data we accumulated was depressing. The last time I looked at survey results, only 36 percent of Americans could name the three branches of government, and only 21% of high school seniors could list two privileges that United States citizens have that noncitizens don’t. Etc. Even bright graduate students came into my classes with little or no knowledge of American history, episodic or intellectual. Most had never heard of the Enlightenment or John Locke. They certainly hadn’t read Adam Smith. A truly depressing percentage of undergraduates couldn’t explain what a government is, and they had no idea how ours operates. Separation of powers? Checks and balances? The counter-majoritarian purpose of the Bill of Rights? Blank stares.
Given the Trump administration’s current attacks on the Constitution and media attention to those attacks, those percentages have undoubtedly improved, but civic ignorance is still obviously widespread. Do we really want to turn over the task of rewriting our Constitution to people who don’t understand the one we have?
Common Cause has looked at the unanswered questions implicit in these calls for a convention–questions that lay bare the dangers involved: How will delegates be chosen? Will there be any limits placed on the role of well-funded special interests in influencing the selection of delegates? How will votes be allocated amongst delegates? One person one vote? One vote per state? Something else? What kinds of changes would the convention consider? Will the Convention start with the U.S. Constitution or write an entirely new document?
The civically-ignorant and clinically-insane megalomaniac who occupies the Oval Office is currently being restrained only by the existing U.S. Constitution, which he has clearly neither read nor understood. The likely result of a constitutional convention would be to empower him.
