The Republican Titanic is finally taking on water after colliding with the Trump iceberg. The GOP "spectacle" in Dallas is the equivalent of the Titanic band playing as the ship is going down. If it was so damned infuriating to listen to that stupid pathetic orange fool it would be fun to watch the disaster while eating popcorn. Hopefully this sinking ship takes down so many GOP candidates that it makes the Titanic losses seem small. Here in central Pennsylvania, it is nearly impossible to find anything referring to Trump so thankfully it seems that the liar is finally having the chickens come home to roost.
Such a loss to The Smithsonian and the entire country. We can only hope that a future administration can erase the assault on the truth of our history the Trump regime perpetrated on the Smithsonian's stellar representations of our country.
The Missouri case is an excellent case to use to enlighten Americans about how constitutions actual work--and to educate Americans about how purported public servants abuse their offices to commit crimes.
Missouri Secretary of State Hoskins and federal Judge Clark clearly conspired with others to commit crimes. "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person" to "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the [U.S.] Constitution" commits the federal offense in 18 U.S.C. Section 242 ("Deprivation of rights under color of law"). Clark lied and he knowingly violated the U.S. Constitution when he asserted "there can be little harm" to Missouri voters of Clark's violating the First and Fifth Amendments and helping Hoskins violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Missouri Supreme Court decision established that Hoskins (irrefutably) had violated the Fourteenth Amendment. "No State" employee or entity has any power to "deprive any person of" any "liberty" or "property" before affording such person all "process of law" that was "due" or "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Hoskins and Judge Clark knew that the Missouri Supreme Court already had confirmed that Hoskins had done both.
Judge Clark knew that Hoskins' own conduct (pretending that HB1 was the law while he prevented Missouri voters from voting in the referendum on HB1) ensured that Missouri voters (to use Judge Clark's own language) were "outright divest[ed of] the right to vote—'the essence of a democratic society' and 'the heart of representative government'—without justification. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964)." "Missouri must honor the equal right to vote of all its eligible voters" to vote in the referendum on HB1 that Hoskins deliberately obstructed. "Disenfranchising voters across the state and denying them their constitutional right to have their [ ] votes counted" in a referendum "significantly harm the public interest."
Article IV of the U.S. Constitution established the duty of Judge Clark to "guarantee to" Missouri "a Republican Form of Government." Instead, Judge Clark abused his position to lie and deceive to "deprive" Missouri citizens of the "liberty" to vote on the referendum before we have been afforded all "process of law" that is "due," as required by the Fifth Amendment. Judge Clark has blatantly conspired with Hoskin to deprive and defraud Missouri citizens of the "freedom of speech" that the First and Fourteenth Amendments secure to us so that we can have our say about what Hoskins is doing.
In this instance (and in many instances) all judges should be perfectly clear about how the Missouri Constitution actually was made. They should be clear that it's not merely "the Missouri Supreme Court" or even "the Missouri Constitution" that required the referendum. They and we should be clear that it was the PEOPLE of Missouri BY their Constitution who expressly RESERVED the right and the power to vote in a referendum:
"Section 49. Reservation of power to enact and reject laws.—The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided."
To understand the significance of the people reserving this power to themselves, the judges and we must start with the first words of the Missouri Constitution: "We, the people of Missouri" did "establish this Constitution." Those words have profound legal meaning (which is the same as analogous words and analogous placement in the U.S. Constitution).
SCOTUS repeatedly has explained and emphasized the significance of such words and their placement (at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution), starting in at least 1793 with Justice James Wilson's opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia. This very issue was discussed in considerable detail in a decision that SCOTUS highlighted in Moore v. Harper: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015).
In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n in 2015, SCOTUS highlighted a crucial truth and a crucial source. They emphasized the self-evident truth that “the animating principle of our Constitution” is “that the people themselves are the originating source of all the powers of government.” “The people’s ultimate sovereignty had been expressed by John Locke in 1690.” “Our Declaration of Independence, ¶2, drew from Locke.” They also quoted Locke for a crucial truth: any “Legislative” body (i.e., any state or federal legislature) that represents the sovereign people has “only a Fiduciary Power to act for certain ends,” and “there remains still in the People a Supream Power to remove or alter the Legislative, when they find the Legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.”
The people of Missouri, themselves, highlighted the same principles in their Constitution. The first provision of Article I (the Bill of Rights) emphasized "That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole." Section 3 emphasized "That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States."
Justice Wilson in Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793 emphasized the same principles by using the text of the U.S. Constitution. Incidentally, Justice Wilson was the only person to have signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and then served as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Wilson is the Founder and Framer who is most responsible for the fact that our Constitution begins with its first words “We the People” (just like the Missouri Constitution). Wilson explained the profound significance implicit in what many dismissively call the mere “Preamble” to our Constitution. The Preamble is, in fact, the most important and most profound part of our Constitution. It is first for a reason that is simple and sublime.
Justice Wilson in 1793 in Chisholm v. Georgia emphasized that the first and foremost separation of powers in our Constitution is between the sovereign people and our public servants: “The PEOPLE of the United States” are “the first personages introduced” by our Constitution. “To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown,” but there is “one place where it could have been used with propriety.” Only the People “who ordained and established that Constitution” could “have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States.”
The first words of our Constitution introduce American sovereigns and emphasize that “We the People” did “ordain and establish” our “Constitution” and our “Union” to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves.” Those were our first words as Americans. They were our first words as one people. They were our first words as one nation.
After considering the significance of the first words of the U.S. and Missouri Constitution, judges and we must consider the significance of the word "reserved" used above in the Missouri Constitution. The U.S. Constitution also used that word in a way that is dispositive here.
The truth about election law is that the power to make such law was not (as SCOTUS misrepresented in Moore v. Harper) merely "assigned" to states. The Tenth Amendment emphasizes that such "powers" can be and were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Tenth Amendment also clarifies that the only "powers" that were assigned to anyone "by the [U.S.] Constitution" were the "powers" that were "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." In Moore v. Harper, the end of the SCOTUS opinion correctly emphasized that powers were "reserved to state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution."
Another aspect of the U.S. Constitution is relevant here. When the people of the U.S. or of a state create a constitution, they obviously and irrefutably act as the supreme legislative body. This fact was made perfectly clear by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: We the People made "the supreme Law of the Land," which in 1788 and well into 1789 consisted exclusively of the U.S. Constitution. The people of Missouri also acted as the supreme legislative body for Missouri when they created the Missouri Constitution. When they acted as the supreme legislative body for Missouri, the people reserved to themselves the power to again act as the supreme legislative body for Missouri by "reserv[ing] power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided."
Additional opinions of SCOTUS justices in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) are very well worth considering regarding these issues. Justices Kennedy, O’Connor, Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist were in the majority. They emphasized that “the Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people.” They emphasized that our Constitution begins by expressly emphasizing that “the people” did “ordain and establish the Constitution.”
Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer issued a dissenting opinion that was far more powerful and explicit about the power of the sovereign people. They emphasized the opinions of three Framers, including two justices “in Chisholm v. Georgia” in 1793 “a bare two years” after “the Bill of Rights,” including “the Tenth Amendment,” was “added to the original Constitution.”
“In representing Chisholm, Edmund Randolph,” who was not only a “Framer” but also later “Attorney General,” emphasized that “the present Constitution produced a new order of things. It derives its origin immediately from the people.”
“Chief Justice Jay” (John Jay, who helped write The Federalist Papers and create the New York Constitution) wrote in Chisholm “at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects” in that they “have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”
Most of all, the Alden dissenters emphasized “Justice Wilson’s position in Chisholm,” i.e., that “the people” clearly “are sovereign” under our Constitution. They quoted Justice Wilson in Chisholm:
To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is [only] one place where it could have been used with propriety [i.e., in the Preamble]. . . . [Only] those, who ordained and established the Constitution [could] have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.
Although not included in the Alden dissent, Justice Wilson in Chisholm also emphasized the separation of powers between the sovereign people and all public servants by emphasizing our Constitution’s structure and the power of such structure. “The PEOPLE of the United States” are “the first personages introduced” by (what we call) the Preamble. Even the structure of Articles I, II and III emphasize the sovereignty of the people. Our Constitution introduces, first, the People, second, our directly-elected representatives in Congress, third, our indirectly-elected representative, the president, and, last, the unelected judges of SCOTUS and lower courts.
The Alden dissenters further emphasized that Justice Wilson had written previously “that the sovereignty resides in the people; they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed” (to their public servants in federal government) only “such portions of [their own] power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare.” That is exactly the plain meaning of the plain text of the Preamble, Article I and the Tenth Amendment.
As the Missouri Supreme Court highlighted in its opinion, SCOTUS addressed these issues as recently as 2023 in Moore v. Harper (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/21-1271/), specifically regarding referendums. Each state "legislature acts both as a lawmaking body created and bound by its state constitution, and as the entity assigned particular authority by the Federal Constitution. Both constitutions restrain the legislature’s exercise of power."
Even "when state legislatures act pursuant to their [U.S. Constitution] Elections Clause authority, they engage in lawmaking subject to the typical constraints on the exercise of such power." "A state legislature may not 'create congressional districts independently of' requirements imposed 'by the state constitution with respect to the enactment of laws.' ” Nothing can "endow the legislature of the State with power to enact laws in any manner other than that in which the constitution of the State has provided that laws shall be enacted.”
"A state legislature’s 'exercise of . . . authority' under the [U.S. Constitution's] Elections Clause [ ] 'must be in accordance with the method which the State has prescribed for legislative enactments.' ” "[A]lthough the [U.S. Constitution's] Elections Clause expressly refers to the 'Legislature,' it does not preclude a State from vesting congressional redistricting authority in a body other than the elected group of officials who ordinarily exercise lawmaking power." States necessarily “retain autonomy to establish their own governmental processes.” SCOTUS repeatedly "recognized that whatever authority was responsible for redistricting, that entity remained subject to constraints set forth in the State Constitution." “Nothing in [the federal Elections] Clause instructs, nor has [SCOTUS] ever held, that a state legislature may prescribe regulations on the time, place, and manner of holding federal elections in defiance of provisions of the State’s constitution.”
The bottom line is that whenever or however "legislatures make laws, they are bound by the provisions of the very documents that give them life. Legislatures, [clearly and necessarily] 'are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators.” To be more accurate, state and federal constitutions are the creatures of the People (of the state or of the U.S., as applicable) who, themselves, acted as the supreme legislative body to create each such constitution.
A friend of ours (several years ago) who preserves English monuments (tower of London etc. and yes it is haunted !) and museums wanted to see how the African American museum was set up because England was going to have one also. He was extremely impressed with the building and how it was done. Lonnie Bunch was really a great visionary.
"Meanwhile, Republican candidates are trying to hide from him (e.g., California Rep. Young Kim, Politico reported, is scrambling to delete Trump references “from her campaign as she tries to woo moderate voters.”) Good luck with that!"
Meanwhile, establishment Democrats are trying to separate themselves from the DSA candidates, especially those who think that the US got what it deserved on 9/11.
So what we're seeing is the nationalization of the midterms. Dems want to make this all about Trump, who is all-too-eager to oblige. The Repubs should counter that the Dems are the party for those who support anti-American views. It's probably not a coincidence that on the week of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the Repubs are holding their mini-convention.
Well, Hal, I had already concluded based on your previous posts that you might be an anti-Democrat plant. Now I *know* you are. First of all, only a plant would make a sweeping statement that all "establishment Democrats are trying to separate themselves from the DSA candidates." Do you mean Progressives? They aren't the same thing. The DSA is basically just a platform put together by young university types who had some good ideas as well as some flakier ones -- mostly just not the experience to know how to market their ideas outside their bubble. The ideas actually aren't much different from the New Deal Democrats of the mid-20th century -- and plenty of "established" Democrats know it and have said as much. It's the Republicans and corporate-owned media that keep pushing this civil war propaganda. Secondly, no one is pushing "anti-American views" except Trump and the Republicans -- and plenty of Americans understand that now.
Well, Nona, I conclude that you actually have no clue as to who or what I am, but you're not the first. Some have suggested I am an "AI bot", and they are wrong as well. But you're the first to label me as an " anti-Democrat plant".
"First of all, only a plant would make a sweeping statement..."
Perhaps you should read other posters' (as well as Jen Rubin's) "sweeping statements" before you judge me. I have on numerous occasions criticized both Trump and the Republicans in this very forum. There might be a couple of others who have ever bothered to push back on whatever narrative Jen or the Contrarian staff come up with for that day's discussion, but they are few and far between. That means I'm not in an ideological bubble, regardless of what your "conclusion" of me is.
"The DSA is basically just a platform put together by young university types who had some good ideas as well as some flakier ones..."
That may be your view, but I see the DSA as a parasite, an organization in its own right, gaining ballot access via the Democratic Party and utilizing the party's resources. The establishment, when pressed in public, pretty much spout the "we're a big tent" response, but they see what's going on.
"Secondly, no one is pushing "anti-American views" except Trump and the Republicans..."
The Republican Titanic is finally taking on water after colliding with the Trump iceberg. The GOP "spectacle" in Dallas is the equivalent of the Titanic band playing as the ship is going down. If it was so damned infuriating to listen to that stupid pathetic orange fool it would be fun to watch the disaster while eating popcorn. Hopefully this sinking ship takes down so many GOP candidates that it makes the Titanic losses seem small. Here in central Pennsylvania, it is nearly impossible to find anything referring to Trump so thankfully it seems that the liar is finally having the chickens come home to roost.
Great to hear! Now do Fetterman :)
He will be next, but first we have to rid the state of several MAGA representatives.
According to his whereabouts today, he IS a maga representative!
he is a silly man, but we must remember he had a really bad stroke and his behaviour is a result
If the stroke affected his behavior that much, he really should resign for the good of his state.
true, but trump should resign for the good of the country, mitch should resign for the good of Kentucky, etc.
Trump is under water even in Alabama.
And I'll bet it hasn't rained in a while!
Such a loss to The Smithsonian and the entire country. We can only hope that a future administration can erase the assault on the truth of our history the Trump regime perpetrated on the Smithsonian's stellar representations of our country.
Remember the big flop in Dallas is the Trump-s-a-loser!
The Missouri case is an excellent case to use to enlighten Americans about how constitutions actual work--and to educate Americans about how purported public servants abuse their offices to commit crimes.
Missouri Secretary of State Hoskins and federal Judge Clark clearly conspired with others to commit crimes. "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person" to "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the [U.S.] Constitution" commits the federal offense in 18 U.S.C. Section 242 ("Deprivation of rights under color of law"). Clark lied and he knowingly violated the U.S. Constitution when he asserted "there can be little harm" to Missouri voters of Clark's violating the First and Fifth Amendments and helping Hoskins violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Missouri Supreme Court decision established that Hoskins (irrefutably) had violated the Fourteenth Amendment. "No State" employee or entity has any power to "deprive any person of" any "liberty" or "property" before affording such person all "process of law" that was "due" or "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Hoskins and Judge Clark knew that the Missouri Supreme Court already had confirmed that Hoskins had done both.
Judge Clark knew that Hoskins' own conduct (pretending that HB1 was the law while he prevented Missouri voters from voting in the referendum on HB1) ensured that Missouri voters (to use Judge Clark's own language) were "outright divest[ed of] the right to vote—'the essence of a democratic society' and 'the heart of representative government'—without justification. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964)." "Missouri must honor the equal right to vote of all its eligible voters" to vote in the referendum on HB1 that Hoskins deliberately obstructed. "Disenfranchising voters across the state and denying them their constitutional right to have their [ ] votes counted" in a referendum "significantly harm the public interest."
Article IV of the U.S. Constitution established the duty of Judge Clark to "guarantee to" Missouri "a Republican Form of Government." Instead, Judge Clark abused his position to lie and deceive to "deprive" Missouri citizens of the "liberty" to vote on the referendum before we have been afforded all "process of law" that is "due," as required by the Fifth Amendment. Judge Clark has blatantly conspired with Hoskin to deprive and defraud Missouri citizens of the "freedom of speech" that the First and Fourteenth Amendments secure to us so that we can have our say about what Hoskins is doing.
In this instance (and in many instances) all judges should be perfectly clear about how the Missouri Constitution actually was made. They should be clear that it's not merely "the Missouri Supreme Court" or even "the Missouri Constitution" that required the referendum. They and we should be clear that it was the PEOPLE of Missouri BY their Constitution who expressly RESERVED the right and the power to vote in a referendum:
"Section 49. Reservation of power to enact and reject laws.—The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided."
To understand the significance of the people reserving this power to themselves, the judges and we must start with the first words of the Missouri Constitution: "We, the people of Missouri" did "establish this Constitution." Those words have profound legal meaning (which is the same as analogous words and analogous placement in the U.S. Constitution).
SCOTUS repeatedly has explained and emphasized the significance of such words and their placement (at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution), starting in at least 1793 with Justice James Wilson's opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia. This very issue was discussed in considerable detail in a decision that SCOTUS highlighted in Moore v. Harper: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015).
In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n in 2015, SCOTUS highlighted a crucial truth and a crucial source. They emphasized the self-evident truth that “the animating principle of our Constitution” is “that the people themselves are the originating source of all the powers of government.” “The people’s ultimate sovereignty had been expressed by John Locke in 1690.” “Our Declaration of Independence, ¶2, drew from Locke.” They also quoted Locke for a crucial truth: any “Legislative” body (i.e., any state or federal legislature) that represents the sovereign people has “only a Fiduciary Power to act for certain ends,” and “there remains still in the People a Supream Power to remove or alter the Legislative, when they find the Legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.”
The people of Missouri, themselves, highlighted the same principles in their Constitution. The first provision of Article I (the Bill of Rights) emphasized "That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole." Section 3 emphasized "That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States."
Justice Wilson in Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793 emphasized the same principles by using the text of the U.S. Constitution. Incidentally, Justice Wilson was the only person to have signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and then served as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Wilson is the Founder and Framer who is most responsible for the fact that our Constitution begins with its first words “We the People” (just like the Missouri Constitution). Wilson explained the profound significance implicit in what many dismissively call the mere “Preamble” to our Constitution. The Preamble is, in fact, the most important and most profound part of our Constitution. It is first for a reason that is simple and sublime.
Justice Wilson in 1793 in Chisholm v. Georgia emphasized that the first and foremost separation of powers in our Constitution is between the sovereign people and our public servants: “The PEOPLE of the United States” are “the first personages introduced” by our Constitution. “To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown,” but there is “one place where it could have been used with propriety.” Only the People “who ordained and established that Constitution” could “have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States.”
The first words of our Constitution introduce American sovereigns and emphasize that “We the People” did “ordain and establish” our “Constitution” and our “Union” to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves.” Those were our first words as Americans. They were our first words as one people. They were our first words as one nation.
After considering the significance of the first words of the U.S. and Missouri Constitution, judges and we must consider the significance of the word "reserved" used above in the Missouri Constitution. The U.S. Constitution also used that word in a way that is dispositive here.
The truth about election law is that the power to make such law was not (as SCOTUS misrepresented in Moore v. Harper) merely "assigned" to states. The Tenth Amendment emphasizes that such "powers" can be and were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Tenth Amendment also clarifies that the only "powers" that were assigned to anyone "by the [U.S.] Constitution" were the "powers" that were "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." In Moore v. Harper, the end of the SCOTUS opinion correctly emphasized that powers were "reserved to state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution."
Another aspect of the U.S. Constitution is relevant here. When the people of the U.S. or of a state create a constitution, they obviously and irrefutably act as the supreme legislative body. This fact was made perfectly clear by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: We the People made "the supreme Law of the Land," which in 1788 and well into 1789 consisted exclusively of the U.S. Constitution. The people of Missouri also acted as the supreme legislative body for Missouri when they created the Missouri Constitution. When they acted as the supreme legislative body for Missouri, the people reserved to themselves the power to again act as the supreme legislative body for Missouri by "reserv[ing] power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided."
Additional opinions of SCOTUS justices in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) are very well worth considering regarding these issues. Justices Kennedy, O’Connor, Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist were in the majority. They emphasized that “the Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people.” They emphasized that our Constitution begins by expressly emphasizing that “the people” did “ordain and establish the Constitution.”
Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer issued a dissenting opinion that was far more powerful and explicit about the power of the sovereign people. They emphasized the opinions of three Framers, including two justices “in Chisholm v. Georgia” in 1793 “a bare two years” after “the Bill of Rights,” including “the Tenth Amendment,” was “added to the original Constitution.”
“In representing Chisholm, Edmund Randolph,” who was not only a “Framer” but also later “Attorney General,” emphasized that “the present Constitution produced a new order of things. It derives its origin immediately from the people.”
“Chief Justice Jay” (John Jay, who helped write The Federalist Papers and create the New York Constitution) wrote in Chisholm “at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects” in that they “have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”
Most of all, the Alden dissenters emphasized “Justice Wilson’s position in Chisholm,” i.e., that “the people” clearly “are sovereign” under our Constitution. They quoted Justice Wilson in Chisholm:
To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is [only] one place where it could have been used with propriety [i.e., in the Preamble]. . . . [Only] those, who ordained and established the Constitution [could] have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.
Although not included in the Alden dissent, Justice Wilson in Chisholm also emphasized the separation of powers between the sovereign people and all public servants by emphasizing our Constitution’s structure and the power of such structure. “The PEOPLE of the United States” are “the first personages introduced” by (what we call) the Preamble. Even the structure of Articles I, II and III emphasize the sovereignty of the people. Our Constitution introduces, first, the People, second, our directly-elected representatives in Congress, third, our indirectly-elected representative, the president, and, last, the unelected judges of SCOTUS and lower courts.
The Alden dissenters further emphasized that Justice Wilson had written previously “that the sovereignty resides in the people; they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed” (to their public servants in federal government) only “such portions of [their own] power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare.” That is exactly the plain meaning of the plain text of the Preamble, Article I and the Tenth Amendment.
As the Missouri Supreme Court highlighted in its opinion, SCOTUS addressed these issues as recently as 2023 in Moore v. Harper (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/21-1271/), specifically regarding referendums. Each state "legislature acts both as a lawmaking body created and bound by its state constitution, and as the entity assigned particular authority by the Federal Constitution. Both constitutions restrain the legislature’s exercise of power."
Even "when state legislatures act pursuant to their [U.S. Constitution] Elections Clause authority, they engage in lawmaking subject to the typical constraints on the exercise of such power." "A state legislature may not 'create congressional districts independently of' requirements imposed 'by the state constitution with respect to the enactment of laws.' ” Nothing can "endow the legislature of the State with power to enact laws in any manner other than that in which the constitution of the State has provided that laws shall be enacted.”
"A state legislature’s 'exercise of . . . authority' under the [U.S. Constitution's] Elections Clause [ ] 'must be in accordance with the method which the State has prescribed for legislative enactments.' ” "[A]lthough the [U.S. Constitution's] Elections Clause expressly refers to the 'Legislature,' it does not preclude a State from vesting congressional redistricting authority in a body other than the elected group of officials who ordinarily exercise lawmaking power." States necessarily “retain autonomy to establish their own governmental processes.” SCOTUS repeatedly "recognized that whatever authority was responsible for redistricting, that entity remained subject to constraints set forth in the State Constitution." “Nothing in [the federal Elections] Clause instructs, nor has [SCOTUS] ever held, that a state legislature may prescribe regulations on the time, place, and manner of holding federal elections in defiance of provisions of the State’s constitution.”
The bottom line is that whenever or however "legislatures make laws, they are bound by the provisions of the very documents that give them life. Legislatures, [clearly and necessarily] 'are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators.” To be more accurate, state and federal constitutions are the creatures of the People (of the state or of the U.S., as applicable) who, themselves, acted as the supreme legislative body to create each such constitution.
A friend of ours (several years ago) who preserves English monuments (tower of London etc. and yes it is haunted !) and museums wanted to see how the African American museum was set up because England was going to have one also. He was extremely impressed with the building and how it was done. Lonnie Bunch was really a great visionary.
"Meanwhile, Republican candidates are trying to hide from him (e.g., California Rep. Young Kim, Politico reported, is scrambling to delete Trump references “from her campaign as she tries to woo moderate voters.”) Good luck with that!"
Meanwhile, establishment Democrats are trying to separate themselves from the DSA candidates, especially those who think that the US got what it deserved on 9/11.
So what we're seeing is the nationalization of the midterms. Dems want to make this all about Trump, who is all-too-eager to oblige. The Repubs should counter that the Dems are the party for those who support anti-American views. It's probably not a coincidence that on the week of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the Repubs are holding their mini-convention.
Well, Hal, I had already concluded based on your previous posts that you might be an anti-Democrat plant. Now I *know* you are. First of all, only a plant would make a sweeping statement that all "establishment Democrats are trying to separate themselves from the DSA candidates." Do you mean Progressives? They aren't the same thing. The DSA is basically just a platform put together by young university types who had some good ideas as well as some flakier ones -- mostly just not the experience to know how to market their ideas outside their bubble. The ideas actually aren't much different from the New Deal Democrats of the mid-20th century -- and plenty of "established" Democrats know it and have said as much. It's the Republicans and corporate-owned media that keep pushing this civil war propaganda. Secondly, no one is pushing "anti-American views" except Trump and the Republicans -- and plenty of Americans understand that now.
Hal is the computer from 2001.........I'm sorry Dave I can't do that
Thanks for setting Nona straight... ;)
come on Hal, you know you're my favorite bot
Well, Nona, I conclude that you actually have no clue as to who or what I am, but you're not the first. Some have suggested I am an "AI bot", and they are wrong as well. But you're the first to label me as an " anti-Democrat plant".
"First of all, only a plant would make a sweeping statement..."
Perhaps you should read other posters' (as well as Jen Rubin's) "sweeping statements" before you judge me. I have on numerous occasions criticized both Trump and the Republicans in this very forum. There might be a couple of others who have ever bothered to push back on whatever narrative Jen or the Contrarian staff come up with for that day's discussion, but they are few and far between. That means I'm not in an ideological bubble, regardless of what your "conclusion" of me is.
"The DSA is basically just a platform put together by young university types who had some good ideas as well as some flakier ones..."
That may be your view, but I see the DSA as a parasite, an organization in its own right, gaining ballot access via the Democratic Party and utilizing the party's resources. The establishment, when pressed in public, pretty much spout the "we're a big tent" response, but they see what's going on.
"Secondly, no one is pushing "anti-American views" except Trump and the Republicans..."
For reference:
https://program.dsausa.org/
It's probably not a coincidence that in the year of our 250th anniversary, the Repubs are busy destroying the world's oldest democracy.