The news has been uniformly depressing, but perhaps there are a few bright spots. One of them is that Mr. Trump – President Trump – has been resolutely unpersuaded to just give up and enjoy the perks of office, be a good guy, “grow in office” and become popular with the media. That is what happened to Arnold Schwarzenegger when, after a very unlikely series of events, he found himself Governor of California. He had been popular; he became governor; he devised a series of reforms, initiatives which would have deposed at least some of the elites who had previously passed offices around and were the Enlightened, True Rulers of California, who knew best for all and were in alliance with the experienced long serving governing class. The Schwarzenegger initiatives were not acceptable to the Enlightened. They were Benighted. They were not acceptable to the long serving experienced governing class. They would have eliminated many of their perks, and interfered with — well, they just weren’t acceptable.
And suddenly Arnold wasn’t popular any more. Uniformed nurses – at least they wore nurses uniforms – turned out wherever he appeared and called him names he’d previously only heard in locker rooms. Other demonstrations threatened terrible reprisals if those reforms passed. The media suddenly discovered that Arnold Schwarzenegger was not a nice man from Austria; he was a monster, worth talking about only in negative terms. He had been a popular movie star. Now he was an unspeakable imbecile, inexperienced, unable to do anything right. The initiatives failed, and after that it didn’t take him long to “grow” and become, if not popular with the media, at least not anathema. The demonstrations stopped, he was Governor, it was good to be Governor, and every day he did not wake up to headlines denouncing him.
That is probably a fanciful train of thought, but it is more or less as I remember it. I met Arnold Schwarzenegger many years ago at a Christmas party by my agent, back before he was anything in politics. It took me a while to realize I was talking to the strongest man in the world; he was just a nice young man, about as tall as I was, deferential even, and pleasant. A few days later by chance he met Roberta in a Beverly Hills department store and he took some time to help her choose a Christmas present for me. He enjoyed being liked and popular. When the media turned on him, many years later, it was devastating. He’s hardly over it yet.
President Trump is now experiencing that: not only is everything he does mistaken and wrong, it is worse: foolish at best, and more likely just plain evil and mean.
And he has no experience, and doesn’t trust the smooth experienced governing class which knows how things are smoothly done. His Acting Attorney General did not rewrite his executive orders: she denounced them and refused to pass on the orders. Now they are to be rephrased to escape the clownish decision of the Circuit Court to make it clear there is no conflict with the establishment clause: as if an executive order governing which non-citizens are to be admitted to within our borders has anything to do with making laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Query: if a religion of ritual cannibalism were to demand entry into the US, would prohibiting its non-citizen adherents be contrary to the establishment clause? There is no question of citizen rights here. There are no citizens involved. Assuming some vestiges of Thugee, which was abolished in India by the British government in a series of bloody incidents (hardly to be called battles) still exists, would its open adherents be compulsorily admitted by the courts? Would Baal worshippers, who want to put up bronze statues (of course on private property) and sacrifice abortable – say 7 months developed — fetuses by tossing them, still living, through the arms of Baal into a charcoal burner below be welcomed? What if they were refugees? Is this a matter for judicial review?
Perhaps we should have demonstrations in favor of allowing Baal worship, on the condition that all the infants sacrificed are certified fetuses and the abortions are performed with consent of both parents? Is this judicial discussion, or do the Congress and President have any say? Would the police – perhaps the Army – be required to protect the Temple of Baal from angry mobs, say on Sacrifice Day? Would officers who refused to give this order be subject to court martial?
So far Mr. Trump has shown remarkable patience with these courts; but it remains a Constitutional Crisis. He has deferred to the courts. Is he growing?
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States” (Article One, Section Eight, Constitution of the United States.)
This power is plenary and absolute, and was not relinquished by “home rule” laws granting officials elected in the District of Columbia to act as if they were the actual government. Since one Congress cannot bind the next, this delegated power could be rescinded at any time.
Congress also retains the right to take back any powers of government over the District of Columbia it sees fit to take back. This certainly includes the arts. I have always thought that the best way for the United States to promote almost anything would be to establish exemplars; as it does with art museums and such. In particular, before the Department of Education imposes an education system on the entire United States, perhaps it could be tried in the District school system? Perhaps as a voluntary opportunity? If it really improved education – not terribly difficult as I understand the DC system, where the teachers and government people almost unanimously do not send their own children into the public school system — then it might be more reasonable to tax people to pay for it being imposed on children all over the nation.
One thing is certain: if the Secretary of Education has any schools ultimately under her control – potentially, since for the moment Congress has delegated that authority to the DC teacher unions – it would be the DC schools.
So of course her attempt to get a first hand look at those schools was met with –
Protesters Meet New Education Secretary at First Public School Visit The Associated Press
Feb 11, 2017
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ attempt to mend fences with teachers and parents across the country got off to a rocky start, when she was confronted by angry protesters during her first visit to a public school.
Several dozen activists gathered outside Jefferson Middle School in Washington, D.C., a predominantly African-American school, chanted “stand up, fight back.” Two protesters tried to block her way and one man was arrested.
DeVos, a wealthy Republican operative and promoter of charter and private schools, said she enjoyed touring the school, but warned her critics that they will not prevent her from doing her job.
“I respect peaceful protest, and I will not be deterred in executing the vital mission of the Department of Education,” DeVos said in a statement. “No school door in America will be blocked from those seeking to help our nation’s school children.”
There was also
thehill.com
It turns out that there was a scheduled meeting with the DVC school chancellor that the demonstrators tried to prevent her from attending. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/protesters-rally-at-dc-school-ahead-of-visit-by-education-secretary-betsy-devos/2017/02/10/faad4962-ef06-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.cb936e88c990) No one was arrested, and Mrs. DeVos was gracious; but it was an act of rebellion the moment they physically blocked her entry into that building. Mrs. DeVos is the confirmed Secretary of Education, and it would only take a few minutes for the Congress to make her the President of all DC schools, with power to delegate control to whom she chooses. If they want to play this way, the rules are against them.
Congress is sovereign in the District; the Constitution says so. Of course at present she has no authority to retaliate; and the President has not chosen to do so.
I admire Mr. Trump’s restraint: that is, so long as it is not a sign of his “growing”, as Arnold Schwarzenegger “grew” as Governor of California.
Re: ‘There is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive.’
On 10 Feb 2017, at 11:39, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/t
> he-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements
> -to-block-presidential-policy/>
There is no doubt in my mind that they know exactly what they’re doing.
If they’re successful, the resulting precedent that’s set will completely remove any pretense of objectivity from our judicial system.
When that happens, the extrajudicial will inevitably follow, as they’ll have left no other recourse open. |
