Third Parties II

 

It Takes Two

It takes two, baby
It takes two, baby,
To make a dream come true
It just takes two 

It may take two, but what if there are more than two? 

A decision has to be made on: who serves in a government; who is served by a government; and who, and at what amount, is taxed by a government.  This presumes that there is a government, but those who advocate for no government need to explain whom will provide the benefits supported by a government. (We The People ….and all that jazz😉). 

Those who serve in, control, government need not include all members of society.  The US Constitution excludes persons from serving in certain offices based on their place of birth or age. ( e.g. a President must be a natural born citizen over 35 years old.)  Those served by the government need not be limited to those who can serve in the government  (e.g. spotted owls may be served by government, but no one expects them to serve in government).  Those who are taxed by the government need not be authorized by that government. ( e.g. The IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year. Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 50 percent and 75 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.)

A political party must make decisions about whether it supports inclusive or exclusive government.  (e.g. who serves in, is served by, and/or is taxed by, government.) A political party must make a decision as to whether it supports a limited or a strong government.  ( the support for NO government by a political party, who are vying to run a government, is a non sequitur.)  While these decisions are continuous not binary, let’s assume that they are only binary.  Then there are potentially four groups of people.  The problem is that the US government by supporting single-ballot plurality-rule elections that are structured within single-member districts tends to favor a two-party system. That is Duverger’s Law.  Since there are potentially at least four groups, and only two parties, two groups may not find a party to represent them.

This dynamic might explain the tension that exist in society today.  Four groups are vying for the control of only two parties. Either groups agree to exist within a party, or they exclude themselves from any party.

 

Lies Count

 

Lies, Lies 

Lies, lies
I can't believe
A word you say
Lies, lies
Are gonna make
You sad someday

Someday, you're gonna be lonely

But you won't find me around

Lies, lies, breaking my heart 

Can we always tell when we are being told lies? 

Mark Twain popularized the phrase “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics”.  Statistics are hard to understand and while they are not lies themselves, if they are misunderstood, then they can become lies. 

A problem with statistics is that most of us do not understand the difference between absolute and relative amounts, and when to use each.  If we hear that vaccines have been administered to 10 million people, but we live in a country with a population of 330 million, while 10 million is a large absolute amount it is only 3% of the population, which is a small relative amount.  When we hear that the price of something is 50% off, that is its relative amount, but the absolute amount is still 50% of the original price, which still might be more than we can, or should, spend. 

A way to better use these statistics is to convert a relative amount into an absolute amount, or vice versa, and see if these new values change the opinion which the statistic was supporting.  If the opinion remains the same, then statistics didn’t lie.  If the opinion does change, then statistics were being used to lie. Lies might not count, but liars can count.

Third Parties

 

The Party’s Over

The party's over, it's time to call it a day.

They've burst your pretty balloon, 

And taken the moon away.

It's time to wind up the masquerade,

Just make your mind up,

The piper must be paid. 

If those leaving the Republican Party form a third party, what will happen? 

Duverger’s Law explains why there are only two parties in the United States.  There may be third parties at any given point in time, but eventually there will only be two parties.  The interesting question  is who will leave the Republican Party and form a third party, and whether that third party eventually becomes the alternative to the Democratic Party. 

Those Republicans who opposed Donald Trump have threatened to leave, or are being pushed out, to form a new center right party.  Those who support Donald Trump have threatened to leave and form, what they are calling, a Patriots Party.   Who leaves, and/or who gets absorbed into another party, eventually will determine what happens in the long term.  Those who support the existing caste system, oppose immigration, and have a narrow view of whom government should be supporting, will not likely find a home in the Democratic Party.  They are the Trump supporters who currently are in the Republican Party.  The “Never Trumpers” might see a place as a conservative wing of a Democratic Party, but if the Republican party is dominated by Trump supporters, then they have to decide whether to continue to be included in that party.  If neither of these groups see a place in the Democratic Party, the less influential group is likely to simply stop supporting any party and no longer vote.  

In any event, if the current divisions continue in the Republican Party, then eventually the dominant group will become the Republican Party or its replacement, and the losers may no longer vote, have a party to represent them.  It is too early to say if that group will be those who believe in limited but inclusive government or those who believe in exclusive government, if there is to be any government at all. There are two binary decisions: Limited or strong government; inclusive or exclusive government. This defines four possible groups but we can only support a two party system.  Some group has to be left out of the party.

Profiles in Cowardice

Theme Song from High Noon 

I do not know what fate awaits me      

I only know I must be brave    

And I must face a man who hates me 

Or lie a coward, a craven coward        

Or lie a coward in my grave.

The Senate Impeachment trial not only showed us Profiles in Courage.  It also showed us Profiles in Cowardice. 

Much has been, and will be, written about the Profiles in Courage shown by Senators during the second Trump Impeachment Trial.  Senator Burr voted to convict despite voting previously that the trial was unconstitutional.  Yes, he previously announced his retirement, but Gary Cooper, the hero in High Noon, showed a sheriff displaying his courage on his retirement day.  The definition of an honest man is NOT one who stays bought.  Sen. Cassidy, as an impartial juror, voted not only to convict but also unexpectedly to find the trial constitutional, not because he would be rewarded for that vote, but because he was persuaded by the evidence. 

The remaining Senators who voted their conscience, not their party:  Sen. Romney, Sen. Collins, Sen. Murkowski, Sen. Sasse, Sen. Toomey, have and should be thanked for acting not in their own best interest but in the people’s best interest.

All Senators swore an oath to do impartial justice before the impeachment trial.  Those Senators who voted to object to the certification votes on January  6^th and who gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the people of the United States are cowards for falsely swearing that they could be impartial. 

Those senators who did not listen to the arguments at the trial, like Sen. Paul who famously doodled or Sen. Braun who read a newspaper, showed that they cowardly had no intention being impartial.

Those like Sen. Cruz who openly consorted with the President’s lawyers were hardly being impartial. If this had been a criminal trial this behavior would have been considered not just cowardly but as  jury tampering. 

Sen.  Graham went from saying “Count me out, enough is enough” on the floor of the Senate on January 6th, to cowardly voting to acquit on Feb 13,  to threatening Vice President  Harris with impeachment on national TV on February 14, which is a cowardly way to celebrate Black History month.

 
Sen. Lee cowardly interrupted the trial to say that he had been misquoted when a House impeachment manager said that he had been reported to have overheard Sen. Tuberville telling the President that the Vice President was being evacuated.  That cowardly act was undermined when Sen Tuberville admitted that is precisely what he told the president. 

But the crowning act of cowardice was that of Sen. McConnell, who ignored the vote of the Senate on February 9^th that the impeachment of a former official was constitutional, by saying that Donald Trump was guilty, but his vote to acquit was on the constitutional grounds that Donald Trump was no longer the President. Not only did Sen. McConnell ignore the vote on February 9^th, he clearly hoped that no one would remember that the Article of Impeachment was voted while Donald Trump was President, for acts he committed while President, and that the only reason  Donald Trump  was being tried while a private citizen is that Sen McConnell did not allow the Senate trial to begin while Donald Trump was the President.  Sen. McConnell is like the proverbial boy who kills his parents and then asks for sympathy because he is an orphan.  A coward and a hypocrite. 

Let us hope that these Profiles in Cowardice will be long remembered.  The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

Republicans

 

Hound Dog

When they said you was high classed
Well, that was just a lie
Yeah, they said you was high classed
Well, that was just a lie
Yeah, you ain't never caught a rabbit
And you ain't no friend of mine

Are Republicans being Hound Dogs?

Benjamin Franklin was asked when he was leaving the Constitutional Convention, what kind of government had been formed, and he supposedly replied, “ A republic, if you can keep it.” By republic he meant a representative government, not an upper case “R” Republican government.   A question now is whether based on the behavior of Republicans in the recent impeachment trial we CAN keep it.

Republicans used to be the party of limited government, not the party that thought that “government is the problem”.  Republicans used to be the party of low taxes, not “no (new) taxes”.  Republicans used to be the party of moderation, not the party that thought that “moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue”.  Republicans used to believe that “power corrupts”, not staying in power at any cost.  According to Duverger’s Law, a  representative government, with only one representative per district, will ultimately from a two-party system.  However if one of those parties believes that there should be no government, then that party has no reason to compromise with the other party in that government, and thus effectively there is no government.

Republican elected officials take an oath to defend the US Constitution and its system of government.  If they do not believe in that government, then that oath is meaningless. 

 

Acquital?

 The Way We Were

Memories may be beautiful and yet

Much too painful to remember

We simply choose to forget

 

Something seems to be wrong with Sen. Mitch McConnell’s memory.

 
Sen. Mitch McConnell seems to be having a senior moment when it comes to  his vote for the acquittal of Donald Trump at the recent impeachment.  His position is that Donald Trump is responsible and he would have found him guilty but since he is a private citizen unfortunately as a Senator he  did not have constitutional jurisdiction.
 
I guess he forgot that the Senate voted 56 to 44 on Tuesday February 9^th, 2021 that this impeachment WAS constitutional.  I guess that he forgot that the crimes were committed when Donald Trump was the President.  And that the Articles of Impeachment were voted by the House on January 13^th, 2021 when Donald Trump was still the President but the Senate was in recess.  The former Majority Leader of the Senate at that time, who coincidentally had the same name as Sen. McConnell ;), decided not to return the Senate from recess so that the impeachment trial could begin before Donald Trump became a private citizen.  The vote on February 9^th that impeachment was constitutional acknowledged that Donald Trump was a private citizen, but that he was also a former federal official and the Senate had jurisdiction over impeachment of those private citizens who were also former federal officials.  If it was clear that impeachment also covered former federal officials perhaps the House could have had the time that the defense demanded to fully document, research and describe the crimes in the Articles of Impeachment.

It is sad that Sen. McConnell’s memory is failing.  I understand.  That happens when we get older, and it is happening to me.  Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is in order to clear up this issue for him so that he can then vote his …cough, cough, cough... conscience. The Republican Senators are to be thanked for pointing out during questioning that that impeachment of former officials could be weaponized to again try to “lock her up”.  Perhaps the Articles of Impeachment of FORMER officials should require a supermajority of the House.  Impeachments should be limited to high crimes and misdemeanors committed while a federal official.  George Washington was a legal slave owner, and Bill of Attainders are already prohibited by the constitution. The minimum mandatory sentence for impeachment is  removal from office and the discretionary sentence is disqualification from holding future federal office.  Since holding a future office does require one to be alive, I think that George Washington is safe from Impeachment. But if Sen. McConnell and others are unsure,  perhaps that can be made clear in a constitutional amendment. 

And considering that the former President’s defense team seem confused about impeachment being a criminal trial covered by criminal law, which clearly it was not, perhaps the amendment can spell out that an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial and which rules apply.  Mr. van der Veen clearly was confused, which surprises me since he is an ambulance chaser who has primarily tried civil cases that have different rules than criminal cases, but maybe they do things different in “Philly”delphia. 

Incitement

 

You Made Me Love You

You made me love you
I didn't wanna do it
I didn't wanna do it
You made me want you
And all the time you knew it
I guess you always knew it

What determines a guilty verdict of incitement?

In a federal criminal trial, in order to convict, the prosecutor must show the defendant knowingly committed an overt act to further insurrection. A conviction carries up to 10 years in federal prison. (18 U.S.C. § 2383; Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 , 1957.)  An act of  incitement does not only occur BEFORE an insurrection.  If that overt act to further the insurrection occurs DURING the insurrection, then that also is  incitement. 

If Sen. Tuberville’s statements about his phone call with Donald Trump are true, then Donald Trump knew that an insurrection was taking place before he took an overt act, a tweet in which he said “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”.  This was an overt act which furthered the act of insurrection and placed the then Vice President’s life in danger.

This is an impeachment trial, not a criminal trial.  In addition to overt criminal acts, the high crimes and misdemeanors covered by impeachment, can be acts of dereliction of duty, such as not calling for assistance during the insurrection that demonstrate that the insurrection was likely to have been incited.

This IS the trial, not the arrest.  The House managers did not have to present this evidence before the vote on the Article of Impeachment.  The impeachment trial is where it is appropriate to hear evidence if the President knew that an insurrection was occurring .  If he did, then this tweet is an overt act to further the insurrection, and could be a federal criminal offense, not merely a political impeachable offense.

The defense team argued that there is more due process in a parking ticket.  I have received parking tickets.  I do not remember having, or expecting, due process from the parking officer. In fact, in all cases, the ticket was issued while I was not even present.  However, during the hearing on any parking ticket, I expected, and did receive, the due process to present evidence of my innocence.  Do I wish that the parking ticket had not been issued?  Cleary, because then I would not have even spend the time to attend a parking hearing.  But did I think my due process was violated because the parking officer did not hear that evidence before issuing the ticket? Absolutely not.  There is a difference between arrest and trial.  Due process is applicable only DURING the trial, not DURING the arrest.