Donald J. Trump is a Serial Liar

Some people feel that they are making an informed choice to support Donald Trump. I regularly engage with people on social media regarding politics. While there are definitely the name-callers and the conspiracy followers, there is also a large number of people who adopt a rational tone and present information in a calm reasonable manner.

The problem is that the information that they are presenting ultimately comes from what Donald Trump is telling them. 

And Donald Trump is a serial liar.

I'm not going to wear down my typing fingers (especially since there only two fingers that I use to type) listing all the lies Donald Trump has told over the last four years. There's plenty of sources enumerating them. Now Trumpists and Trump himself will point the finger at "Fake News" and claim that the reporting on the lies are themselves lies. But you don't have to depend on traditional mainstream media for your facts. Virtually all of Trump's lies can be checked against publically available websites, including U.S. government websites. An early lie that Trump told was that his Electoral College win was historic, or unprecedented, except that a Google search of Electoral College results of  every presidential election shows that his winning margin was more like the 45^th best. Trump's claims about the economy are also based on lies. He claims that our economy, including job creation, the stock market and unemployment numbers are "the best ever", when even a cursory look at economic trends indicate that all the positive numbers are simply a continuation of the trends that started during the previous administration. It goes on and on. The information is out there and easily accessed. 

Donald Trump likes to claim that he has gotten more done "in 47 months than Joe Biden got done in 47 years" and that Biden is "all talk and no action". Biden's legislative accomplishments easily discovered, and he was by all accounts an active Vice President and a trusted advisor to President Obama. Trump, for all his bragging and boasting, has had only one significant legislative achievement, the tax change that was a giveaway to corporations and the rich; his numerous executive orders are empty barrels. 

So take a look, Trumpists, at the facts. Facts, not Trumpian assertions. Because if you're basing your support of Trump on what Trump says he has accomplished, then in all likelihood, you're basing your support on a lie. 

Russia, Russia, Russia (and a l'il bit o' Ukraine)

This is a reminder.

This is a reminder that if you aspire to express an opinion of the Mueller Report, or the alleged collusion of the 2016 Trump campaign with Russian Intelligence, or the Justice Department's Inspector General's Report, you should have already actually read the Mueller Report and the Inspector General's Report. 

I read them both. 

The whole damn thing. 

And the other whole damn thing. 

It took about a week to get through each of them. 

What The Mueller Report didn't do was determine that there was (or wasn't) collusion. Not because there wasn't any, but because that's not what they were looking for. They were looking for actions that fit the legal definition of conspiracy. That's a pretty high bar. It's pretty hard to prove. The report, however, was very clear that Russian Intelligence was undertaking a program intended to influence the election in favor of Trump, that Trump and his campaign staff knew about it, that they didn't report that Russians approached campaign staff with offers of cooperation, and that the campaign was perfectly cool with accepting this assistance. The only thing that got them off the hook for conspiracy charges was that they were too lazy to do any actual coordination with the Russians. 

The second part of The Mueller Report addressed obstruction of justice. The report was quite clear that there was obstruction of the investigation by the president himself. Mueller made no recommendation regarding charges due to Justice Department policy stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted short of impeachment. 

No sooner had the report been issued and a follow up testimony to Congress by Mueller when Trump actively solicited another foreign government to interfere in our election by asking the president of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and his son. The only reason that Trump is still the president is that a Republican majority Senate, pathetically tied to Trump's rise or fall, voted to not remove him from office after he was impeached.  

He was not exonerated. 

But our serial liar president tells his followers that it was a hoax and that in effect none of what clearly happened, happened. 

In addition, he and his followers are attempting to smear Vice President Biden and his family with charges of corruption that have been looked into and debunked. 

Trump is corrupt. 

Originalism

With a battle, or at least a battle of words, going on in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, I thought I'd look at the concept of originalism as it pertains to the interpretation of the Constitution. Originalists, sometimes called textualists, rely solely, or at least primarily, on the actual words in the Constitution. This sounds like it's common sense. Of course you'd rely on the words of the Constitution to determine what the Constitution says. But even a cursory examination of the words of the Constitution reveals that the words are often fuzzy. For example, what does "cruel and unusual" mean? We can, as originalists do when the words themselves are unclear, look to the milieu in which they were written to determine context. When the Constitution and it's first ten amendments were penned, punishments included whipping, branding, being confined in stocks, cutting off ears, and of course public hanging. These punishments could be inflicted for crimes ranging from petty theft or even giving birth out-of-wedlock. These were all perfectly normal in Colonial times, but our mores have changed drastically since then. Courts have progressively moved the bar regarding what "cruel and unusual" consisted of. It is unreasonable to expect that the founders would have anticipated all circumstances to which the Constitution would be applied. 

Another example is the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, in which it was ruled that the separate but (theoretically) equal standard that was set forth in the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson did not in fact satisfy the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not only do attitudes changes, but the facts upon which cases are based change as well. The legality upon which the "separate" part of "separate but equal" was based derived from the prevailing view that Black people were not only inferior to white people, but that it was natural that they be kept separate. 

I don't support "legislating from the bench", where judges make the law. But courts must not only rule on guilt and innocence but must adjudicate between different interpretation of the laws as written and take into account evolving attitudes, culture and circumstances. Times change, as so does the lens through which we view the Constitution. 

Electoral College, What's It Good For? (Absolutely Nothin'?)

The election is around 3 weeks away, which means it's time to talk about the Electoral College again. I wanted to post this before the election, because I want to make it clear that my opinion about the Electoral College (EC) isn't based on who wins on Election day. 

The EC came about die to several compromises during the Constitutional Convention. The first thing to understand is how the people of the individual states viewed the concept of a "state" in those days. After over 200 years we tend to automatically think of a state as a subdivision of a country, and that's what it has come to mean, however a secondary definition of "state" is: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government, e.g. Germany, Italy and other European states". The second definition was the prevailing one in 1787 - the thirteen states viewed themselves as functionally independent nations held together in a confederation or alliance. This view didn't really go away until well after the Civil War. So, during the Constitutional Convention, rather than thinking of themselves as "Americans", they held themselves as "Virginians", "New Yorkers" or "Marylanders" and were very jealous of their rights as individual states in relation to other states. The states with lower populations were concerned that they would be consistently outvoted by the more populous states in the Congress, so the compromise that gave us a population-based House of Representatives and an equal representation Senate was arrived at. In addition, the notorious "three-fifths" compromise allowed enslaved people to be counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes. The Southern slave states had actually wanted to fully count the enslaved people to increase their voting power while the non-slave states did not want to count them at all. When it came time to decide how the president would be elected, the system was based partially on this legislative compromise. 

The writers of the Constitution did not trust "the people". In fact, "the people" in general couldn't vote - only white, male, landowners could. But even within that group, the founders wanted a fail-safe against voters who might make the 'wrong' choices. The "people" wouldn't really be the ones who would vote for president, but a group of electors who would theoretically cast their votes for whoever received the most votes within their states, but in practical terms, could vote for whoever they wanted to. The number of electors from each state was based upon the total of members of Congress, including the two senators, so the proportion of electors would tilt somewhat toward the smaller states. 

A provision not found in the Constitution, but nevertheless followed in every state except Maine and Nebraska, is to award all of a state's electoral votes to the winner of the most votes in that state, effectively disenfranchising voters for the minority party candidate in states where the voters overwhelmingly support one party. 

One of the things that EC proponents bring up is that without it, the voters in the smaller states would have no voice and that elections would be decided either by New York and California or by a dozen or so big cities. This is not a strong argument: 

* The states no longer view themselves as sovereign nations with unique rights that need to be protected. While there are regional differences, most issues that come before a president are common issues to all Americans. 

* With the current system small states already are ignored in an election campaign. Also ignored  are voters in "safe" states like California and New York, which vote reliably Democratic and most of the states of the Deep South which vote reliably Republican. The states that get attention are the so-called wing states, states that are so evenly split between Republican and Democratic that they could go either way in an election. 

* The above argument ignores the fact that the more populous states do not vote as a block, and neither do the big cities. Arguing that California and New York would decide elections assumes that everyone in those states would vote the same way when in reality there are many conservative Republicans in upstate New York and northern California, just as there are liberal Democrats in Lincoln and Omaha Nebraska and in Atlanta Georgia, even though those states usually vote for and award all their electoral votes to Republicans. 

A weird non sequitur-ish argument is "We're a Republic". This is a variation on the recurring right-wing insistence that we're not a Democracy, conflating direct democracy (i.e. "mob rule") with what our government is: a Democratic Republic, or a Republican Democracy. Democracy is perfectly accurate as a shorthand description. The "We're a Republic" crowd has gotten it into their heads that a necessary feature of a republican form of government (which boils down to "not a monarchy") is something like an electoral college and equal representation to political subdivisions. The writers of the Constitution decided it would be a feature of our government, but there's plenty of republics that don't use any such system. 

Another non-argument rests on the belief that the founders were infallibly wise in the way they set up the framework of our government and that we shouldn't question it. This ignores history. Originally senators were chosen, not by a vote of the people, but by state governments. This was changed. Originally the president and vice-president were not tied together as "running mates". The person with the second-most electoral votes became the Vice President. This was changed after several deadlocked elections ended up being decided by the House of Representatives. The "wisdom" of the founders was subject to change when it didn't work out as envisioned. 

In the real world there's no way that the EC will be done away with. It would take a Constitutional amendment, and a party whose candidate won would have no motivation to support such a change. What can change is how electors are allocated. Nebraska and Maine both award two electoral votes to the statewide winner and one vote each to the winners within a Congressional district. There's no reason that this couldn't work nationwide. States could also apportion their electoral votes on a percentage basis, although I don't know of there's any provision for fractional votes. Several states are even now part of a "popular vote compact" where they agree to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote once the electoral votes of the compact states reach a certain threshold (270 electoral votes). 

Changing the way electoral votes are awarded within the states would still address the concern that small states not be overwhelmed by the more populous states, but would eliminate (or at least minimize) the possibility that the runner-up be declared the winner in a presidential election.